Document Number: 6127 
Soul Behind the Man

The Pioneer (New Delhi, India)
By C. S. Prakash
April 2, 2006
Dr Norman Borlaug tells me that I can address him as Norm. But how can I bring myself to address this great man by his first name? He is a heroic figure credited with saving a billion lives. He has won virtually every important humanitarian award, including the Nobel Peace Prize.

World leaders revere Borlaug as a celebrity. Yet, he is humble, and in touch with the needs and aspirations of ordinary people one can think of.

For the past 62 years, Borlaug has worked at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico where he developed the 'dwarf' varieties of wheat, triggering the Green Revolution. Short varieties produce more grain per acre because they tap sunlight more effectively and do not collapse with the weight of the grain. Borlaug creatively combined wheat varieties from across the world to introduce the dwarfness genes into wheat grown in Mexico, India and Pakistan.

Other countries adopted his breakthrough with amazing results.

In the developing world, wheat yields that had remained at an abysmal 250 kg/ha for decades increased ten fold in the last 40 years. India, which harvested a meagre 12 million tons of wheat in 1965, now produces over 80 million tons. Similar discoveries of a dwarf gene in rice also led to a boost in this miracle crop - this time pioneered by Indian scientist Gurdev Khush, working in the Philippines.

The poorest people have been the biggest beneficiaries of Borlaug's scientific talents. Abundant grain harvests have ensured that food prices have remained low despite inflation in other commodities. The percentage of family income spent on food has declined while per capita food consumption has increased in most countries. And this has occurred despite the huge population growth.

Even so, when you meet this frail, 92-year-old scientist, he comes across more like your favourite uncle than the legend that he is. Warm, unassuming and modest, he speaks slowly but forcefully. He has an impeccable sense of humour - often self-deprecating. When I asked him once how he was doing, he replied smilingly, "at my age, just getting up in the morning and being around is good enough." Yet, Borlaug maintains a hectic work and travel schedule that would put men half his to shame.

When Borlaug turned 90 two years ago, I celebrated the life of this remarkable man, and several world leaders, including Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan, sent notes of appreciation. M S Swaminathan, who worked with him on India's Green Revolution, said, "Norman Borlaug is the living embodiment of the human quest for a hunger-free world. His life is his message." My eleven-year old son even wrote and recorded a rap song about Borlaug that was broadcast around the world by Voice of America.

During our frequent conversations, he often reminisces about his time in India in the 1960s when the country was facing debilitating famine due to drought. During a heated debate in Parliament, C Subramaniam, then Agriculture Minister, lashed out at sceptics: "We either try these seeds of Borlaug's or we continue to starve." The first seeds of Mexican wheat were planted in CS's residence in New Delhi where former Prime Minister Vajpayee lives now.

Borlaug has fond memories of his Pusa days, and has much appreciation for the tenacity and leadership of Subramaniam and Swaminathan. However, he has no patience for naysayers such as environmentalists who oppose modern agriculture. He believes these self-styled greens are sincere but misguided, and fears that they are trying to stop scientific progress in its tracks.

He believes that continued scientific research in agriculture along with creative policies aimed at poverty reduction are essential to rid the world of remaining hunger and malnutrition.

It is this belief that leads him to support newer technologies such as genetically modified crops. Despite his awesome contribution in reducing hunger around the world, he is not a household name. His biography is due later this year. A Hollywood movie is in the works too.

Future historians, however, will acknowledge that this modest soul from America, with his firm belief in the promise and power of science, helped us walk the first step towards the 'Indian Dream' with a few humble wheat seeds.










Document Number: 1002 
Ushering the New Green Revolution: 
How Can Biotechnology Contribute to Food Security?

'Seeds of Opportunity: The Role of Biotechnology in Agriculture' Conference,
London, UK.
May 31 - June 1, 2001

By C.S. Prakash, Center for Plant Biotechnology Research,
Dept of Agriculture,
Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL 36088
prakash@tuskegee.edu; www.agbioworld.org

The 'Green Revolution' anchored by the development of high-yielding varieties of grains improved the lives of most people on this planet through enhanced and affordable food supply, boosted incomes for millions of farmers, and reduced the incidence of famine and starvation despite massive population increases in the past few decades. Nevertheless, food insecurity and malnutrition still persists in parts of the developing world. The causes for poverty and hunger are varied and complex, but experts concur that sustainable agricultural development will be critical in meeting future world food needs, reducing poverty and protecting the environment. To further increase agricultural productivity equitably-in an environmentally sustainable manner in the face of diminishing land and water resources-is a highly challenging task ahead. Knowledge-based approaches including transgenic crops and genomics can provide powerful solutions enhance food security: by improving local agricultural productivity, minimizing the use of chemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers, insulating crops against losses from diseases and pests, curtailing post-harvest losses including food spoilage, improving food quality and nutrition, increasing crop tolerance to stress factors such as drought and problem soils, and through the production of 'value-added' products. Biotechnology can expedite the development of new varieties and also enhance marginal crops like millets, plantain, grain legumes, cassava and sweetpotato that are important staples in the developing world. Unlike the' green revolution' approach, which entailed the use of high capital inputs, biotechnology delivers the added value primarily through the seed. Thus, it is conceptually a 'scale neutral' technology: small farmers can benefit from it as much as rich farmers, if the improved plant material is accessible and affordable. Judicious application of biotechnology can boost rural incomes and thus improve the purchasing power of a marginalized section of the developing societies.

The integration of biotechnology into agricultural research in the developing world is fraught with many hurdles that must be addressed including financial, technical, political, environmental-activist, intellectual-property, biosafety and trade-related issues. Considering the constraints, it is important to focus the application of biotechnology to a few strategically chosen high-priority areas where the technology provides the most gains. Public sector institutions and international organizations such as CGIAR have major responsibilities in facilitating the integration of biotechnology into agricultural research in developing countries. Adequate biosafety regulations must be first developed to ensure development, testing and release of new crops. Private sector can facilitate biotechnology development and public acceptance through offer of their core technologies on a 'royalty-free' basis for use on staple crops by public institutions as this would also pave way for subsequent introduction of their commercial crops in these countries. To ensure that developing countries can harness the benefit of this technology with minimal problems, concerted efforts must be pursued to create an awareness of its potential benefits and to address the concerns related to its use through dialog among the various stakeholders: policy makers, scientists, trade groups, food industry, consumer organizations, farmers groups, media and NGOs.










Document Number: 4408 
Benefits of Biotechnology for Developing Countries

By C. S. Prakash
Professor, College of Agriculture Tuskegee University
Tuskegee, AL 36088
(prakash@tuskegee.edu)

Today as we celebrate the World Food Day to rejoice the tremendous prosperity and food abundance that we Americans enjoy, let us also remind ourselves that not all people around the world enjoy the same safe, bountiful food supply that we do in the United States. Despite major strides in combating hunger over the last 30 years, 800 million people go to bed daily on an empty stomach, and there are 40,000 hunger-related deaths every day. This 'silent holocaust' is 'unconscionable', pleads Ismail Serageldin of the World Bank. Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace, called hunger the greatest of all violence. Worldwide, one in three children is underweight, and one in five is stunted due to undernourishment. Nearly 40,000 people - half of them children - die every day due to hunger related causes. By 2020, the number of undernourished could well surpass 1 billion.

In many developing countries, where subsistence farmers eke out meager livings, and the ability to provide enough food for survival is often less than assured, the vital importance of staple crops such as rice, sweetpotato and cassava cannot be overstated. In many places, the loss of a crucial crop to pests, diseases or weather can mean the difference between life or death, straining the resources and threatening the well-being of entire communities.

In rapid succession, the leading scientists around the world are attesting to the health and environmental safety of agricultural biotechnology, and now they are calling for genetically modified crops to be extended to the people who need it most - hungry people in the developing world. More than 2,900 eminent scientists, including three Nobel laureates, have signed a statement of support (www.agbioworld.org). Expert panels with the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have made strong statements supporting the safety of the crops. Numerous scientific societies are passing proclamations in support.

And just last month, six national science academies (U.S., Britain, Brazil, China, India and Mexico) and the Third World Academy of Sciences, issued a joint statement, not only endorsing biotechnology but urging companies, governments and charities to extend it to the developing world.

The need for new technologies is great, as the seven academies describe:

"Today, there are some 800 million people who do not have access to sufficient food to meet their needs." 

" Malnutrition plays a significant role in half of the nearly 12 million deaths each year of children under five in developing countries."

"In addition to lack of food, deficiencies in micro-nutrients (especially vitamin A, iodine and iron) are widespread."

"(Global climate change) and alterations in land use will exacerbate the problems of regional production and demands for food." 

"In developing countries about 650 million of the poorest people live in rural areas where the local production of food is the main economic activity. Without successful agriculture, these people will have neither employment nor the resources they need for a better life Farming the land is the engine of progress in less developed countries."
Coupled with that great need is the fact that the rate of food production globally has dropped from 3 percent per annum in the 1970s to 1 percent per annum now. Burgeoning population, especially in the developing world, will soon outstrip food production.

These scientists, members of their nations' most respected scientific bodies, are urging private and public funding and cooperative research to ensure that the benefits of biotechnology are extended to solving great needs among needy people. They urge a blending of market-driven and public-funded research that will provide benefits where little or no profit opportunity exists. The scientists challenge developers of genetically modified crops to make sure that their efforts address these needs, but they make it clear that private companies cannot be expected to do this work alone. "Governments should fully recognize that there will always be public interest research requiring public investment, even in the market-driven economy."

The seven academies say private companies must "share with the public sector more of their capacity for innovation" and that "care should be taken so that research is not inhibited by over-protection of intellectual property" (patents on genetic discoveries).

In many countries, from Africa to Indonesia to South America, the cassava plant is an important source of starch, carbohydrates, protein, calcium, and vitamins A and C , and plays a key role in the diet and income of some 500 million people worldwide . Sweetpotatoes are another staple that provides vital source of calories and essential vitamins and minerals to millions in the developing world.

Yet in 1998, the people of Africa lost 60 percent of the cassava crop-one of their most important sources of calories-to mosaic virus. Sweetpotato yields in many African nations have been laid dangerously low - in some cases losing up to 80 percent of expected yields - due to the sweetpotato weevil and also the feathery mottle virus (SPFMV). And The European corn borer likewise destroys approximately seven percent, or 40 million tons, of the world's corn crop every year - equivalent to the annual food supply, in calories, for 60 million people.

Biotechnology is working to solve these problems by producing plants that resist pests and disease, a major cause of crop damage in the developing world. Biotech corn, which is already widely used in the United States, produces its own protection against the corn borer. Research is under way on sweetpotatoes that produce their own protection against SPFMV, as well as beans, cassava and other staple foods with enhanced natural tolerance to diseases, pests, and physical stresses . In 1997, the World Bank Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research estimated that biotechnology could help improve world food production by up to 25 percent.

Biotechnology is also helping to develop more nutritious strains of staple crops. Researchers have been working to develop varieties of cassava that more efficiently absorb trace metals and micronutrients from the soil, have enhanced starch quality and contain more beta-carotene and other beneficial vitamins and minerals . A strain of "golden rice" that packs more and iron and beta carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A, could be on the world market within a few years - helping the more than 100 million children worldwide who suffer from vitamin A deficiency, the developing world's leading cause of blindness, as well as some 400 million women of childbearing age who are iron-deficient, placing their babies at risk of physical and mental retardation, premature births and natal mortality.

Biotechnology could well help to prevent these maladies and others by producing more healthful, nutritious crops. Research is already underway on fruits and vegetables that could one day deliver life-saving vaccines - such as a banana that could soon deliver the vaccine for Hepatitis B, and a potato that provides immunization against the Norwalk virus - making it possible to inoculate against deadly diseases with locally grown crops that are easy to handle, distribute and administer.

At the same time, biotechnology can help farmers produce more nutritious crops, while sustaining the land's ability to support continued farming. By developing crops that more efficiently absorb nutrients from the soil, biotechnology can help farmers produce more on land already under cultivation, and may reduce the need for costly inputs such as fertilizer and non-renewable resources, such as oil and natural gas. A Mexican scientist Luis Herrera Estrella has shown that by using biotechnology tropical crops can be modified to tolerate aluminum and acid soils to significantly increase the productivity of corn, rice and papaya. Biotech crops that require less tilling may help to decrease soil erosion. And the development of plants that can grow in tough conditions, such as drought, or dry or poor soil, may make it easier to farm marginal lands, helping to keep fragile soils such as wetlands and rainforests out of food production.

Biotechnology holds tremendous promise for the developing world. In the words of Dr. John Wafula, the head of biotechnology research at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kari): "The need for biotechnology in Africa is very clear. The use of high-yielding, disease-resistant and pest-resistant crops would have a direct bearing on improved food security, poverty alleviation and environmental conservation in Africa. " Likewise, as Nigeria's minister of agricultural and rural development Hassan Adamu recently wrote in an opinion editorial to the Washington Post: "To deny desperate, hungry people the means to control their futures by presuming to know what is best for them is not only paternalistic but morally wrong we want to have the opportunity to save the lives of millions of people and change to course of history in many nations." Failing that, Adamu warns, "The harsh reality is that, without the help of agricultural biotechnology, many will not live."

Recently Monsanto Co. announced that it would provide royalty-free licenses for any of its technologies that can help further the development of "golden rice." The new rice, being developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, holds promise to help hundreds of thousands of children who suffer from life-threatening diseases and blindness related to vitamin A deficiency. The company, which recently completed a map of all the genes in rice, also is making that research available to other researchers worldwide.

And Zeneca, a British life sciences company, has pledged to provide regulatory, advisory and research expertise to bring the "golden rice" to developing countries. There are many other examples of industry collaboration with governments and public institutions. Companies are helping to apply market-derived technologies to crops that improve conditions for millions but hold little if any profit potential - such as virus-resistant sweet potato research in Kenya, virus-resistant papaya in Southeast Asia and cassava projects in other African nations.

The science academies do not put all the responsibility on private industry. They point out that, after World War II, the public sector and charitable foundations financed crop research that led to doubling or tripling of crop yields in Asia and Latin America, along with employment gains and improved nutrition. During what is known as the "Green Revolution," wheat and rice varieties were developed that "met the needs of millions of poor farmers and consumers."

Science and technology can continue to make a positive contribution in alleviating world hunger, and that Americans overwhelmingly support initiatives to increase agricultural productivity and the use of biotechnology in addressing concerns of global food and nutritional security. In a recent poll conducted by the Alliance for Better Foods, most (80-90%) Americans surveyed said that they would support "using biotechnology to develop crops requiring fewer chemicals to protect them from weeds and insects; crops that are more productive or that grow in harsh conditions; crops that require less land and water to grow the same amount of food; to develop foods that are richer in vitamins and nutrients and to develop foods that stay fresh longer without rotting or spoiling." This shows that Americans are not swayed by the current anti-technology hysteria sweeping elsewhere, and that they strongly believe that responsible application of technology can advance food and nutritional security.

American agriculture is the envy of the world and has made outstanding progress in the past century because of judicious application of technology. Biotechnology represents a frontier advance in agricultural science, and has far-reaching potential in advancing global food production in an environmentally sustainable manner, and to keep proving Thomas Malthus wrong. We should not be lulled into complacency While the world population will continue to grow in the developing countries where food is already a problem, biotechnology represents a powerful tool that we can employ in concert with many other traditional approaches in increasing food production in the face of diminishing land and water resources.

Ronald Cantrell of the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines says: "To still have hunger in our world of abundance is not only unacceptable, it is unforgivable." World hunger is a complex issue, one for which there is no one answer. Yet while biotechnology may not be the only solution, it can be a valuable tool in the struggle to feed a hungry world. 









Document Number: 3834 
Can Genetically Engineered Crops Feed a Hungry World? 
YES - We Must Tap Biotech's Potential

San Francisco Chronicle
By C.S. Prakash 
Thursday, March 30, 2000

Food companies thinking about banning genetically modified grain from their products should consider what happened to Frito-Lay when the company decided to cave in to anti-biotech activists, who have nothing but fear-mongering and pseudo science to support their demands.

Frito-Lay recently told its corn producers to stop planting corn that is genetically improved to ward off harmful insects. Even though there was very little consumer demand for such an action, the company apparently feared a food scare generated by activists and took the step anyway. But the move was not enough to placate activists, who still threaten action until the company does everything necessary to declare its products free of genetically modified foods.

There is no science to support the ban of insect-resistant corn, which forced Frito-Lay's producers to revert to chemical insecticides. Two much larger grain purchasers have already reversed anti-biotech decisions: Archer Daniels Midland, one of the nation's largest purchasers and exporters of grain, and Cargill, the nation's largest grain merchant. Cargill declared "it's business as usual'' when it followed ADM's lead and began accepting transgenic grains again. These hold-the-line decisions are extremely important in blunting the pseudo-science of the activist community and moving toward biotechnology's potential to help feed a hungry world. The anti-biotech community claims there are "10 reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world.'' In stark contrast, more than 1,800 members of the scientific community have signed a statement declaring their belief that biotechnology is a powerful and safe way to enhance substantially our quality of life by improving agriculture, health care and the environment.

Over the next century, world population will approach 9 billion. But purchasing power is concentrated in the developed countries, while more than 90 percent of the projected population growth is likely to occur in developing countries. It is not difficult to predict where food shortages will occur. As UC Davis professor Martina McGloughlin says, unless we are willing to accept starvation, or put parks and the Amazon Basin under the plow, there is only one good alternative: find ways to increase food production.

Biotechnology innovations are being developed to increase crop yields and provide opportunities for growing crops on land otherwise unable to support plant growth. High levels of aluminum, toxic to plant roots, exist in the soil of more than one-third of the world's arable land. The presence of aluminum can cause production losses of up to 80 percent in corn, soybean, cotton and field beans. Mexican researchers have isolated a gene that helps crops fight aluminum toxicity and are now testing the gene in rice, which is a food staple for more than half the people on earth. Likewise, exciting discoveries are on the horizon that may help us grow crops in the future under drought conditions or using sea water.

Sweet potato is a staple crop in Kenya, normally grown by poor women as a primary food source for their families. A virus can wipe out an entire crop. Efforts to eliminate the virus through conventional crossbreeding were not successful. But Kenyan scientists, working in conjunction with American biotechnology experts from the government (U.S. Agency for International Development), a nonprofit foundation (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications) and a private corporation (Monsanto) have developed a virus-resistant sweet potato that can potentially increase yields by 20 to 80 percent. Research in my laboratory at Tuskegee University has also found a method to improve the protein content in sweet potato, which, if successful, will bring much- needed nutritional benefit to developing countries.

Biotechnology is being used to develop crops that deliver vitamins. A research team led by Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, in collaboration with scientists from the University of Freiburg in Germany, have succeeded in producing beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, in rice. This rice strain may prevent blindness in millions of children. Improved vitamin A nutrition would also prevent up to 2 million infant deaths from diarrhea and measles, according to United Nations Children's Fund. Efforts to develop rice with high iron content are also in process and may help address anemia, which afflicts a billion women on this planet. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines has already developed and tested rice strains that can withstand diseases and pests. These new seeds will be made available freely to farmers in Third World countries.

Biotechnology improvements are in development that would allow hybrid rice to be colonized by bacteria that fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. Plants that are able to fix nitrogen improve productivity in the absence of synthetic fertilizers, which are typically unavailable to poor farmers.

The anti-biotech activists incorrectly suggest that the integration of chemical pesticides and seed-use has led to lower returns for farmers. To support that argument, they point to one obscure study, while ignoring other far more comprehensive and respected studies that report increased net returns and reduced chemical use.

Improved production economics, the introduction of crops spliced with a gene that causes them to produce a natural insecticide (Bt) and herbicide-resistant crops, have forced tremendous competition in the herbicide and insecticide markets. Prices of many herbicides and insecticides have been slashed by more than 50 percent in these markets. Such price reductions led to significant discounting of weed and insect control programs and even benefited farmers who have not yet adopted biotechnology crops.

Anti-biotechnology activists argue against Western- style capitalism and for boutique markets that sell organically grown, biotech-free foods. But their arguments are not relevant to the issue of meeting human needs or developing a sustainable and diverse ecology. Companies that play into activist hands delay expansion of technology that can solve many problems. And, ironically, as Frito-Lay has demonstrated, they may be creating new problems for themselves.










Document Number: 8423 

The Genetically Modified Crop Debate 
        in the Context of Agricultural Evolution Plant Physiology
        By C.S. Prakash 
        May 2001
        Vol. 126, pp. 8-15(Click 
        here for PDF version)Introduction "Whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass grow upon 
        a spot of ground where only one grew before would deserve better of Mankind, 
        and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians 
        put together." 
       - The King of Brobdingnag, Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, 1727. 
       "I believe that we have now reached a moral and ethical watershed beyond 
        which we venture into realms that belong to God, and to God alone. Apart 
        from certain medical applications, what actual right do we have to experiment, 
        Frankenstein-like, with the very stuff of life? ... " 
       - Prince Charles Windsor, heir to the British throne (Windsor, 1998). 
       Throughout the history of humankind, there have been those who have 
        embraced change and those who have clung to the old ways because they 
        felt at least the risks were known. Few Edisons or Einsteins were properly 
        recognized during their lifetime. And, since feeding ourselves was the 
        primary occupation of mankind for most of our recorded and prerecorded 
        history, changes in food production have been accepted slowly. The first 
        person to try to scratch out a garden most assuredly heard derisive laughter 
        as the mighty hunters headed off in pursuit of meat. So, we should not 
        be surprised that eons of history are being replayed as we enter the era 
        of biotechnology. As the fates of human society and crops have been inextricably 
        intertwined since the dawn of civilization, an appreciation of our agricultural 
        past may guide us in addressing societal concerns and also in ensuring 
        minimal negative consequences from scientific pursuits. 
       Farmers have embraced the new technology because it makes them more 
        efficient, protects or increases yields and reduces their reliance on 
        chemicals that, other things being equal, they would prefer not to use. 
        Crops enhanced by biotechnology are being grown on nearly 110 million 
        acres in 13 countries. Food ingredients produced from biotech crops are 
        found in thousands of food products consumed worldwide. However, while 
        no unequivocal evidence of harm to our health or the environment from 
        these crops is known or expected, there is an intense debate questioning 
        their value and safety. 
       Societal anxiety over this so-called genetically modified (GM) food 
        is understandable, and it is fueled by a variety of causes, including 
        consumer unfamiliarity, lack of reliable information on the current safeguards 
        in place, a steady stream of negative opinion in the news media, opposition 
        by activist groups, growing mistrust of industry, and a general lack of 
        awareness of how our food production system has evolved. The scientific 
        community has neither adequately addressed public concerns about GM foods 
        nor effectively communicated the value of this technology. Clearly, societal 
        acceptance is pivotal to the continued development and application of 
        biotechnology in food and agriculture. 
       Two decades ago, many agricultural scientists rightfully saw the emerging 
        recombinant DNA technology as a potent tool in enhancing crop productivity 
        and food quality while promoting sustainable agriculture. Much of this 
        early excitement and expectation was met with successive breakthroughs 
        in scientific research on plant gene transfer methods, identification 
        of valuable genes, and the eventual performance of transgenic crops. Plant 
        breeders saw the technology as an additional means of crop improvement 
        that could complement existing methods. For the first time, plant breeding 
        was subjected to rigorous testing, and a regulatory framework was developed 
        to oversee the commercialization of GM crops on a case-by-case basis. 
        There has been widespread acceptance and support for biotechnology from 
        the scientific community. Accumulated experience and knowledge of decades 
        of crop improvement combined with expert judgment, science-based reasoning 
        and empirical research has led to scientists' confidence that GM crops 
        may pose no new or heightened risks that could not be identified or mitigated, 
        and that any unforeseen hazard will be negligible, manageable, or preventable. 
        Risks from GM crops should be monitored and measured, but concerns about 
        these risks must also be balanced against the enormous benefits from this 
        technology and weighed against alternative options. The strong trust that 
        the American public has in its regulatory agencies (FDA, USDA, and EPA) 
        has helped gain higher public acceptance of GM food in this country than 
        in other nations. 
       Mutant Food and Monarch Butterflies Despite the promised benefits, global negative reaction to GM crops 
        ranges from mild unease to strong opposition. Typical questions asked 
        about GM crops include: Is it ethical for scientists to modify living 
        organisms around us? Is it morally right to tamper with our food supply? 
        Is the genetic modification of crops inherently hazardous? Despite the 
        built-in safeguards, can we unwittingly make our foods unsafe? What about 
        the long-term consequences of consuming such foods? Do GM crops affect 
        the environment or the wild ecosystem, reducing crop biodiversity, beneficial 
        insects, or the revered monarch butterfly? Could these crops lead to the 
        development of noxious "superweeds"? Are we introducing these crops into 
        our environment without fully understanding the consequences of such action? 
        What about genetic pollution? Can these genes be transferred to other 
        organisms including humans and animals? In addition, there are also larger 
        and even more important sociopolitical issues such as anxiety about the 
        control of food and agricultural systems, including questions about the 
        pervasive impact of globalization. 
       How can scientists allay public concerns considering the complexities 
        of these issues? Creating an awareness of agricultural history may provide 
        a good beginning for our efforts to help alleviate consumer unease about 
        GM foods. It may also educate scientists about the relevance of the societal 
        context to our research. Most risk issues related to current GM crops 
        are not unique when placed in the context of how agriculture was developed 
        through crop domestication over many millennia and how we have bred modern 
        crop varieties in the past century. As Frary and Tanksley (2000) put it, 
        "The issue is not whether we should modify the genetics of crop plants. 
        We embarked on that road thousands of years ago when plants were first 
        domesticated. Instead of simply judging the vehicle through which we make 
        genetic changes, we need to weigh the potential consequences that such 
        modifications hold for the society and the environment." 
       Crop Evolution and Human Civilization Agriculture evolved independently in many places on this earth, but 
        the earliest evidence of farming dates 10,000 years ago in present day 
        Iraq (Heiser, 1990). For much of the 200,000 or so years prior to agriculture, 
        humans lived as nomadic hunters, gatherers, and scavengers surviving solely 
        on wild plants and animals. Subsequent domestication of these wild plants 
        and animals from their natural habitats launched agriculture, thus radically 
        transforming human societies. This occurred initially in the Fertile Crescent, 
        the Andean region in South America, Mexico, and parts of Asia, but diffused 
        throughout much of the globe. A change from the nomadic lifestyle to farming 
        led us to become community dwellers, eventually spawning the development 
        of languages, literature, science, and technology as people were freed 
        from the continuous daily task of finding food. Some regions caught on 
        much faster than others, by margins of thousands of years (Diamond, 1999). 
       Plants have also evolved or, more accurately, they have been changed 
        rapidly by human intervention (Harlan, 1992). Every crop plant grown today 
        is related to a wild species occurring naturally in its center of origin, 
        and progenitors of many of our crops are still found in the wild. Early 
        humans must have tried eating thousands of feral plant species from a 
        pool of a quarter of a million flowering plants before settling down on 
        less than one thousand such species, which were subsequently tamed and 
        adapted to farming. A little over 100 crop species are now grown intensively 
        around the world, with only a handful of them supplying us with most of 
        what we now eat. Through a process of gradual selection, our ancestors 
        chose a very tiny section of the wild plant community and transformed 
        it into cultivated crops. Some profound alterations in the plant phenotype 
        occurred during such selection, and these include determinate growth habit; 
        elimination of grain shattering; synchronous ripening; shorter maturity; 
        reduction of bitterness and harmful toxins; reduced seed dispersal, sprouting 
        and dormancy; greater productivity, including bigger seed or fruit size; 
        and even an elimination of seeds, such as in banana. These changes reduced 
        the survivability of crops in the wild, and thus a feature that transcends 
        all of our crops is the reduction of weedy traits from wild plants. Present 
        crops are thus totally dependent upon human care for their survival, and 
        modern crop varieties would persist in the wild "no longer than a Chihuahua 
        would last in the company of wolves" (Trewavas, 2000). 
       Most crops that supply our food were thus obtained at the end of the 
        Stone Age, often from a relatively narrow pool of extant wild genetic 
        diversity. Additional diversity arose within such cultivated crops through 
        new mutations and natural hybridization, and through judicious selection 
        and perpetuation by farmers who maintained them as land races. Varied 
        uses and preferences brought forth further diversification such as in 
        corn (popcorn, sweet corn, dent corn, broom corn, and flour corn for tortilla 
        and corn bread) or the derivatives of ancestral cabbage (kale, kohl rabi, 
        brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli). 
       With the advent of transoceanic navigation and the "discovery" of the 
        New World, crops were moved around the world rapidly, often achieving 
        prominence in adopted homes far beyond their natural centers of origin 
        or domestication. For instance, the United States is the leading producer 
        of corn and soybean in the word, yet these crops are native to Mexico 
        and China, respectively. The world's largest traded commodity, coffee, 
        had a humble origin in Ethiopia, but now much of it is produced in Latin 
        America and Asia. Florida oranges have their roots in India, while sugarcane 
        arose in Papua New Guinea. Food crops that are now so integral to the 
        culture or diet in the Old World, such as the potato in Europe, chili 
        pepper in India, cassava in Africa, and sweet potato in Japan, were introduced 
        from South America. For that matter, every crop in North America other 
        than the blueberry, Jerusalem artichoke, sunflower, and squash are borrowed 
        from elsewhere! 
       A few sources of our food are also recent domesticates. Chinese gooseberry 
        occurs wildly in China and is not edible. But careful breeding made it 
        palatable, and it was re-christened "Kiwi fruit" in New Zealand after 
        its introduction there early in the 20th century. The modern strawberry 
        with big fruits is a product of the accidental crossing of two wild species 
        from Virginia (United States) and Chile in France in the mid-18th century. 
        Rapeseed, grown in India for centuries, was altered recently through classical 
        breeding to eliminate the toxic erucic acid and smelly glucosinolates 
        to result in canolaCanadian oil. Triticale, a completely new crop, was 
        artificially sythesized a few decades ago by combining the genomes of 
        wheat and rye (two distinct genera that do not interbreed in nature). 
        It is now grown on over three million acres worldwide. Modern bread wheat 
        itself is also a fairly recent crop in the evolutionary time scale, having 
        arisen only about 4,000 years ago through hybridization of tetraploid 
        (pasta or durum) wheat with inedible goat grass. 
       From Mesopotamia to Mendel While humans have always molded the evolution of crop plants, such changes 
        imposed by farmers occurred over several millennia, leading to rich crop 
        diversityespecially in traits related to their planting or consumption. 
        At the same time, global population grew very slowly until the mid-19th 
        century. It took 1,800 years for the global population to climb from an 
        estimated 300 million around the time when Christianity began, to reach 
        its first billion. But it took only 12 years to add the last billion, 
        rising from five billion people in 1987 to six billion two years ago. 
       Fortunately, parallel scientific developments in agriculture ensured 
        that food production kept pace with the population explosion of the past 
        century (Conway, 1999). Beginning with Mendel's study of peas, knowledge 
        of genetics helped usher in scientific crop development, resulting in 
        high-yielding varieties. Food production increased in every part of the 
        world in the past few decades, including in Africa. Per capita food consumption 
        has also increased steadily everywhere except in parts of sub-Saharan 
        Africa. In the United States and Canada, where such scientific developments 
        and their applications were most intense, one average farmer now produces 
        enough to feed nearly 150 people! In crops subject to intensive scientific 
        attentioncorn, wheat, and ricethe productivity levels increased severalfold. 
        For example, U.S. corn growers averaged 26 bushels of corn per acre in 
        1928 and 134 bushels per acre in 1998 (National Corn Growers Association, 
        2001). 
       Such a prodigious increase in agricultural production was underpinned 
        by scientific crop improvement methods along with other developments, 
        including the use of irrigation, improved soil fertility management, mechanization, 
        and control of diseases and pests (Conway, 1999). To develop better crop 
        varieties, scientists have used an array of tools. Artificial crossing, 
        or hybridization, helped us assimilate desirable traits from several varieties 
        into elite cultivars. When desired characteristics were unavailable in 
        the cultivated plants, genes were liberally borrowed from wild relatives 
        and introduced into crop plants. When a crop variety refused to mate with 
        the wild species, various tricks were employed to force them to intermingle, 
        such as the use of the carcinogenic chemical colchicine or by rescuing 
        the hybrid embryos with tissue culture methods. Hybrid vigor was exploited 
        in crops such as corn and cotton to boost productivity. When existing 
        genetic variation within the cultivated germplasm was not adequate, breeders 
        created new variants using ionizing irradiation (gamma ray, x-ray, neutron), 
        mutagenic chemicals (ethyl methane sulfate, mustard gas), or through somaclonal 
        variation (cell culture). 
       Most people who are concerned about modern biotechnology have little 
        or no knowledge of the processes that have been used to transform crops 
        in the past. Nor are they likely aware that crops have been continually 
        altered over time or that, without human care, they would cease to exist. 
        Using a variety of tools over the past few decades, plant breeders have 
        radically transformed our crop plants by altering their architecture (such 
        as the development of dwarf wheat and rice), shortening growing seasons, 
        developing greater resistance to diseases and pests (all crops), and developing 
        bigger seeds and fruits (Figs. 1 and 2). These crops are also more responsive 
        to management and better adapted to diverse ecological conditions. Improved 
        food quality also resulted through fewer toxins (canola), better digestibility 
        (beans), increased nutrition (high-protein corn), better taste, longer 
        shelf life (thus withstanding long transportation and storage), and enhanced 
        freshness in many vegetables and fruits. A 1,000-fold increase in the 
        marble-sized wild Lycopersicon resulted in the modern tomato that can 
        now weigh as much as a kilogram (Frary and Tanksley, 2000). Figure 1. Cultivated tomato (left) and its wild relative 
                  Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium (right; approximate diameter of 
                  smaller tomato = 1 cm). (Photo kindly provided by Steve Tanksley.) 
                Figure 2. Modern corn hybrid 
                  (right), its wild relative teosinte (left), and their hybrid 
                  (cob in the center). (Photo kindly provided by John Doebley.)Modern farming has steadily increased the supply of relatively safe, 
        affordable, and abundant food not only in the developed world, but also 
        in most developing countries. An average American family now spends only 
        11% of its income on food and yet has access to better food choices with 
        more variety and nutrition than ever before. Without scientific developments 
        in agriculture, we would otherwise be farming on every square inch of 
        arable land to produce the same amount of food!  Using gene transfer techniques to develop GM crops thus can be seen 
        as a logical extension of the continuum of devices we have used to amend 
        our crop plants for millennia. When compared to the gross genetic alterations 
        using wide-species hybridization or the use of mutagenic irradiation, 
        direct introduction of one or a few genes into crops results in subtle 
        and less disruptive changes that are relatively specific and predictable. 
        The process is also clearly more expeditious, as the development of new 
        cultivars by classical breeding typically takes from 10 to 15 years. The 
        primary attraction of the gene transfer methods to the plant breeder, 
        however, is the opportunity to tap into a wide gene pool to borrow traits, 
        obviating the constraints of cross-compatible crop species. 
       Addressing Public Concerns While direct gene transfer is still a relatively new approach, many 
        concerns arising from its use may be addressed with the "benchmark" of 
        conventionally bred varieties, as we have the accumulated experience and 
        knowledge with the latter for more than a century. While it seems logical 
        to express a concern such as "I don't know what I am eating with GM foods!" 
        it must be remembered that we really never had that information before 
        with classically bred crops. With GM crops, at least we know what new 
        genetic material is being introduced, so we can test for predictable and 
        even many unpredictable effects. Consider, for example, how conventional 
        plant breeders would develop a disease-resistant tomato. They would introduce 
        chromosome fragments from its wild relative to add a gene for disease 
        resistance. In the process, hundreds of unknown and unwanted genes would 
        also be introduced, with the risk that some of them could encode toxins 
        or allergens, armaments that wild plants deploy to survive. Yet we never 
        routinely tested most conventionally bred varieties for food safety or 
        environmental risk factors, and they were not subject to any regulatory 
        oversight. We have always lived with food risks, but in the last few decades 
        we have become increasingly more adept at asking questions. 
       To address the concern about long-term health consequences of GM foods, 
        it is instructive to recognize that we worried little about such impacts 
        when massive amounts of new proteins (and unfamiliar chemicals) were introduced 
        into our foods from wild species or when unknown changes were created 
        through mutation breeding. When new foods from exotic crops are introduced, 
        we often assimilate them easily into our diets. What's more we rarely, 
        if ever, before asked the same questions that we now pose about GM crops. 
        Many so-called functional foods, health foods, and nutraceuticals have 
        been entering into the mainstream American diet lately, with little or 
        no regulation or testing. We do not question the long-term health implications 
        of these food supplements, even though they involve relatively large changes 
        in our food intake. In contrast, the GM foods currently on the market 
        have been tested extensively and judged to be substantially equivalent 
        to their conventional counterparts, with just one or two additional proteins 
        present in miniscule amounts (introduced into a background of thousands 
        of proteins). And, those proteins are broken down either during processing 
        or digestion, with little long-term consequence. In food products such 
        as oil, starch, and sugar, such proteins are not even found. A nagging 
        potential problem with a new protein in food is that it could be a potential 
        allergen. As most food allergens are now well studied, we know that they 
        are found in few defined sources (peanut and other grain legumes, shellfish, 
        tree nuts, and a handful of other foods) and share many similar structural 
        features. Moreover, they must be present in huge proportions in our food, 
        and we must be sensitized to them over time for them to cause any adverse 
        effects. Thus, it is highly unlikely for new allergens to be introduced 
        into our food supply from GM plants. 
       Historical Absence of Zero Risk There is no such thing as safe food, and there never has been! That 
        is not to suggest that all of our foods are dangerous, only an acknowledgment 
        that trace levels of such contaminants as toxins and carcinogens are present 
        in everything we eat. But a primary rule of toxicology, articulated over 
        400 years ago by Paracelsus, refers to the importance of dosage: "Every 
        substance is a poison, but it is the dosage that makes it poisonous" (Poole 
        and Leslie, 1989). 
       While not alarming, our daily food naturally contains thousands of chemicals, 
        and many of them are shown to be carcinogenic or hazardous in lab animal 
        studies with huge doses. We consume roughly 5,000 to 10,000 natural toxins 
        daily, as plants have evolved to produce an array of chemicals to protect 
        themselves against pests, diseases, and herbivores (Ames et al., 1990a). 
        For instance, roasted coffee has over 1,000 chemicals, of which 27 have 
        been tested and 19 of them found to be rodent carcinogens (Ames and Gold, 
        1997). The fat-soluble neurotoxins solanine and chaconine are present 
        in potatoes and can be detected in the bloodstream of all potato eaters 
        (Ames et al., 1990b). Naturally then, when crops are bred for resistance 
        to pests by transferring genes through conventional methods, the resistance 
        is often accompanied by an increase in such toxic compounds. 
       Thus, it is not true that we never had problems with conventionally 
        bred varieties. Any crop variety found to pose a real health risk was 
        promptly removed from the market, but those varieties (in contrast to 
        GM crops) were never routinely tested. One pest-resistant celery variety 
        produced rashes in agricultural workers and subsequently was found to 
        contain 6,200 ppb of carcinogenic psoralens compared to 800 ppb in the 
        control celery (Ames et al., 1990). This celery was removed from cultivation 
        and that was also the case with the potato variety Lenape, which contained 
        very high levels of toxic solanine. 
       We have always learned from trial and error with all innovations. Similarly, 
        crop improvement practices evolved over time with continued refinement. 
        It is common, though, for human nature to generate an exaggerated fear 
        of new innovations while perceiving older or "natural" products as always 
        more benign. Huber (1983) discusses this double standard in the larger 
        context of risk regulation. We have always been lenient toward existing 
        known and greater hazards, even as we create "gatekeepers" to minimize 
        new risks. Thus, we fail to recognize and "exorcise" much larger older 
        risks. 
       While most food hazards arise from pathogens such as Escherichia coli 
        0:157, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enterica along with mycotoxins 
        produced by fungi (and thus a function of food storage and handling), 
        certain foods containing toxic compounds are known to produce adverse 
        health consequences over time. Cassava, eaten by a large population in 
        Africa, contains cyanogenic glucosides, which cause limb paralysis if 
        consumed before extensive processing. Solanin in tomato and potato is 
        known to cause spina bifida. Vetch pea, a common legume known for its 
        hardinessand thus popular in India among poor farmerscontains highly dangerous 
        neurotoxins that cause untold misery. Phytohemagglutinin, found in undercooked 
        kidney beans, is toxic. And peach seeds are extremely rich in cyanogenic 
        glucosides. None of these were subject to any mandatory testing before 
        they were introduced into the food chain, nor are they subject to any 
        regulation now. But if the current regulatory standards imposed on GM 
        crops were to be invoked for traditional crops, most of them would fail 
        to meet their requirements. 
       Humans have built-in natural defenses that protect us against normal 
        exposure to toxins. But, according to Ames and Gold (1997), we have not 
        evolved to achieve "toxic harmony" with everything we eat, because natural 
        selection occurs much too slowly and because much of what is in our diet 
        today was not eaten at all when we were hunter-gatherers. 
       A balanced mixture of foods normally provides adequate nutrition. However, 
        none of the crops grown today were selected with our nutritional requirements 
        in mind. Instead they were chosen intuitively, by our ancestors, from 
        among the edibles that could be found around them. Thus, the most important 
        food crop in the developing worldricehas no provitamin A and little iron 
        in its endosperm. This has led to horrific problems, such as blindness 
        among millions of children due to vitamin A deficiency, and iron-deficiency 
        anemia in nearly a billion women dependent on a rice diet. Biotechnology 
        research, far from causing any new food safety problems, has already demonstrated 
        its potential in enhancing the nutritional quality of our food and is 
        also being employed to reduce harmful toxic compounds that exist in our 
        food. 
       What about the Environment? All of us have to eat to live, and organized food production is the 
        most ecologically demanding endeavor we have pursued. Agricultural expansion 
        over the millennia has destroyed millions of acres of forestland around 
        the world. Alien plant species have been introduced into non-native environments 
        to provide food, feed, fiber, and timber, and as a result have disrupted 
        local fauna and flora. Certain aspects of modern farming have had a negative 
        impact on the biodiversity of crop plants and on air, soil, and water 
        quality; nevertheless, it sustains and nurtures most of the world's six 
        billion people with adequate nutrition and affordable food. 
       How can we address the potential environmental concerns of GM crops 
        in the context of our experience with traditional crop variety deployment? 
        We have continuously introduced genes for disease and pest resistance 
        through conventional breeding into all of our crops. Traits, such as stress 
        tolerance and herbicide resistance, have also been introduced in some 
        crops, and the growth habits of every crop have been altered. The risk 
        of crop gene flow to weedy relatives has always existed, and such "gene 
        flow" occurs where possible. Thus, it is comforting to recognize that 
        no major "superweeds" have developed since the advent of modern plant 
        breeding, although there have been a few instances of crops ever becoming 
        weedy or of weeds becoming more invasive due to gene transfer from crops. 
        Most noxious weeds, such as kudzu, water hyacinth, and parthenium, resulted 
        from the introduction of semidomesticated wild plants into non-native 
        environments without the checks and balances of their native pests. Yet, 
        there are probably no dwarf plants among the wild Oryza spp. and Triticum 
        spp. populations in the Middle East or Asia, despite the fact that we 
        now have been growing diminutive rice and wheat varieties for decades. 
       The risk of gene transfer to wild plants is exacerbated when crops are 
        planted in an area with compatible weedy relatives (as often seen in their 
        centers of origin), when such species are promiscuous out-crossers (canola), 
        or, most importantly, when the introduced genes enhance the reproductive 
        fitness of the recipient weeds (although most genes introduced into crop 
        plants, conventional or biotech, have little value in the wild). The risk 
        of gene transfer to weeds is similar with both conventional and GM crops 
        and is not contingent on how we introduced these genes into plants. We 
        must be vigilant to ensure that weeds do not become noxious as a result 
        of any new crop variety. The current case-by-case testing and monitoring 
        approach with biotech crops is a good regimen for the future, while the 
        past experience with conventional crops provides assurance that such risks 
        will be minimal and manageable. 
       Crop biodiversity is another issue of concern. The popularity of high-yielding 
        varieties has already narrowed the genetic variation found in major crops. 
        Biotechnology, if employed strategically, can reverse this through the 
        recovery of older varieties that were discarded for lack of certain features 
        (such as resistance to new disease strains), because modern gene transfer 
        can restore such traits. Biotechnology research is also enabling the development 
        of better methods for ex situ preservation of germplasm, such as cryopreservation, 
        whereby valuable germplasm is being stored and thus saved from extinction. 
       The introduction of corn with a single transferred Bt gene has led to 
        some concern about its ecological impact. While this concern should not 
        be dismissed, it should be balanced with our hindsight and experience 
        with corn itself, an introduced alien species now grown on 75 million 
        acres in the United States, where none existed about 1,000 years ago. 
        A crop introduced into a new environment entails the wholesale introduction 
        of thousands of new genes. When grown on massive amounts of land, it exerts 
        considerable ecological impact on the native fauna and flora, including 
        beneficial insects. In contrast, the introduction of one or two genes 
        into this background of 50,000 genes present in corn will have relatively 
        less effect on the environment. While the initial fear about the reported 
        damage to monarch butterflies from Bt corn has not held up in additional 
        studies, one also needs to consider the negative impact of alternate practices 
        (such as pesticide sprays) and recognize the potential for positive impacts 
        on beneficial insects by the GM crop due to the specificity of the insect 
        target(s). 
       For that matter, any concern about "gene pollution" pales in comparison 
        to the massive "risk" of alien crop introduction, as 95% of the crop area 
        in the United States now consists of such introduced crops. Concern about 
        horizontal transfer of genes from GM crops to other organisms, such as 
        bacteria, has also been expressed. But it appears highly unlikely that 
        the risk is dependent upon the method of gene introduction. An inherent 
        feature of biotechnology is that it lends itself easily to molecular detection 
        of introduced genes, but a true measure of risk can only come in comparisons 
        with classically bred crops where little or no such studies have been 
        performed. Concerns such as random gene insertion, gene instability, and 
        genomic disruption due to gene transfer have been expressed, but they 
        are unlikely to be unique to GM crops or of any significance considering 
        our current knowledge of genomic flux in plants. Worries about mixing 
        genes from unrelated species ignore the history of plant breeding and 
        the existing overwhelming sequence similarity of genes across kingdoms. 
        Nevertheless, scientific research aimed at risk analysis, prediction, 
        and prevention, combined with adequate monitoring and stewardship, must 
        continue so that negative ecological impact from GM crops will be kept 
        to a minimum. Most problems raised by science can be solved by additional 
        science itself. For example, appropriate promoters may ensure that pollen 
        will not express genes toxic to beneficial insects, while gene expression 
        strategies, such as sterile pollen, could reduce the risk of gene flow. 
       One must also recognize the potential positive impact of GM crops on 
        the environment, such as decreasing agricultural expansion to preserve 
        wild ecosystems; improving air, soil, and water quality by promoting reduced 
        tillage, reducing chemical and fuel use; improving biodiversity through 
        resuscitation of older varieties and promotion of beneficial insects; 
        and cleaning up contaminated soil and air through phytoremediation. As 
        we chart ahead with more exciting developments in biotechnology, such 
        as genomics, and grapple with issues arising from consumer acceptance 
        of innovations, historical knowledge on societal adoption of technological 
        innovations may provide some valuable perspectives to scientists. Many 
        innovations that would be good candidates for generating consumer apprehension 
        and concern today were introduced in the past without concern because 
        the public was less informed about innovation. The precautionary principle 
        was never invoked to ensure the scientific certainty that crop varieties 
        developed using nuclear irradiation or chemical mutagens were safe. And 
        food labeling was never demanded for bread wheat improved with the addition 
        of hundreds of unknown goat grass genes. 
       Many other innovations that are now commonplace in our lives were met 
        with skepticism and opposition when first introduced. Such fear of technology 
        was especially more pronounced in food-related innovations (e.g. Pasteurization, 
        canning, freezing, the microwave oven). However, once consumers recognize 
        that new innovations can enhance their quality of life and once they understood 
        that risks are either minimal or manageable, such technology eventually 
        could enjoy public acceptance. This includes even those "disruptive" technologies 
        that replace older ones (e.g. cars versus horse buggies, compact disc 
        versus cassette tape). Nevertheless, there are historical instances of 
        useful innovations that have not been readily accepted due to a variety 
        of reasons, such as recalcitrance to adapt (e.g. Dvorak versus QWERTY 
        keyboard), entrenched economic interests opposing change (e.g. the metric 
        system in the United States; Beta versus VHS videotape), ideological opposition 
        (e.g. plant breeding during Stalin-era Soviet Union by Lysenko), exaggerated 
        notions of risk (e.g. food irradiation), ill-timed product introductions, 
        and serious conflicts with societal values and beliefs. 
       Humans and crops will always be mutually dependent on each other's survival, 
        and the guided evolution of crops will continue but increasingly will 
        be more knowledge-based and responsible. An appreciation of the history 
        of agricultural development however may provide us with a useful roadmap 
        for devising appropriate strategies to informing and rationalizing societal 
        responses to crop improvement. Paraphrasing the American philosopher George 
        Santayana, ignoring history may condemn us to repeat it, but an understanding 
        of the past may as well lead us to an enlightened future. 
       Literature Cited Ames BN, Gold LS (1990) Chemical carcinogens: too many rodent carcinogens. 
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 87: 7772-7776 
       Ames BN, Gold LS (1997) Pollution, pesticides and cancer misconceptions. 
        In R Bate, ed, What Risk? Butterrworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp 173-190 
       Ames BN, Profet M, Gold LS (1990a) Dietary pesticides (99.99 percent 
        all natural). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 87: 7777-7781 
       Ames BN, Profet M, Gold LS (1990b) Nature's chemicals and synthetic 
        chemicals: comparative toxicology. Proceedings of the National Academy 
        of Science USA 87: 7782-7786 
       Conway G (1999) The Doubly Green Revolution. Comstock Publishing Associates, 
        Ithaca, NY 
       Diamond J (1999) Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 
        W.W. Norton, New York 
       Frary A, Tanksley S (2000) The 
        origin of crop species-accelerated evolution with mankind at helm. 
        SCOPE-GM Food ControversyForum. (April 3, 2001) 
       Harlan J (1992) Crops and Man. American Society for Agronomy and Crop 
        Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI 
       Heiser CB Jr (1990) Seed to Civilization: The Story of Food. Harvard 
        University Press, Cambridge, MA 
       Huber P (1983) Exorcists vs. gatekeepers in risk regulation. Regulation 
        7: 23-32 
       National Corn Growers Association (2001) Corn 
        Production in the U.S.: Hinton Cal. http://www.ncga.com/03world/main/index.html 
        (April 3, 2001) 
       Poole A, Leslie GB (1989) A Practical Approach to Toxicological Investigations. 
        Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 
       Santayana G (1998) The Lite of Reason. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY 
       Swift Jonathan (1727) Gulliver's Travels, Unabridged Edi-tion, 1999. 
        Dover Publications, Albuquerque, NM 
       Trewavas 
        A (2000) GM is the best option we have from Agbio-view.  Windsor, Prince Charles (1998) Seeds of disaster. Daily Telegraph, London, 
        June 10, 1998 (Click 
        here for PDF version) 


              









Document Number: 510 

Biotechnology and Agricultural Research  The Hindu (Chennai, India)
        June 10, 1999
        By Dr C. S. PrakashOne of the archaic ideas that India with its 50 years of socialistic 
        history needs to shed is that privatisation and private capital are inherently 
        evil and that profit is immoral. The noted industrialist, Godrej, once 
        remarked that India will be on its path to progress when the word `profit' 
        stops being a dirty word. It is in our best interests today to face the 
        reality that the world is increasingly getting globalised whether any 
        nation likes it or not. We must therefore work towards helping India benefit 
        from changing realities, rather than continue to hug old illusions. 
      It is quite clear now that the Information Technology (IT) industry is 
        fostering globalisation, resulting in vast benefits to our economy. The 
        process of convergence of voice, data and video that we are witnessing 
        today as the IT revolution progresses by leaps and bounds makes that apparent 
        each passing day. Although India prides itself in its software exports, 
        its market share of the global software market is still minuscule. 
      Here again, if misguided policies that led to the exit of IBM in 1977 
        had not happened, India would have been an even bigger player in IT today. 
        Similarly, the increasing privatisation of the consumer electronics, automobile, 
        telecommunication, food processing, hospitality and transportation sectors 
        have already energised these sectors. The `trickle down' effect is clearly 
        impacting the under-served sections of the Indian society. 
      Indian agriculture has also begun to benefit enormously from private 
        sector investments in chemical inputs, irrigation, tractors and seeds. 
        Public institutions like the Indian Council for Agricultural Research 
        (ICAR) and agricultural universities should continue to play a valuable 
        and dominant role in developing crop science, especially in basic `upstream' 
        research, emphasis on non-commercial crops and extension and outreach 
        programs to facilitate farmer education and public awareness. 
      The National Seeds Corporation owned by the Government of India can meet 
        only 8 per cent of our seed needs.Thus private seed companies will play 
        an increasingly important role. This will also bring dynamism, accountability 
        and customer service to the market. A synergy between public institutions 
        and private seed companies can only benefit India as both have unique 
        roles to play in Indian agriculture. No private company can afford to 
        ignore the society that it serves and the success of any company depends 
        on the tangible benefits it can deliver to the environment in which it 
        operates. The future is bright Norman Borlaug, the Nobel laureate who 
        helped in India's green revolution says that ``agricultural scientists 
        and policy makers have a moral obligation to warn political, educational, 
        and religious leaders about the magnitude and seriousness of the food 
        and population problems that lie ahead. If we fail to do so in a forthright 
        manner, we will be negligent in our duty and will inadvertently contribute 
        to death by starvation. The problem will not vanish by itself; to continue 
        to ignore it will make a future solution more difficult to achieve.'' 
      We thus need to explore every possible avenue to help increase food production. 
        Indian farmers will readily embrace any technology as long as it is affordable 
        and profitable. It would be criminally irresponsible and morally reprehensible 
        to throw away any valuable tool using archaic philosophical arguments 
        and claiming hypothetical risks. New technology has always been resisted 
        by no-changers down the ages. It is because a few visionaries saw its 
        potential and pressed ahead, often at great personal risk, that we enjoy 
        the benefits of technology today. 
      It would therefore be self-defeating for India to allow itself to be 
        dictated to by a small but vocal minority of misinformed and misguided 
        activists who are opposed to genetic modification of our crop varieties. 
        By sloganeering, burning crops and taking to the streets, they are holding 
        the country hostage and will only succeed in derailing India's journey 
        to prosperity. India is facing real challenges with a multitude of problems 
        like poverty, hunger, economic inequity, ethnic strife, urban congestion, 
        food and water shortages, institutionalisation of corruption, exploding 
        population, and serious concerns about its water, air and food quality. 
      We would be better served if these problems are tackled using technology 
        available to us, rather than let them be side-tracked because of fears 
        of new technology (I vividly remember bank employees in India going on 
        strike against computerisation a few years ago!). Fears must be debated 
        in a spirit of scientific openness. Above all, it must be remembered that 
        no one has a monopoly on truth and knowledge - certainly not those who 
        are unwilling to accept that there are two sides to every issue. 
       


              









Document Number: 684 

The Attack on Plant BiotechnologyChapter 7 in 'Global 
        Warming and Other Eco-Myths', Ronald Bailey ed., 
        Prima Publishing-Random House, 2002; 
        ISBN 0-7615-3660-4; 448 pages; Hardcover; 
        Amazon.com price $17.47by Gregory Conko and C.S. Prakash (Note: The following authors' text may have been changed 
        slightly prior to publication. For quotation, readers are urged to consult 
        the published work. Readers will also find complete tables and endnotes 
        in the bound volume.) Highlights... A century's worth of genetic improvements in plants 
        and animals have made food more abundant and less expensive today than 
        at any other time in history. Continuing improvements in productivity 
        will be necessary to feed the world in the 2st Century without having 
        to bring millions of acres of undeveloped wilderness into agricultural 
        use. ... Despite opposition from ideological environmentalists, 
        biotechnology - the next step in the continuum of genetic improvement 
        - has been endorsed by countless scientific and health organizations, 
        including the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy 
        of Sciences, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 
      ... Around the world, more than 70 bioengineered plant varieties 
        are grown commercially on approximately 109 million acres, in countries 
        ranging from the United States, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, 
        Chile, China, Mexico, and South Africa. ... Bioengineered varieties of corn, cotton, potato, soybean, 
        and others, are raising yields, reducing pesticide use, conserving topsoil, 
        and making other contributions to environmental protection. ... Biotechnology is helping scientists breed plants that 
        mature faster, tolerate drought or extremes of heat and cold, and have 
        improved nutrition. It is also being used to develop healthier cooking 
        oils that are low in saturated fats, vegetables with higher levels of 
        cancer-fighting antioxidants, and foods with better taste and longer shelf 
        life. It is even possible to use bioengineered plants to create biodegradable 
        plastics, better medicines, and to help clean up hazardous wastes. ... Due to activist pressures, governments around the world 
        have created harmful regulations that make it harder for researchers to 
        use biotechnology to improve crop plants and livestock. 1. The Attack On Plant BiotechnologyOn a blustery November day in 1999, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
        scientists kicked off the first of three nation-wide public meetings on 
        biotechnology and bioengineered foods at the Plaza Club in Chicago. In 
        the wake of substantial and growing concern about the technology in some 
        European countries, FDA officials wanted to gauge the public mood in the 
        U.S. and head off any growing domestic crisis of confidence. What they 
        found was not surprising - no scientific evidence supporting claims that 
        biotechnology was particularly dangerous either for consumers or the environment, 
        but a small and growing segment of the public that believe bioengineered 
        crop plants to be truly hazardous. Outside, members of Greenpeace and 
        several other activist environmental groups protested with signs declaring, 
        &quot;Genetically engineered food is poison.&quot;Many Americans have never even heard of bioengineered crops, 
        and most who have hold a neutral or positive opinion about them. But beneath 
        this otherwise calm surface, there is a growing campaign led by ideological 
        environmentalists against plant biotechnology. The U.S. Public Interest 
        Research Groups argue that bioengineered foods &quot;pose unacceptable 
        risks to human health,&quot; risk &quot;spawning new superweeds,&quot; 
        or pose hazards to beneficial insects and soil organisms. The activist 
        group Friends of the Earth warns that biotech crops could &quot;seriously 
        threaten biodiversity in agricultural areas&quot; and that they &quot;may 
        also be toxic to humans.&quot; And when the United States Agency for International 
        Development sent a shipment of corn and soy-meal that happened to contain 
        some bioengineered varieties in the mix to aid the victims of a cyclone 
        in the Indian province of Orissa, Vandana Shiva, director of the New Delhi-based 
        Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, argued that, 
        &quot;The U.S. has been using the Orissa victims as guinea pigs for [bioengineered] 
        products.&quot;Other critics are even more shrill. Jeremy Rifkin, a notorious 
        and longtime opponent of all forms of genetic research, calls the introduction 
        of bioengineered plants &quot;the most radical, uncontrolled experiment 
        we've ever seen.&quot; Mae-Wan Ho, a biologist at London's Open University 
        argues that biotech crop plants are &quot;worse than nuclear weapons or 
        radioactive wastes.&quot; What is it about agricultural biotechnology 
        that inspires such attacks?Ever since the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson's Silent 
        Spring, ideological environmentalists have warned that mankind's use of 
        modern farming technologies would lead to widespread ecological and human 
        health catastrophes. Then, the villain was synthetic chemicals - particularly 
        the use of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides on farms to protect 
        growing crop plants. Thirty years later scientific evidence clearly shows 
        that those concerns were wildly exaggerated. Nevertheless, the use of 
        agricultural chemicals can have some negative environmental effects. Ultimately, 
        humanity must choose between using chemicals that can cause some minor 
        harm on the one hand, or sacrificing tremendous gains in food productivity 
        on the other.For many, the choice is simple. At its heart, all of agriculture 
        requires a never-ending struggle against the destructive forces of nature: 
        pests, diseases, weather, and many others. Despite the steadily growing 
        use of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides on farms around the world, 
        as much as 40 percent of crop productivity in Africa and Asia, and about 
        20 percent in the industrialized countries of North America and Europe, 
        is lost to insect pests, weeds, and plant diseases. Without any means 
        for controlling those pests, crop losses would climb to as much as 70 
        percent. Thus, something clearly must be done to prevent crop losses, 
        or agricultural production would fall dramatically, possibly even subjecting 
        humanity to the widespread famines predicted by Thomas Malthus more than 
        two hundred years ago.Today, a new crop protection revolution is underway that 
        will help farmers combat pests and pathogens more effectively while also 
        reducing humanity's dependence upon agricultural chemicals. Agricultural 
        biotechnology* (alternatively known as bioengineering, genetic engineering, 
        and genetic modification (GM)) uses 21st Century advances in genetics 
        and cell biology, to move useful traits from one organism to another, 
        allowing plants to better protect themselves from insects, weeds, diseases, 
        and even from such environmental stresses as poor soils and drought. Biotechnology 
        can also improve the nutritional quality of staple foods like corn and 
        rice by adding healthful vitamins and minerals. The technique is so beneficial 
        that it has been endorsed by dozens of scientific and health associations, 
        including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the United Kingdom's 
        Royal Society, the United Nations Development Program, and many others.By the year 2000, just five years after their introduction 
        on the market, farmers around the world planted more than 109 million 
        acres (44.2 million hectares) with biotech crops. It's easy to see why. 
        In the United States alone, bioengineered varieties of corn that are resistant 
        to some insect pests were about five percent more productive on average 
        than conventional varieties during the period from 1996 to 1999. Biotech 
        cotton varieties generated more than 10 percent higher yields and simultaneously 
        reduced chemical insecticide use by an average of about 14 percent during 
        that time. Not surprisingly, farmers have a very favorable view of the 
        development of biotech seeds. By 2001, 26 percent of all corn, 68 percent 
        of all soybeans, and 69 percent of all upland cotton grown in the United 
        States were bioengineered varieties.Although improved agricultural productivity might seem like 
        a luxury that industrialized countries can do without, it is an absolute 
        necessity for less developed nations. In a report published in July 2000, 
        the UK's Royal Society, the National Academies of Science from Brazil, 
        China, India, Mexico and the US, and the Third World Academy of Science, 
        embraced agricultural biotechnology, arguing that it can be used to advance 
        food security while promoting sustainable agriculture. &quot;It is critical,&quot; 
        declared the science academies, &quot;that the potential benefits of [genetic] 
        technology become available to developing countries.&quot;Importantly, the increased productivity made possible by 
        these advances will allow farmers to grow substantially more food and 
        fiber on less land. Such productivity gains will be essential if we are 
        to outpace the projected increase in global population over the coming 
        decades while sparing more land for nature. During the second half of 
        the 20th Century, in which the population increased from 3 billion to 
        6 billion, advances in conventional plant and animal breeding, and improved 
        use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides allowed food 
        production to grow much faster than population growth. But the average 
        annual per acre increase in cereal yields has been slowing, from 2.2 percent 
        per year in the late 1960s and 1970s, but only 1.5 percent per year in 
        the 1980s and early 1990s, to as low as just 1.0 percent in the second 
        half of the 1990s. More importantly, there has been little or no increase 
        in the theoretical maximum possible yields of rice and corn in a decade.Worldwide, farmers already use approximately one-third of 
        the Earth's land surface area (excluding Antarctica) for agriculture, 
        of which about one-third, or 5.8 million square miles, is dedicated to 
        growing crops. If the average annual increase in productivity per acre 
        for the cereal grains that make up the bulk of food and animal feed remains 
        at its current rate of around one percent, the world will have to bring 
        more than 700 million acres of new land into agricultural use by the year 
        2050 to meet projected demand. Nobel Peace Prize winning plant scientist 
        Norman Borlaug argues that, &quot;Extremists in the environmental movement, 
        largely from rich nations and/or the privileged strata of society in poor 
        nations, seem to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress 
        in its tracks.&quot;The rate of increase in grain yields is slightly higher 
        on average in less developed countries than industrialized ones, but population 
        growth is higher there as well. And even this average obscures the fact 
        that Africa was almost totally excluded from the productivity gains generated 
        during the Green Revolution. Crop productivity there has much room for 
        growth, but for a variety of reasons, Africa has not been able to take 
        advantage of such production increasing inputs as fertilizers, irrigation, 
        and pesticides. Yields of sorghum and millet in sub-Saharan Africa have 
        not increased since the 1960s. Thus, the productivity gains expected to 
        be generated by biotechnology-enhanced crop plants can not only help to 
        reduce the use of agricultural chemicals, they could save millions of 
        acres of sensitive wildlife habitat from being converted into farmland. 
        Explaining his strong support for biotechnology to a Reuters interviewer, 
        Borlaug said, &quot;You have two choices. You need [biotechnology] to 
        further improve yields so that you can continue to produce the food that's 
        needed on the soil that's well-adapted to agricultural production. Or, 
        you'll be pushed into cutting down more of our forests.&quot;One might expect environmental activists to be pleased with 
        the development of a technology that can make man's footprint on the environment 
        lighter. But ideological environmentalists have launched a global campaign 
        to suppress this vital technology on the specious grounds that it is unsafe 
        for humans and the environment. Bioengineered products are denounced as 
        &quot;Frankenfoods,&quot; and claims that the new technology could result 
        in &quot;Andromeda strain&quot;-like plagues abound. Lord Peter Melchett, 
        head of Greenpeace's United Kingdom chapter declared that his organization's 
        opposition to biotechnology is &quot;a permanent and definite and complete 
        opposition based on a view that there will always be major uncertainties.&quot;Never mind that the weight of scientific evidence does not 
        support such outlandish claims, or the belief of most crop scientists 
        that biotechnology will have substantial benefits for environmental stewardship, 
        as well as for farmers and consumers in poorer regions of the world. Kenyan 
        crop scientist Florence Wambugu believes that biotechnology &quot;can 
        help us increase the production of food and other commodities, lowering 
        their prices to consumers while raising the incomes of poor farmers.&quot; 
        That may not be enough to satisfy most ideological environmentalists, 
        though. At an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Conference 
        in March 2000, Greenpeace anti-biotech campaigner Benedikt Haerlin, &quot;dismissed 
        the importance of saving African and Asian lives at the risk of spreading 
        a new science that he considered untested.&quot; 2. What Is Plant Biotechnology?Ever since the dawn of agriculture, which began thousands 
        of years ago with domestication of wild plants and animals from their 
        natural habitats, humans have continuously transformed the crops and animals 
        that we have come to depend upon for food and animal feed. Over many millennia, 
        the crop varieties that were chosen for domestication have been gradually 
        modified by selecting individual plants that grew the best and produced 
        the best grains, vegetables, and fruits. Over time, this process of artificial 
        selection resulted in profound changes in the stature, productivity, and 
        taste of crop varieties. Modern corn is derived from a wild Central American 
        grass plant called teosinte. Through successive generations of selection, 
        breeders developed an entirely new species of plant - corn - that shares 
        very few of its characteristics with the wild teosinte.Entirely new plant varieties were also developed by crossbreeding 
        plants from different, but related species with one another. The progeny 
        of such hybridizations expressed new traits resulting from the random 
        mixing of literally tens of thousands of genes from the two parent plants. 
        With these &quot;natural&quot; breeding techniques, entirely new proteins 
        and other plant chemicals were routinely introduced into food crops, often 
        from wild species never before part of the food supply. Bread wheat, for 
        example, resulted several hundreds of years ago from the crossing of at 
        least three different species of wild grasses from two different genera. 
        And in the 20th Century, wheat and rye, plants from two different genera, 
        were crossed to produce a new variety called triticale, which is used 
        as food and animal feed. Hundreds of useful crop plants were developed 
        with selection and hybridization techniques. But the flexibility of these 
        techniques is limited by the need for the parent plants to be from species 
        that can breed sexually.The discovery of genes, chromosomes, and other mechanisms 
        of plant genetics during the 20th century opened up new avenues for modifying 
        plants. Scientists developed many novel tools that expanded the range 
        of modifications that could be used to improve crop varieties. For example, 
        in the late 1940s, agronomists began using x-rays, gamma rays, and caustic 
        chemicals on seeds and young plants to induce random genetic mutations. 
        Such mutations generally kill the plants (or seeds) or cause detrimental 
        changes in the DNA. But on rare occasions, the result is a desirable mutation 
        - for example, one producing a useful trait, such as altered height, more 
        seeds, or larger fruit. In these cases, breeders have no real knowledge 
        of the exact nature of the genetic mutation(s) that produced the useful 
        trait, or of what other mutations might have occurred in the plant. But 
        more than 2,250 mutation-bred varieties of corn, wheat, rice, and dozens 
        of other varieties have been commercialized over the last half century, 
        and they are grown in more than 50 countries around the world.More sophisticated breeding techniques also permit agronomists 
        to overcome natural barriers to ordinary sexual reproduction. They include 
        methods such as protoplast fusion and embryo rescue, which join cells 
        from sexually incompatible plants in a laboratory and over-come their 
        natural inability to produce offspring. These techniques for genetic modification 
        permit the artificial hybridization of plants of the same species, different 
        species, and even different genera. &quot;Wide crosses&quot; of plants 
        from different species or genera allow scientists to add into an existing 
        crop species traits for disease and pest resistance, increased yield, 
        or different nutritional qualities. They can even be used to create entirely 
        new plant species. Examples of such artificial wide crosses include a 
        wheat-barley hybrid, a tomato-potato hybrid, and a radish-rapeseed hybrid. 
        Yet, none of these techniques are considered to be bioengineering, so 
        they escape the wrath of ideological environmentalists.These techniques underpinned the last century's spectacular 
        increases in food productivity in all major crops around the world, including 
        the Green Revolution in developing countries. This dramatic increase in 
        food production has been critical in ensuring an affordable supply of 
        food. For example, U.S. corn growers averaged 134 bushels per acre in 
        1998 compared to only 26 bushels of corn per acre in 1928. It will be 
        possible to achieve additional productivity improvements through conventional 
        breeding. But these techniques are crude and slow, and the traits that 
        descendant plants eventually carry are not easily predictable. Typically, 
        one or more unwanted traits are transferred to the offspring plants with 
        any of these more conventional breeding techniques, so the breeder's job 
        is not yet done. After the initial modification, agronomists must cross-breed 
        the offspring again and again with the original plant for several generations 
        to eliminate any undesirable traits. And many agronomists believe that 
        we are already nearing the maximum possible gains in yield that can be 
        achieved with conventional breeding. Fortunately, with the advent of modern 
        biotechnology an alternative for boosting crop productivity is now available.In the 1980s, scientists in the United States and Europe 
        independently developed new and more precise methods for moving single 
        genes directly into plants. This overcame the limits imposed by sexual 
        incompatibility among species and opened up immense possibilities for 
        developing novel crop varieties with improved traits. A naturally-occurring 
        soil bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which transfers its own DNA 
        into plants, was modified to deliver desirable genes into plant cells 
        instead of its own infective genes. Subsequently, a few other methods 
        of gene transfer to plants were developed, including a &quot;Gene Gun&quot; 
        that literally shoots gene fragments into the plant chromosomes. Since 
        then, scientists have identified thousands of genes of potential value 
        for agriculture from a wide variety of organisms, and have developed methods 
        to reliably insert genes into every major crop plant. Genes are recipes 
        for producing proteins and those proteins can improve a crop's nutritional 
        value or protect it against pests. These are the various techniques that 
        are now known as genetic engineering, bioengineering, genetic modification, 
        or biotechnology.In modern biotechnology, the genes coding for specific traits 
        are inserted into plant cells, which are then cultured for development 
        into full plants. The bioengineered plants will then express the new trait 
        - such as resistance to an insect pest. Added genes are taken up into 
        the plant's DNA in random positions, opening biotechnology to questions 
        about unintended and unexpected effects. But such &quot;pleiotropic&quot; 
        effects, brought about by the re-arrangement of DNA, occur even in the 
        conventional breeding of plants from the same species. Compared with the 
        mass genetic alterations that result from using wide-cross hybridization 
        or mutagenic irradiation, the direct introduction of one or a few genes 
        into crop plants results in much more subtle and far less disruptive changes 
        that are relatively specific and predictable.The process differs from more conventional breeding methods 
        of hybridization, induced mutation, and others, in that only one or two 
        specifically identified additional genes are typically introduced into 
        an existing background of tens of thousands of genes. But, because DNA 
        is identical from organism to organism, bioengineering techniques can 
        transfer genes, not just between plants, but from any living organism 
        to any other - such as between plants and animals, or bacteria and plants. 
        This new flexibility aside, scientists see biotech gene transfer techniques 
        as a logical extension of the continuum of methods used to improve crop 
        plants. A report published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 
        1989 concluded that:&quot;[Bioengineering] methodology makes it possible to 
        introduce pieces of DNA, consisting of either single or multiple genes, 
        that can be defined in function and even in nucleotide sequence. With 
        classical techniques of gene transfer, a variable number of genes can 
        be transferred, the number depending on the mechanism of transfer; but 
        predicting the precise number or the traits that have been transferred 
        is difficult, and we cannot always predict the [characteristics] that 
        will result. With organisms modified by molecular methods, we are in a 
        better, if not perfect, position to predict the [characteristics].&quot;Thus, with biotechnology, plant breeders are actually less 
        likely to produce unanticipated effects in crops. As biotechnology researcher 
        Nina Federoff of the Pennsylvania State University notes, &quot;This is 
        like the difference between having to depend on a lightening strike for 
        the fire to cook your evening meal and learning how to make matches to 
        be able to make a fire when and where you want it.&quot;To date, more than 70 biotech plant varieties have been 
        commercialized in the United States expressing a range of improved traits, 
        such as heightened resistance to certain insects and diseases, tolerance 
        to herbicides, and longer shelf life. Globally, bioengineered varieties 
        are grown commercially on approximately 109 million acres, in countries 
        ranging from the United States, Argentina, Australia, Brazil,* Canada, 
        Chile, China, Mexico, and South Africa. Some critics have suggested that 
        biotech crops are primarily an industrialized country interest. But the 
        proportion of bioengineered crops grown in less developed nations has 
        grown consistently since their introduction, from 14 percent in 1997, 
        to 24 percent in 2000. Some of the most successful crop varieties have been modified 
        by adding a bacterial gene that produces a protein toxic to predatory 
        insects, but not to people or other mammals. By reducing the need for 
        spraying chemical pesticides on crops, such crops are environmentally 
        friendly. Another popular trait is tolerance to a particular herbicide. 
        Herbicide tolerance can be developed in some crop varieties through selection 
        and breeding methods, but biotechnology can achieve the same goal much 
        more quickly and effectively. Today, varieties of canola, corn, cotton, 
        rice, soybean, and sugar beet, have all been bioengineered to tolerate 
        one or another broad spectrum herbicide. Herbicide tolerant varieties 
        allow farmers to control weeds by spraying fields without damaging growing 
        crops. This, in turn, eliminates the need to plow under weeds, which loosens 
        topsoil and contributes to erosion. And because the spraying of herbicides 
        is more efficient, herbicide tolerant crops have even led to a modest 
        reduction in herbicide use.The purpose of the current generation of bioengineered crops 
        is primarily to improve pest resistance and weed control. In turn, this 
        should reduce the use of crop protection products and/or increase yields.Table 7.3 Traits Included in Currently Cultivated Bioengineered 
        CropsHerbicide tolerance The insertion of a herbicide tolerant 
        gene into a plant enables farmers to spray wide spectrum herbicides on 
        their fields killing all plants but the crop.Insect resistance By inserting genetic material from the 
        Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into seeds, scientists have modified crops, 
        allowing them to produce their own insecticides. For example, Bt cotton 
        combats bollworms and budworms, and Bt corn protects against the European 
        corn borer.Virus resistance To date, a virus resistant gene has been 
        introduced into squash, tobacco, potatoes, and papaya. The insertion of 
        a potato leaf roll virus resistance gene protects the potatoes from the 
        corresponding virus, which is usually transmitted through aphids. For 
        that reason, it is expected that there will be a significant decrease 
        in the amount of insecticide used. The introduction of virus resistance 
        genes into other plants may offer similar benefits. Virus resistant papaya 
        varieties have single-handedly revived the Hawaiian papaya industry, nearly 
        totally destroyed by the rampant papaya ring-spot virus.Quality traits Today, quality trait-improved crops are only 
        sown marginally and represent less than 125,000 acres in Canada and the 
        United States. They are high-oleic soybeans, high-oleic canola, and high-laurate 
        rapeseed (see Table 7.4).3. The Regulation of Biotech CropsSoon after the creation of the first bioengineered organisms, 
        scientists and policymakers began to ask themselves what type of regulatory 
        oversight would be appropriate. During the last 30 years, dozens of scientific 
        bodies, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the American 
        Medical Association, the Institute of Food Technologists, and the United 
        Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization 
        have studied the scientific literature and made recommendations about 
        the oversight that is appropriate for bioengineered organisms, arriving 
        at remarkably similar conclusions. The level of risk an individual plant 
        might pose to human health or the ecology has nothing to do with how it 
        was developed; it has solely to do with the characteristics of the plant 
        that is being modified, the specific gene or genes that are added, and 
        the local environment into which it is being introduced.When introduced into new ecosystems, all types of plants, 
        whether they are wild types or are developed with biotechnology or more 
        conventional breeding methods, pose a danger of becoming invasive weeds 
        and harming local biodiversity. Similarly, both conventional and modern 
        plant breeding involve introducing new genes into established crop plants. 
        Thus, they both pose a risk of introducing potentially harmful proteins 
        and other substances into the food supply, some of which could be allergens 
        or toxins. However, the mere fact that new genes are being added to plants, 
        even from wholly unrelated organisms, does not make them less safe either 
        to the environment or to people.An analysis published by the Institute of Food Technologists, 
        a professional society of food scientists, concluded that the evaluation 
        of biotech food &quot;does not require a fundamental change in established 
        principles of food safety; nor does it require a different standard of 
        safety&quot; than those that apply to conventional foods. Under U.S. federal 
        law, developers and marketers of all new foods have a responsibility to 
        ensure that the products they sell are safe and in compliance with all 
        legal requirements. Yet, that's where the similarity in regulation of 
        conventional and bioengineered foods ends. Biotech plants are regulated 
        much more stringently, even though scientists agree that the same practices 
        used to regulate new crop varieties produced by means of conventional 
        techniques are sufficient to ensure the safety of plants developed with 
        biotechnology.For plants developed with more conventional techniques, 
        regulators rely on plant breeders to conduct appropriate safety testing 
        and to eliminate plants that exhibit unexpected adverse traits before 
        they are commercialized. No specific testing is required, nor is pre-market 
        approval necessary, even though new varieties produced with these more 
        conventional methods often contain hundreds of unique proteins and other 
        chemicals that may never have been in the food supply before. Most of 
        those newly introduced substances will be totally unidentified (and unidentifiable) 
        by the plant breeders. But this rarely poses any real danger. Decades 
        of accumulated scientific evidence confirm that even the use of relatively 
        crude and unpredictable genetic techniques for the improvement of crops 
        plants poses minimal risk to human health and the environment.But bioengineered plants, in which breeders actually know 
        which new genes and proteins are being introduced into the plant, are 
        subjected to heightened scrutiny in every country in the world where they 
        are grown. In the United States, they are regulated by the U.S. Department 
        of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 
        the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The USDA is charged with making sure that biotechnology-enhanced 
        plants do not become environmental nuisances or problematic weeds, directly 
        addressing the activists' concerns about &quot;superweeds.&quot; The EPA 
        has jurisdiction over bioengineered plants that have a built-in resistance 
        to insects, plant diseases, or other substances - including those that 
        are resistant to herbicides. They are regulated as strictly as synthetic 
        chemical pesticides, and the agency is responsible for ensuring that &quot;pest-protected&quot; 
        biotech plants are safe both for the environment and for human health. 
        And the FDA is responsible for ensuring that foods made from biotech plants 
        are safe for people and livestock to eat.The differences in the way conventionally-bred and bioengineered 
        plants are regulated are clearly substantial. For example, some varieties 
        of canola, and soybean have been selectively bred with conventional methods 
        to be herbicide tolerant, but only bioengineered herbicide tolerant plants 
        are subject to special field-testing requirements by the USDA. Other plants, 
        such as kidney beans, peaches, and potatoes, are known to contain naturally-occurring 
        pest resistant chemicals that are toxic in very high doses and pose a 
        small risk to human health, but only bioengineered pest resistant plants 
        require pre-market approval as pesticides by the EPA before they can be 
        commercialized. Both soybeans and potatoes are known to occasionally contain 
        proteins that are allergenic, but only biotech plants face strict testing 
        requirements for toxicity and allergenicicty.In short, dozens of new plant varieties produced through 
        less precise techniques like selection, hybridization, induced mutation, 
        embryo rescue, and other, non-biotech methods enter the market every year 
        without any special pre-market testing requirements. But every single 
        bioengineered plant on the market has been tested and re-tested, going 
        through several hundred - and in some cases, several thousand - different 
        tests to ensure environmental and human health protection. Contrary to 
        the assertions of ideological environmentalists, the regulation of biotechnology 
        is actually far more stringent than necessary to ensure that bioengineered 
        crop varieties are at least as safe as conventional ones. 4. Are Biotech Crops Safe?Opponents of biotechnology have long claimed that bioengineered 
        plants are unnatural and dangerous. Complaints range from general charges 
        of random, unintended effects that could make the plants unsafe, to more 
        specific criticisms alleging the possible introduction of new toxins or 
        allergens in the food supply. Ideological environmentalists also claim 
        that bioengineered plants are more likely to have negative environmental 
        impacts, including the destruction of wild biodiversity. But, as mentioned 
        above, all bioengineered crop varieties are subjected to much greater 
        regulatory scrutiny than conventional crops, and the regulatory mechanism 
        has been designed specifically to prevent such potentially harmful side 
        effects.Because different plant varieties will have different characteristics, 
        and thus, different risks, the regulatory approach for biotech plants 
        focuses on identifying the source of potential hazards to the environment 
        and human health that specific plants might pose. Regulators draw upon 
        the existing risk assessment process for chemicals and novel foods, and 
        factor in additional analyses specific to biotechnology. For example, 
        all methods of crop breeding run the risk of unintended and unexpected 
        disruptions in the normal functioning of specific genes - called pleiotropic 
        effects. So, crop breeders always conduct a number of evaluations to eliminate 
        potentially harmful side effects before commercialization.But for biotech plants, regulators require tests to compare 
        the biological, chemical, and agronomic equivalence of the modified varieties 
        with their closest related conventional varieties. This is done to ensure 
        that no pleiotropic effects have changed the new bioengineered plant in 
        a way that would make it unsafe - such as changing the normally existing 
        levels of plant nutrients or other phytochemicals. Modest changes in the 
        level of phytochemicals can occur with any type of breeding, but no bioengineered 
        plants that have shown a significant change in important nutrients or 
        toxins have ever been put on the market. Although several new plant varieties 
        with intentionally altered phytochemicals are now being developed, such 
        as tomatoes, peppers, and rice with added or higher levels of beta carotene, 
        and soybeans with higher levels of vitamin E.Regulatory evaluations also pay special attention to the 
        genes that are added to bioengineered plants, the source of those genes, 
        the traits that the genes produce, and whether or not they have a history 
        of safe use in the food supply. Scientists generally know a great deal 
        about the safety of genes that come from other plants or micro-organisms 
        that are already part of the food supply. For those that are not, additional 
        tests to ensure the safety of the genes and their traits are required. 
        The action of most genes is to help create proteins, which could be toxins 
        or allergens. So, several additional studies are then required to ensure 
        that the proteins are not toxic and to measure the similarity of the proteins 
        with known allergens to ensure that no new allergenic substances are introduced 
        into the food supply. And numerous feed evaluations have shown no adverse 
        effects on livestock, or their meat or milk.The potential for added genes to make bioengineered plants 
        allergenic is among the most widely cited concerns about biotechnology. 
        Although all forms of plant breeding pose some risk of introducing new 
        allergens into the food supply, biotechnology has been singled out by 
        activists for special attention. Professional scaremonger Jeremy Rifkin 
        argues that, &quot;In the coming years, agrichemical and biotech companies 
        plan on introducing hundreds, even thousands of genes into conventional 
        food crops &copy; raising the very real possibility of triggering new 
        kinds of allergenic responses about which little is known and for which 
        there exist no known treatments.&quot; But Professor Steve Taylor, a noted 
        allergen researcher at the University of Nebraska, thinks the risk is 
        very small because, &quot;there are good ways of predicting the potential 
        allergenicity of a genetically modified food.&quot; In fact, one of the 
        most important potential advantages of biotechnology is actually to eliminate 
        existing allergens from foods like peanuts, wheat, and milk, by &quot;silencing,&quot; 
        or turning off,&quot; the genes that generate allergenic proteins. Taylor 
        says, &quot;[I]n the long term, we will have foods that are less hazardous 
        because of biotechnology will have eliminated or diminished their allergenicity.&quot;Just as with human safety, the ecological impact of any 
        new crop depends on the type of introduced trait and the nature of the 
        altered crop. Specific traits are focused on for assessing potential toxicity 
        to beneficial insects, wild birds, and other animals. And the impacts 
        of the whole plants are studied by assessing their similarity to traditional 
        counterparts. New biotech plants are also assessed for their potential 
        to cross-pollinate with wild or weedy plants, which could move the bioengineered 
        traits into wild species with potentially negative consequences. Ecological 
        aspects, such as potential to become problematic weeds and a range of 
        other potential environmental effects, are studied prior to commercialization 
        in small field trials. These effects are also monitored carefully after 
        commercialization. Although some complaints have been lodged by farmers 
        regarding the agronomic performance of certain bioengineered crop plants, 
        no genuine environmental problems have yet been identified.There is a risk that genes from biotech varieties could 
        be transferred to wild plants through cross-pollination, but only in regions 
        where there are closely enough related wild species for ordinary sexual 
        reproduction. Moreover, this &quot;out-crossing&quot; is really only problematic 
        when the genes in question could enhance the reproductive fitness of the 
        recipient weeds: that is, enable weeds to produce and scatter seeds that 
        survive better in the wild. Gene flow between crops and wild plants has 
        been going on for a long time and is by no means unique to biotechnology. 
        It has not been a problem though, because most genes that are introduced 
        into crop plants, conventional or biotech, have little value in the wild. 
        In fact, while some traits added with either bioengineering or conventional 
        breeding methods could provide an ecological advantage, most crop traits 
        tend to make plants less likely to survive the rigors of the wild.For example, herbicide-tolerant rapeseed plants have been 
        produced with conventional breeding for 20 years, and no unmanageable 
        weed problems have been reported as a result of their use. So, while the 
        transfer of a gene for herbicide tolerance into a wild relative could 
        create a nuisance for farmers, it is unlikely to have any impact on wild 
        biodiversity because the herbicide tolerance trait wouldn't give the wild 
        plant any selective advantage relative to other weeds. Even in the extremely 
        unlikely event that herbicide tolerance genes were transferred to a weed 
        species, it wouldn't run amok in farmers' fields. Farmers could still 
        control it by using other herbicides to which it was not tolerant.Still ideological environmentalists insist that any out-crossing 
        of genes from bioengineered plants into conventional or wild plants will 
        be negative. In one recent case, ecologists from the University of California 
        at Berkeley reported evidence that genes from bioengineered corn varieties 
        had been transferred into local varieties of corn in Oaxaca state in southern 
        Mexico where no bioengineered varieties have yet been approved for commercial 
        cultivation. Although this report was later shown to be false, concerns 
        arose among some ideological environmentalists that the presence of certain 
        genes could only be explained by cross pollination from bioengineered 
        varieties and that their presence posed a threat to the genetic diversity 
        of the many landrace or heirloom varieties in what is considered to be 
        the birthplace of corn. One Greenpeace activist from Mexico argued that, 
        &quot;It's a worse attack on our culture than if [biotech companies] had 
        torn down the Cathedral of Oaxaca and built a McDonald's over it.&quot;However, Mexican farmers reproduce their varieties by carefully 
        selecting the seed they save from year to year. Thus, if a gene producing 
        an undesirable trait is transferred into certain plants, seed from those 
        crops will not be planted the following year and will be eliminated from 
        the gene pool. This practice has worked very well for millennia and explains 
        why Mexican farmers can plant many different varieties next to one another, 
        without worrying about cross-pollination. Luis Herrera-Estrella, a plant 
        scientist and director of the Center for Research and Advanced Studies 
        in Irapuato, Mexico has noted that &quot;gene flow between commercial 
        and native varieties is a natural process that has been occurring for 
        many decades,&quot; so &quot;there is no scientific basis for believing 
        that out-crossing from biotech crops could endanger [corn] biodiversity.&quot; 
        Indeed, the presence of certain genes from biotech varieties could actually 
        enhance genetic diversity by improving the ability of landrace varieties 
        to resist pests, making them more productive.Given concerns about the spread of bioengineered genes, 
        you might think biotech opponents would welcome innovations designed to 
        keep them confined. But when scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
        and the Delta Pine Land Company did just that, environmentalists were 
        infuriated. The process, called the Technology Protection System (TPS), 
        was designed to make plant seeds sterile by interfering with the development 
        of plant embryos. Hope Shand, research director for the Rural Advancement 
        Foundation International, dubbed it &quot;Terminator Technology.&quot; 
        Jeremy Rifkin calls it &quot;pathological,&quot; and has spread fears 
        that escape of the TPS genes into weed populations through cross-pollination 
        could destroy great swaths of plant life. But in the remote possibility 
        of cross-pollination with weedy relatives, genes for traits such as herbicide 
        tolerance or pest resistance wouldn't create &quot;superweeds,&quot; because 
        the TPS trait would prevent the wild plants from reproducing. Biotechnology 
        companies like TPS because preventing farmers from replanting saved seeds 
        from the prior year's harvest would protect the breeder's considerable 
        investment in the development of new varieties. But critics see TPS as 
        one more facet of global corporate hegemony. Mark Ritchie, president of 
        the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, argues that &quot;It is 
        a threat globally to food security, which is a basic human right.&quot;Like many other concerns about biotechnology, this issue 
        too has a non-biotech analogue. High-yielding hybrid varieties of plants 
        like corn don't breed true, so most crop growers in the U.S. and Western 
        Europe have been buying seed annually for decades. Thus, Technology Protected 
        seeds wouldn't represent a big change in the way many American and European 
        farmers farm. Many farmers in less developed countries have resisted hybrid 
        technology because they prefer to have the option to plant saved seed. 
        Similarly, if farmers didn't want the advantages offered in the enhanced 
        crops protected by TPS, they would be free to buy seeds without the technology 
        protection, just as farmers are free to buy non-hybrid seeds. Nevertheless, 
        some of the biggest biotechnology companies have succumbed to pressures 
        from environmental activists and aid organizations, and have promised 
        not to commercialize the TPS technology. In any case, gene flow from bioengineered 
        crops creating &quot;superweeds&quot; is not very likely.Also consider that the biotech plants themselves are not 
        likely to &quot;escape&quot; from farm fields and become weeds themselves, 
        because crop plants of all varieties are generally not suited for existence 
        in the wild-they need to be pampered. One noteworthy result of the extensive 
        transformation of wild plants into crop varieties was the loss of many 
        traits required for wild existence and the creation of a true dependency 
        of modern crop plants upon human care for their survival. A ten-year study 
        by British scientists found that neither biotech nor conventional crop 
        plants survive well in the wild, and biotech varieties are no more likely 
        than their conventional counterparts to invade wild ecosystems. Researchers 
        have identified at least 12 genetic traits that are necessary for plants 
        to be successful weeds. And crop plants typically have only six of them. 
        For example, one of the most important traits shared by all weeds is their 
        ability to disperse seeds beyond the immediate area. But crop varieties 
        are bred specifically for their ability to hold seeds, and thus have lost 
        their dispersal ability. The fact is that modern cultivated plants, such 
        as corn or soybeans, are incapable of invading and taking over forests 
        and meadows.Naturally, farmers and scientists are nevertheless vigilant 
        against the unlikely chance that plants could out-cross with weeds or 
        that the crop plants themselves could become weedy as a result of adding 
        new traits. But this is the case whether or not a particular plant was 
        modified with conventional or biotech methods. The risk of gene transfer 
        to weeds is similar with both conventional and biotech varieties, and 
        has no relation to the methods used in altering the plants. And because 
        farmers are the first people affected by new weeds, they have a direct 
        and strong incentive to prevent their development. The testing and monitoring 
        of biotech crops, combined with hundreds of years of experience with conventional 
        varieties, provides more than sufficient safeguard that such risks will 
        be minimal and manageable.The effect of biotechnology on crop biodiversity is another 
        often-cited concern. The popularity of high-yielding varieties has narrowed 
        the genetic variation found in major crops, because more and more farmers 
        are planting the same or similar varieties. But biotechnology, if employed 
        strategically, can reverse this trend by permitting the recovery of older 
        varieties that were discarded for lack of certain features (such as resistance 
        to new disease strains). With modern bioengineering techniques, older 
        heirloom and landrace varieties can be modified to add such traits without 
        destroying genetic diversity. Biotechnology researchers are also developing 
        better methods for the preservation of germplasm in laboratories, such 
        as cryopreservation, where plant cells with valuable genes are being stored 
        and thus saved from extinction.Despite the record of safety in biotech and the existence 
        of a strict regulatory system, ideological environmentalists remain obdurate 
        in their opposition to the technology. They seize on even the most tenuous 
        evidence to justify their continued attacks. In 1998, for example, a Scottish 
        scientist named Arpad Pusztai claimed that his research showed a variety 
        of bioengineered potatoes had negative health effects in lab rats. Pusztai 
        fed rats with conventional potatoes and an experimental biotech potato 
        variety that was never put on the market. He claimed to have found that 
        the bioengineered variety damaged the immune systems and stimulated abnormal 
        cell division in the digestive tracts of the lab rats. But many scientists 
        have shown that Pusztai's research methodology was critically flawed, 
        and that no conclusions about the safety of biotech foods can be drawn 
        from his data.Pusztai fed the rats only potatoes, making no attempt to 
        provide nutritionally-balanced diets. So, all the rats in the study experienced 
        adverse health effects. In addition, because Pusztai used an experimental 
        variety and not one that was likely to be commercialized, the bioengineered 
        potatoes were nutritionally impaired, lacking several key vitamins. Any 
        effects that Pusztai might have observed were almost certainly due to 
        these two factors. After an extensive review, the British Royal Society 
        issued a statement explaining why the experiment was fatally flawed, and 
        noted that, &quot;On the basis of this paper, it is wrong to conclude 
        that there are human health concerns with the process of genetic modification 
        itself, or even with the particular genes inserted into these [biotech] 
        potatoes.&quot;To date, no scientist has replicated Pusztai's study with 
        bioengineered potatoes to confirm his results. But a team of Chinese scientists 
        conducted their own studies of bioengineered sweet peppers and tomatoes, 
        and found no such biological changes. A Japanese study likewise found 
        no negative effects on the immune systems of rats fed with biotech soybeans. 
        And nearly two-dozen publications evaluating the effect of various biotech 
        feeds on livestock have found no evidence of harm. Nevertheless, Arpad 
        Pusztai's flawed research has become a touchstone for anti-biotechnology 
        activists, who persist in claiming that it highlights the &quot;dangers&quot; 
        of bioengineered food.Although the Pusztai story made headlines in Europe, it 
        was largely ignored by the mainstream press in the United States. But 
        U.S. activists were provided with their own anti-biotech scare story in 
        1999, when the results of a laboratory test were published finding that 
        pollen from a type of bioengineered corn could kill Monarch butterfly 
        caterpillars. This was hardly news to plant scientists, though, because 
        the corn had been engineered to kill the caterpillars that are the major 
        insect pests of corn. Nevertheless, the paper's publication triggered 
        an immediate frenzy of anti-biotech stories in the media coverage.A USA Today headline declared &quot;Engineered corn kills 
        butterflies.&quot; The Associated Press led with &quot;Lab-Designed Corn 
        May Harm Insects,&quot; a report the Boston Globe published with the headline, 
        &quot;Butterfly deaths linked to altered corn.&quot; A review of the news 
        coverage by one journalism researcher found that, between 1997 and 2000, 
        the New York Times and the London Times used fewer and fewer university-based 
        scientists as sources, and they were more than twice as likely to quote 
        representatives from such activist groups as Greenpeace, the Environmental 
        Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Such adverse coverage 
        primed readers to be skeptical of biotechnology. So, when a second Monarch 
        study, which attempted to simulate field conditions of corn pollen dispersal, 
        found that pollen distribution onto milkweed plants in and around corn 
        fields could be high enough to kill the Monarch caterpillars, plant biotechnology's 
        future looked gloomy.Many scientists, however, pointed out that neither study 
        accurately simulated real world conditions. Corn pollination happens at 
        a different time of year than Monarch larval development, and the amount 
        of pollen that is spread falls dramatically beyond about 20 to 30 feet 
        from the edge of corn fields. Moreover, all types of insects - Monarchs 
        included - would be killed if farmers sprayed synthetic chemical insecticides 
        instead of using the biotech crop varieties. So, most scientists concluded 
        that a tiny effect on Monarchs should not condemn biotech corn. Ultimately, 
        the gloomy scenario predicted by the initial research seemed to be contradicted 
        by several factors, including the fact that Monarch butterfly populations 
        had actually increased since the introduction of biotech corn in the United 
        States.Nevertheless, even the speculation that pollen could contribute 
        to the spread of potentially risky genes moved some scientists to accelerate 
        research into ways of avoiding such a problem in the future. One idea, 
        already under investigation, is to insert transferred genes into a specific 
        part of the plant DNA that controls cellular organelles called chloroplasts, 
        which contain the machinery for photosynthesis. There is no chloroplast 
        DNA in the pollen of most crop plants, so isolating bioengineered genes 
        there would normally be expected to contain the genes and the proteins 
        made by them inside the plant. This chloroplast engineering technique 
        is also being investigated as a potential way to prevent, or reduce, the 
        possibility of bioengineered genes being transferred to weedy relatives 
        through cross-pollination.Fortunately, at least in the case of Bt corn and Monarch 
        butterflies, chloroplast-engineering doesn't appear to be necessary, because 
        doubts about the dire implications of the Monarch butterfly research have 
        been confirmed. Six peer-reviewed papers published in the highly respected 
        Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October 2001, should 
        eliminate concerns about the effects of biotech corn pollen on Monarch 
        caterpillars. The papers describe two full years worth of intensive field 
        research by 29 scientists - including three of five authors of the two 
        critical reports - who found little or no effect of Bt pollen on Monarchs. 
        Other research shows little or no impact on other beneficial insects and 
        soil organisms. Nevertheless, these robust scientific results have not 
        stopped activists from using Monarch costumes in their street-theaters 
        and protests against biotechnology. The Union of Concerned Scientists 
        (a leading ideological environmentalist organization) continues to use 
        images of Monarch butterflies on its web site and fund-raising envelopes 
        as a way of perpetuating the politically useful myth that crop biotechnology 
        is causing environmental damage.What is all too often overlooked by anti-biotech activists, 
        however, is the fact that bioengineered crop varieties have substantial 
        positive impacts on the environment. In addition to the significant reduction 
        in chemical insecticide applications mentioned above, the introduction 
        of biotech crops has made agriculture more efficient, promoting the conservation 
        of important resources. Scientists from Louisiana State University and 
        Auburn University found that when farmers plant bioengineered pest resistant 
        crop varieties, fewer natural resources are consumed to manufacture and 
        transport pesticides. Their study, which examined only pest resistant 
        cotton, estimated that in 2000, 3.4 million pounds of raw materials and 
        1.4 million pounds of fuel oil were saved in the manufacture and distribution 
        of synthetic insecticides. Additionally, 2.16 million pounds of industrial 
        waste were eliminated. On the user end, farmers used 2.4 million gallons 
        less fuel, 93 million gallons less water, and were spared some 41,000 
        10-hour days needed for applying pesticide sprays.Perhaps most important is the fact that the increased productivity 
        generated by bioengineered crop varieties will make it easier to conserve 
        valuable wildlife habitat around the world. The loss and fragmentation 
        of native habitats caused by agricultural development in the poorer regions 
        of the world experiencing the greatest rates of population growth is widely 
        recognized as among the most serious threats to the conservation of biodiversity. 
        Thus, increasing agricultural productivity is an essential environmental 
        goal, and one that would be much easier in a world where agricultural 
        biotechnology is in widespread use.Consider just one example. Rice is the major staple food 
        for about 2.5 billion people, almost all of whom live in the less developed 
        regions of the world where the bulk of 21st century population growth 
        is expected to take place. The International Rice Research Institute estimates 
        that reducing yield losses of rice by just 5 percent worldwide could feed 
        an additional 140 million people. Highly promising field tests in 1999 
        and 2000 showed a bioengineered rice variety to produce 28.9 percent higher 
        yields than conventional hybrid rice varieties. The environmental benefit 
        of just this one biotech variety could be tremendous, if only wrongheaded 
        international regulations inspired by ideological environmentalism do 
        not doom its future. 6. International RulesWhile U.S. regulation of biotechnology is overly strict, 
        it pales in comparison with that in many other countries - particularly 
        those countries that comprise the European Union (EU). Environmental activists 
        in the EU, and in the United Kingdom in particular, have been aided and 
        abetted by a sympathetic media willing to report uncritically activists' 
        scaremongering as a way to sell more newspapers and magazines. Great Britain's 
        Express ran such headlines as &quot;Mutant crops could kill you,&quot; 
        and &quot;Is baby food safe?&quot; The Daily Mail chimed in with &quot;Mutant 
        Crops' Threat To Wildlife,&quot; and the Guardian added &quot;Gene crops 
        could spell extinction for birds.&quot; Thus, the general public in most 
        EU nations has become far more skeptical of biotechnology than the public 
        in the United States. Theories abound regarding why this suspicion arose. 
        But one thing is certain: The greater public sensitivity to the issue 
        of biotechnology has had a direct and deleterious impact on the development 
        of European regulatory policy.Beginning in 1990, the European Commission implemented a 
        set of biotechnology regulations for all EU member countries. The rules 
        are far more onerous than those in the United States, and the regulatory 
        process is complex and difficult to navigate. For example, 18 varieties 
        of biotech crop plants - including varieties of corn, canola, cotton, 
        potato, tomato, and soybean - have been approved for commercial cultivation. 
        But only two varieties - one corn and one soybean - have been approved 
        for use in food. None of this matters much, however, because EU rules 
        also require bioengineered foods to be labeled. And, due to the strong 
        negative opinion of biotech foods held by a sizeable portion of the public, 
        few grocery stores will stock products labeled as being bioengineered.Further problems stem from the fact that new bioengineered 
        plant varieties must be approved by all 15 member nations in the European 
        Union before they can be grown by farmers or sold as food. The objection 
        of any one government can prevent the new variety from being granted EU 
        approval. Since 1998, Austria, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg 
        have blocked the EU's approval of all new bioengineered varieties. In 
        1998, the highest French court suspended commercialization of three biotech 
        corn varieties, even though the French government had supported their 
        approval at the EU level just two years earlier. And in November 1999, 
        the UK government announced a moratorium on commercial planting of bioengineered 
        crops, pending a three-year program of farm-scale evaluations to assess 
        environmental impacts. But test crops are routinely destroyed by anti-biotech 
        activists, delaying completion of the research. And under persistent threat 
        of attack, many farmers are dropping out of the program.To make matter worse, an even stronger set of biotech regulations 
        were being finalized by the European Commission in 2001. The rules, which 
        EU politicians boast to be &quot;the toughest [biotechnology] legislation 
        in the world,&quot; are touted as just the trick to restore public confidence 
        in the technology. But because they are so much more strict, more complex, 
        and more costly, they are likely to make it more difficult to grow and 
        sell biotech crops, not less so. Any positive impact on public opinion 
        is likely to be swamped by the negative impact of trussing biotech researchers 
        and farmers in ribbons of red tape.Although dangerously wrongheaded, the European hysteria 
        over biotech foods initially was seen as a regional problem. Increasingly, 
        however, poor countries in East Asia are taking a far more cautious approach 
        to biotechnology regulation. Japan, which has been a longtime leader in 
        biotechnology research, has recently tightened restrictions on biotech 
        food imports. And the European Union is pushing its overly-strict rules 
        into international treaties affecting countries around the world. The 
        EU was the primary advocate of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, for 
        example, which regulates the planting of bioengineered crops and the international 
        trade in harvested biotech grains, vegetables, and fruits.Finalized in January 2000, the Biosafety Protocol is intended 
        to ensure that the introduction of bioengineered organisms into the environment 
        is &quot;undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to 
        biological diversity.&quot; But it also encourages countries to create 
        unnecessarily severe biotechnology regulations based upon the Precautionary 
        Principle that overemphasize biotechnology's very modest risks and ignore 
        its vast potential benefits. (See the chapter on the Precautionary Principle 
        in this volume.) Thus, laws enacted under the auspices of the Biosafety 
        Protocol are likely to slow the research and development of new biotech 
        products needlessly. Moreover, by making it easier for countries to create 
        scientifically unjustifiable restrictions, the Protocol will undoubtedly 
        be abused by politicians seeking trade protection for their domestic agriculture 
        and food processing industries.Importantly, countries whose exporters are adversely affected 
        by biotechnology rules based on the precautionary principle might be able 
        to challenge them through the World Trade Organization's (WTO) dispute 
        settlement processes. The WTO trade rules generally prohibit countries 
        from restricting trade with environmental or public health laws that are 
        not based upon a scientifically demonstrated risk. For a variety of reasons, 
        however, it is not altogether clear that WTO rules would take precedence 
        over the Biosafety Protocol, nor even that the WTO would be inclined to 
        rule against biotechnology restrictions enacted to meet the Protocol's 
        requirements.Another important feature of the Biosafety Protocol is its 
        requirement that bulk shipments of harvested agricultural products be 
        labeled if they contain any biotech grains, fruits, or vegetables. To 
        comply, farmers, shippers, and other food handlers would have to create 
        hugely expensive segregation and record-keeping mechanisms, and test the 
        foods at each step of the production process, to isolate conventional 
        varieties from bioengineered ones. The EU's Directorate General for Agriculture 
        estimates that the &quot;identity preservation&quot; costs alone for such 
        a labeling requirement would range from 6 percent to 17 percent for commodity 
        grains. The newly proposed European biotechnology law is set to go even 
        further, by requiring not just mandatory labeling, but also &quot;traceability&quot; 
        of biotech foods - an array of technical, labeling, and record-keeping 
        mechanisms that require food processors to keep track of grains, fruits, 
        vegetables, and other ingredients from the plant breeder, to the farm, 
        to the grain handler, and beyond - from dirt to dinner plate.Ultimately, labeling requirements like those enforced in 
        the European Union represent serious obstacles that could all but destroy 
        the affordability of biotechnology products and impede their adoption 
        in the poorer regions of the world that need it most. The 2001 Human Development 
        Report issued by the United Nations' Development Program laments that 
        &quot;The opposition to yield-enhancing [bioengineered] crops in industrial 
        countries with food surpluses could block the development and transfer 
        of those crops to food-deficit countries.&quot; 7. What About Labeling?Regulatory agencies around the world could learn a thing 
        or two from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's treatment of calls 
        for biotech food labeling. Just as in Europe, some activists in the U.S. 
        have called upon the government to mandate the labeling of all bioengineered 
        foods. They assert that consumers have a &quot;right to know&quot; how 
        their foods have been altered, and that a mandatory label would best allow 
        consumers to choose between bioengineered and conventional foods. Biotechnology 
        proponents and free speech advocates, on the other hand, have argued against 
        mandatory labeling because such a requirement would unnecessarily raise 
        food costs, mislead consumers into believing that the labeled products 
        pose a heightened safety risk, and violate constitutional free speech 
        rights.Despite harsh attacks and considerable political pressure 
        from environmentalist and consumerist organizations, the FDA has held 
        firm in its respect for the judgment of the scientific opinion about the 
        value of such labeling. In its 1992 statement of policy, the FDA concluded 
        that there was no reason to believe &quot;that bioengineered foods differ 
        from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.&quot; But sensing some 
        activist support for labeling, the FDA decided to reevaluate that decision 
        in 1999. It held three public meetings and received more than 50,000 written 
        comments on it policy, most of which favored mandatory labeling. Nevertheless, 
        when all was said and done, the agency reaffirmed its decision to not 
        require special labeling of all bioengineered foods.The American Medical Association, the Institute of Food 
        Technologists, and others have consistently argued that there is no scientific 
        justification for special labeling of biotechnology-derived foods per 
        se. Thus, the FDA only requires labeling of biotech foods if the genetic 
        modifications change the food in a way that has a real impact on consumer 
        health. Examples would include alterations in the plants that could increase 
        the level of naturally-occurring but potentially-harmful chemicals; introduce 
        new substances, such as potential allergens, into foods that did not previously 
        have them; or change the nutritional composition or a food's storage or 
        preparation requirements. To date, no bioengineered food products put 
        on the market in the United States have required such labeling. Though, 
        the very first bioengineered fruit, the Calgene corporation's FlavrSavr 
        slow-ripening tomato, carried a voluntary notice that it had been engineered, 
        and it was initially well received by consumers who were willing to pay 
        a premium for the improved flavor promised on the labels.Similarly, the FDA believes that requiring food labels to 
        indicate the presence of bioengineered ingredients could mislead consumers 
        into believing that the foods differ in safety or nutrition, when they 
        do not. Labels are a valuable source of information for consumers, so 
        U.S. federal law prohibits label statements that are likely to be misunderstood 
        by consumers, even if not technically false. For example, labeling the 
        vegetable broccoli as being &quot;cholesterol-free&quot; could run afoul 
        of the FDA's rules because no broccoli contains cholesterol, and such 
        a statement could suggest to consumers that while the particular broccoli 
        is &quot;cholesterol-free,&quot; other broccoli is not. Thus, rather than 
        serving an educational or &quot;right to know&quot; purpose, mandatory 
        labels on biotech foods could be misunderstood by consumers as a warning 
        about some important difference.A government mandated label on all bioengineered foods would 
        also raise important First Amendment free speech issues. In 1996, a U.S. 
        Court of Appeals, in the case of International Dairy Foods Association, 
        et al. v. Amestoy, ruled unconstitutional a Vermont statute requiring 
        the labeling of dairy products derived from cows treated with a bioengineered 
        growth hormone, noting that food labeling cannot be mandated simply because 
        some people would like to have the information. &quot;Absent . . . some 
        indication that this information bears on a reasonable concern for human 
        health or safety or some other sufficiently substantial governmental concern, 
        the manufacturers cannot be compelled to disclose it.&quot; In other words, 
        to be constitutional, labeling mandates must be based in science and confined 
        to requiring disclosure of information that is relevant to health or nutrition.Ultimately, though, consumers do not need to rely on mandatory 
        labeling of biotechnology-enhanced foods to truly have a choice. Real 
        world examples show that market forces are fully capable of supplying 
        information about the methods in which foods and other products are produced 
        if consumers truly demand it. Kosher and organic production certification 
        are prime examples. Neither kosher nor organic labels convey relevant 
        information about the safety or nutritional value of those products, but 
        both meet a demand by consumers for information about the way the foods 
        were produced.The same can be said about biotechnology. Some producers 
        of non-bioengineered products are already making label statements to convey 
        that information to consumers. And the FDA recently published proposed 
        guidelines to assist producers in voluntarily labeling both biotech and 
        non-biotech foods in a way that is not misleading. In addition, under 
        U.S. Department of Agriculture requirements, food products labeled as 
        &quot;organic&quot; can not contain bioengineered ingredients. Consequently, 
        consumers wishing to purchase non-biotech foods need only look for certified 
        organic products. 8. The Road AheadSince the introduction of the very first bioengineered crop 
        plant on the market in 1994, farmers, consumers, and food processors have 
        experienced considerable benefits - from lower production costs to reduced 
        pesticide use. But these benefits are dwarfed by the vast potential of 
        agricultural biotechnology to aid in combating the even more serious problem 
        of global food security.During the next 50 years, global population may rise by 
        50 percent to nine billion people, with nearly all of that growth coming 
        in the poorest regions of the world. Fortunately, mankind will face the 
        extraordinary challenge of hunger and poverty with the very powerful tool 
        of crop biotechnology. As many have noted, the problem of hunger and malnutrition 
        is not now primarily caused by a global shortage of food. At current levels, 
        world food production could provide more than 2,600 calories every day 
        for all six billion people on earth. The primary causes of hunger during 
        this century have been political unrest and corrupt governments, poor 
        transportation and infrastructure, and, of course, poverty. All of these 
        problems and more will need to be addressed if we are to truly conquer 
        worldwide hunger. But ensuring true food security in a world of eight 
        or nine billion will require greater productivity.As population increases, farmers must be able to grow more 
        and more nutritious food on less land. Biotechnology can provide one very 
        powerful way to do just that. Without such gains in productivity and nutrition, 
        the growing need for food will require plowing under millions of hectares 
        of wilderness - an environmental tragedy surely worse than any imagined 
        by biotechnology's opponents. Furthermore, 650 million of the world's 
        poorest people live in rural areas where agriculture is the primary economic 
        activity. They are highly dependent upon the income that comes from growing 
        and selling crops, so boosting the productivity of their crops would make 
        a tremendous contribution to the battle against hunger and poverty.Fortunately, the next generation of bioengineered products, 
        now in research labs around the world, is poised to bring improved nutrition, 
        longer shelf life, and greater productivity in the poor soils and harsh 
        climates that tend to be characteristic of impoverished regions. And many 
        of these products are being developed primarily or exclusively for poor 
        subsistence farmers and consumers in less developed countries. Some improved 
        plants include the same or similar traits for resistance to insects and 
        plant diseases that are now used in industrialized countries, but in crops 
        that are grown more typically in less developed nations, including rice, 
        corn, cassava, sweet potato, and tropical fruits, such as bananas and 
        papayas. Other bioengineered traits include faster maturation, drought 
        tolerance, the ability to be irrigated with salty water or to grow in 
        soil contaminated with excess salt, tolerance to extremes of heat and 
        cold, and tolerance to soils with high acidity that are common in the 
        tropics. These traits for greater tolerance to environmental conditions 
        would be tremendously advantageous to poor farmers in less developed countries, 
        and no one more so than in Africa.Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa never saw the same productivity 
        gains that countries in Asia and South America enjoyed from the Green 
        Revolution. The primary focus of Green Revolution plant breeders was on 
        improving such crops as rice, wheat, and corn, which are not widely grown 
        in Africa. Plus, much of the African dry lands have little rainfall and 
        no potential for irrigation, which play an essential role in productivity 
        success stories of crops such as Asian rice. And the remoteness of many 
        African villages and poor transportation infrastructure in landlocked 
        African countries make it difficult for African farmers to obtain agricultural 
        chemical inputs such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides, even 
        if they had the money to purchase them. Thus, by packaging technological 
        inputs within seeds, biotechnology can provide the same, or better, productivity 
        advantage as chemical or mechanical inputs, but in much more user-friendly 
        manner. Farmers could be able to control insect pests, viral or bacterial 
        pathogens, extremes of heat or drought, and poor soil quality, just by 
        planting their crops.Still, anti-biotech activists like Vandana Shiva and Miguel 
        Altieri argue that poor farmers in less developed nations will never benefit 
        from biotechnology, because it is controlled by multinational corporations. 
        Altieri says that &quot;Most innovations in agricultural biotechnology 
        have been profit-driven rather than need-driven. The real thrust of the 
        genetic engineering industry is not to make third world agriculture more 
        productive, but rather to generate profits.&quot; But that sentiment is 
        not shared by the thousands of academic and public sector researchers 
        actually working on biotech applications in those countries. Cyrus Ndiritu, 
        former director of the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, argues 
        that, &quot;It is not the multinationals that have a stranglehold on Africa. 
        It is hunger, poverty and deprivation. And if Africa is going to get out 
        of that, it has got to embrace [biotechnology].&quot;Researchers are also improving the nutritional quality of 
        plants, by boosting their ability to produce important vitamins, minerals, 
        and proteins. The diet of more than three billion people worldwide includes 
        inadequate levels of many important micronutrients such as iron and vitamin 
        A. Deficiency in just these two micronutrients can result in severe anemia, 
        impaired intellectual development, blindness, and even death. Fortunately, 
        a substantial amount of research into improving the nutritional value 
        of staple crops is well underway. Perhaps the most promising recent advance 
        in this area is the development of a rice variety that has been genetically 
        enhanced to add beta carotene, which is converted in the human body to 
        vitamin A. By boosting the availability of vitamin A in developing world 
        diets, this Golden Rice could help prevent as many as a million deaths 
        per year and eliminate numerous other health problems.But for critics of biotechnology like India's Vandana Shiva, 
        and New York food journalist Michael Pollan, Golden Rice is just a &quot;Great 
        Yellow Hype&quot; - another ploy by multinational biotechnology corporations 
        to get the world hooked on bioengineering. Never mind that the research, 
        which added genes taken from daffodils and a bacterium to rice, was funded 
        primarily by the New York-based Rockefeller Foundation, which has promised 
        to make the rice available to developing-world farmers at little or no 
        cost. Ismail Serageldin, director of the UN-sponsored Consultative Group 
        on International Agricultural Research, asks opponents, &quot;Do you want 
        2 to 3 million children a year to go blind and 1 million to die of vitamin 
        A deficiency, just because you object to the way golden rice was created?&quot; 
        Apparently, the critics find it important to oppose biotechnology in any 
        form.But the benefits of agricultural biotechnology will by no 
        means go exclusively to less developed countries. In industrialized nations 
        such as the United States, consumers and farmers will continue to share 
        in the benefits of improved productivity and reduced agricultural chemicals 
        use. Agricultural biotechnology can also be used to develop healthier 
        cooking oils that are low in saturated fats, vegetables with higher levels 
        of cancer-fighting antioxidants, and foods with better taste and longer 
        shelf life. It is also possible to use bioengineered plants to create 
        biodegradable plastics, better medicines, and to help clean up hazardous 
        wastes.Although the complexity of biological systems means that 
        some of these promised benefits of biotechnology are many years away, 
        the biggest threats that consumers awaiting the bioengineering revolution 
        currently face are restrictive policies stemming from unwarranted fears 
        that the technology poses unique and dangerous threats to human health 
        or the environment. No one thinks that biotech innovators should not be 
        cautious, as all new technologies have both risks and benefits. But appropriate 
        regulatory approaches involve weighing the risks and benefits of moving 
        into the future against the risks and benefits of forgoing the new technology 
        - not pointing to hypothetical risks and saying no. The bottom line is 
        that scaremongering and over-regulation are slowing progress in agricultural 
        biotechnology and inflating the costs of research and development. Ultimately, 
        this hurts both poor farmers struggling to feed their families and the 
        natural environment upon which we all depend.------------Gregory Conko is director of food safety policy with 
        the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. C.S. Prakash is 
        professor of plant molecular genetics and director of the Center for Plant 
        Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University in Alabama. The authors 
        are also co-founders of the AgBioWorld Foundation. 


              









Document Number: 7725 

Bioterror and biosafetyThe Hindu November 01, 2001
        C.S. Prakash, Tuskegee, U.S. Sir, - In the opinion column 'Bioterror and biosafety' (Oct. 
        19), Ms. Vandana Shiva exploits the recent anthrax cases to advance her 
        anti-science agenda. By painting a gloomy scenario against economic freedom, 
        she calls for an isolationist and backward policy for India. The use of these biological agents by malicious individuals 
        to inflict harm and fear on an innocent public is evil. But for Ms. Shiva 
        to use this unimaginable evil and horror to rail against imaginary ills 
        of recombinant DNA technology, trade liberalisation and patenting system 
        is intellectual chicanery. Her argument is akin to saying that because 
        terrorists used planes and the mail system to cause destruction, we must 
        ban aircraft and the postal system - that is throwing the baby out with 
        the bath water! Bioterrorists do not need sophisticated recombinant DNA 
        technology to spread germ or fear. Simple microbiology would suffice. Civilised societies can protect themselves against terror 
        by continued development and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Effective 
        antibiotics to treat anthrax were developed after many years of research 
        and testing. This required a systematic use of scientific knowledge, a 
        patent protection system to stimulate innovation, and a free-market system 
        that rewards such risk- taking - all of which Ms. Shiva despises. The 
        real bioterror plaguing India has to do with poverty. Millions of people 
        die every year by natural, but preventable, causes through diseases such 
        as cholera, malaria, AIDS and TB. These diseases can only be fought through 
        economic progress and development of modern medical systems.  


              









Document Number: 7331 

Cooperation Can Stop Starvation By C.S. PrakashSuccessful Farming
        January 15, 2001Scientists not only are standing in support of biotechnology but also 
        are urging that its benefits be extended to the people who need it most: 
        hungry people in the developing world. 
      More than 2,800 eminent scientists 
        (including three Nobel laureates) in recent months have signed a statement 
        of support. Expert panels with the World Health Organization, the Food 
        and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Organization 
        for Economic Cooperation and Development have made strong statements supporting 
        the safety of the crops. Numerous scientific societies are passing proclamations 
        in support.Recently, six national science academies (U.S., Britain, Brazil, China, 
        India and Mexico) and the Third World Academy of Sciences, issued a joint 
        statement, not only endorsing biotechnology but urging companies, governments 
        and charities to extend it to the developing world. The need is greatThe need for new technologies is great, as the seven academics describe: 
      Today, there are some 800 million people who do not have access to 
          sufficient food to meet their needs. Malnutrition plays a significant role in half of the nearly 12 million 
          deaths each year of children under five in developing countries. In addition to lack of food, deficiencies in micro-nutrients (especially 
          vitamin A, iodine and iron) are widespread. Global climate change and alterations in land use will exacerbate 
          the problems of regional production and demands for food. In developing countries about 650 million of the poorest people live 
          in rural areas where the local production of food is the main economic 
          activity. Coupled with that great need is the fact that the rate of food production 
        globally has dropped from 3% per annum in the 1970s to 1% per annum now. 
        Burgeoning population, especially in the developing world, will soon outstrip 
        food production.Scientists are urging private and public funding and cooperative research 
        to ensure that the benefits of biotechnology are extended to solving great 
        needs among needy people. They urge a blending of market-driven and public-funded 
        research that will provide benefits where little or no profit opportunity 
        exists. The scientists challenge developers of genetically modified crops to 
        make sure that their efforts address these needs, but they make it clear 
        that private companies cannot be expected to do this work alone. "Governments 
        should fully recognize that there will always be public interest research 
        requiring public investment, even in the market-driven economy." The seven academies say private companies must "share with the public 
        sector more of their capacity for innovation" and that "care should be 
        taken so that research is not inhibited by over-protection of intellectual 
        property" (patents on genetic discoveries).  Development of golden riceRecently Monsanto Co. announced that it would provide royalty-free licenses 
        for any of its technologies that can help further the development of "golden 
        rice." The new rice, being developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of 
        Technology with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, holds promise 
        to help hundreds of thousands of children who suffer from life-threatening 
        diseases and blindness related to vitamin A deficiency. Zeneca, a British life sciences company, has pledged to provide regulatory, 
        advisory and research expertise to bring the "golden rice" to developing 
        countries. There are many other examples of industry collaboration with 
        governments and public agencies. Today, when a "new green revolution" is urgently needed, the scientists 
        bemoan the fact that the balance of research has shifted to the private 
        sector. The scientists call on charitable foundations and governments 
        to increase their support of research into new agricultural technologies. 
      Some well-endowed foundations direct millions of dollars annually to 
        environmental action groups sworn to oppose biotechnology. In addition 
        many governments put up roadblocks to research, field trials and collaborations 
        with industry.Instead of this, everyone who likes to eat should be working for improved 
        food security.  C.S. Prakash is professor and director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research at Tuskegee University in Alabama.  


              









Document Number: 7894 

31 Critical Questions in Agricultural 
        BiotechnologyIn March 2000, Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute, 
        a progressive free-market think-tank in India, sent questions concerning 
        agricultural biotechnology to the AgBioView listserv, with the hope that 
        expert members of the list would be able to address them. He received a great number of responses, which he compiled 
        and edited with the help of Andrew Apel and Gregory Conko. Below are the 
        31 questions, along with answers from members of AgBioWorld. 1. QUESTIONS ABOUT FOOD SECURITY2. QUESTIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION3. QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN HEALTH 4. QUESTIONS ABOUT SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUESQUESTIONS ABOUT FOOD SECURITYQ 1: Is genetic engineering (GE) the only way of increasing food production?No, it is not. It is only one of the tools we can use to increase food 
        production. However, it is a powerful tool that will significantly increase 
        our ability to produce the quantities of food that our growing world population 
        will need.Whether the genetic alteration is done haphazardly by selective breeding 
        or in a more systematic way by directly altering the genome, increasing 
        the useable food content of an organism requires some form of genetic 
        engineering. For grains and oilseed crops, increasing food production most often means 
        the ability to produce better yields under the same conditions or, more 
        generally, the ability to better resist weeds, insects and diseases. Many 
        important improvements have been achieved by ordinary breeding, but it 
        is a slow process. Given the rate at which the demand for food is likely 
        to increase in future years, substantial productivity enhancements will 
        still need to be made. In conjunction with other methods, GE can help 
        agronomists make the productivity gains necessary to supply enough food 
        at reasonable prices. It is thus not the only way, but it 
        could in the future become the most efficient and economical way.Another way to answer this question is to consider the growth in world 
        population over the course of the past century and the impact that has 
        had on farmlands. World population in 1900 was roughly 1 billion people. 
        In the year 2000, world population is about 6 billion people. And world 
        population is projected to grow to 9 or 10 billion people by the year 
        2050. Until the Green Revolution spread to South America and then to Asia, 
        beginning about 40 years ago, the only way for developing world farmers 
        to keep up with population growth was to convert forests, jungles and 
        deserts into farmland. More productive crop varieties developed during 
        the Green Revolution allowed farmers to grow vastly more food on only 
        slightly more land. It is, of course, possible to increase crop yields by simply planting 
        and harvesting more crops. This can be done by planting them more densely 
        or increasing the number of acres devoted to growing them. Other methods 
        include increasing the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and 
        irrigation, each of which have well-known risks. Though effective at boosting 
        yields, vast monoculture regions of intensively farmed land have had significant 
        ecological affects, especially including the loss of biodiversity. Unless 
        a viable alternative is devised the destruction of important ecosystems 
        will increase as the need for more food production increases.In the developed Western countries, advances such as hybridization, agricultural 
        chemicals, and farm machinery have boosted production per acre of farmland 
        to the point where it appears that the amount of food per acre has reached 
        the limit of the ability of crop plants to convert sunlight to energy. 
        As these western countries produce all the food they need &ndash; and are likely 
        to need in the foreseeable future &ndash; their problems are not the same as 
        those in the undeveloped countries, where poverty requires that low-cost 
        solutions be implemented.Local populations in the developing world will have to rely on low cost 
        solutions that do not require unrealistic practices such as local farmers 
        buying expensive chemicals or equipment. However, biotechnology could 
        provide seed to farmers that is better adapted to their cultivation requirements. 
        The engineered seeds will have the added benefit of pest resistance and 
        tolerance to extreme environmental conditions such as drought that are 
        needed to sustain village farms. While pondering this question, it is also important to bear in mind that 
        there is a danger that people will confuse prospective benefits with ones 
        that have already been realized. Although there is ample reason to believe 
        that GE may in the long term have substantial benefits for food production, 
        there are many hurdles still to be overcome, both scientific and political. 
      This puts the proponents of GE in the dangerous position of over-selling 
        the technology, and thus looking foolish when on occasions it fails to 
        live up to its promise, or fails to do so quickly enough. The opponents 
        of GE are equally in danger of denying access to a potentially useful 
        technology for many people who might benefit from it. Q 2: Is it possible to deal with widespread malnutrition with genetic 
        engineering?Malnutrition is a complex phenomenon, involving both the quantity and 
        quality of food, as well as the distribution of that food among a growing 
        population. Genetic engineering is the latest in a number of strategies that have 
        collectively been termed the &quot;Green Revolution,&quot; which resulted 
        in an enormous increase in the amount of food that is produced on the 
        arable lands of the earth. It also prevented widespread starvation, which 
        has been forecast at various times over the past half century.Fundamentally, the problem of malnutrition must be treated with adequate 
        food. We don&rsquo;t necessarily have to use genetic engineering, but it truly 
        could help. In many cases, biotechnology can certainly help farmers get higher yields 
        from their land. If biotechnology is used to provide low cost solutions 
        to improve village farms, then it can help to address world poverty. One 
        example is efforts by such groups as the CGIAR centers around the world, 
        or by WARDA in West Africa, or the potato center in Lima, Peru, to develop 
        genetically engineered pest resistant seeds for distribution to local 
        farmers. Planting rice, banana, wheat, or potato that are hardier or resistant 
        to major diseases, for example, will help provide improved yields while 
        reducing the need for chemical applications. The best recent success story is papaya in Hawaii, a very important crop 
        for the local economy. A virus, called papaya ring spot virus, devastated 
        farmers in Hawaii and many trees had to be cut down. The cost of planting 
        replacement trees was quite high, however, and many farmers lost their 
        livelihood. Researchers provided virus resistant trees to farmers at little 
        or no cost, and crop production was restored. If this model can be applied 
        to vegetable crops, tubers, and grains, biotechnology can have a major 
        impact on food production without dramatically increasing costs to small 
        farmers. Somewhat related to the question of the quantity of food is its quality: 
        that is, whether it delivers the vitamins and minerals required to maintain 
        human health. Here, too, genetic engineering can help. Recently, rice 
        has been developed with added beta carotene (which is converted into vitamin 
        A in the human body) and increased iron levels. Crops with higher protein 
        levels and better amino acid balance are possible, as are crops that can 
        enhance the bioavailable (or useable) content of other important micronutrients. 
        These are just a few examples.Even with plentiful, nutritious food, malnutrition also results from 
        the inability of some to buy food. So proper nutrition is also a matter 
        of family income and the price of food. Generally speaking, the more food 
        produced, the lower the price and thus the less income needed for sufficient 
        nutrition. By making agriculture more productive, GE can help increase 
        the supply of food and therefore help keep prices low. Making village 
        farms more productive can also help generate income if productivity grows 
        large enough for small farmers to sell food. However, that&rsquo;s a tremendous 
        task, so generating sufficient productivity gains to cure the income problem 
        is unlikely in the near term.It is reasonable to consider economic deprivation to be the major cause 
        of starvation in the world. By most estimates, the Earth currently produces 
        enough food to provide enough calories and nutrition to feed its entire 
        population. However, food can only flow to the hungry if they could afford 
        to pay for it. Consequently, giving small farmers the tools to become 
        more productive can help greatly.It&rsquo;s important to note, however, that given current estimates, the farmers 
        around the world only produce enough to feed the current population at 
        such levels. If world population grows to 9 or 10 billion in the next 
        50 years (as the United Nations projects), hunger will become both an 
        economic and physical reality if world food output is not increased.Here again, access by the hungry to the improved crops now being developed 
        (many with the help of genetic engineering) could depend on the financial 
        status of the people who most need access to such innovations. The costs 
        of developing such crops are high and the potential market is very poor. 
        Thus, without major shifts in funding that would make the technology available 
        at low cost to those who need it, the potential benefits are unlikely 
        to be realized.Developers of the beta carotene (Vitamin A) -enhanced golden rice have 
        recently announced that they will donate that technology and improved 
        selectable marker technology to developing nations. This project was funded 
        by a consortium of public research institutions, private corporations, 
        and charitable foundations. In addition, many research institutions in 
        developing countries are funded by the US and European governments and 
        by the United Nations with the aim of generating crop plants for developing 
        countries.If farmers are to produce enough food for their local populations, instead 
        of relying on sparse currency with which to buy food, they need the products 
        of modern biotechnology to make this possible &ndash; this includes crops produced 
        with genetic engineering and other sophisticated biological technologies. 
        Ironically, advocates of equality in food access come out in strong opposition 
        to the very technologies that could help free poor populations from handouts 
        or &lsquo;redistribution&rsquo; of the food supply, which seems to be their preferred 
        solution. An old saying has it that to feed a village for a day, give 
        them fish. But to feed them for a lifetime, teach them how to fish. Shall 
        we give the developing food for a day, or teach them how to use modern 
        biotechnology and feed them for a lifetime? Q 3: If food security is primarily a question of distribution insecurity, 
        then how can increased production using GE address the question of food 
        security?If you increase production of food in an area, you reduce the need for 
        food to be purchased and transported to that area. Insofar as genetic 
        engineering allows people to become more self reliant in food production, 
        their dependence upon potentially expensive transportation and redistribution 
        schemes is decreased. A complex approach to the question requires us to look at increasing 
        food production without changing distribution channels. Producing more 
        grains worldwide will not by itself increase the availability of grains 
        to underdeveloped nations. The result is the coincidence of regional shortages 
        in some areas and regional surpluses in other areas. The availability of crops that can grow in more places and produce more 
        nutritious food can help people become independent of redistribution or 
        handouts. GE seeds allow farmers to produce food more productively, less 
        expensively, and closer to the consumers. Land, which once would not grow 
        corn, may now grow drought resistant strains. Other examples are easy 
        to imagine. In several recent famines, the countries concerned were still net exporters 
        of food&mdash;in other words, the countries were producing enough food to feed 
        their populations but the people concerned couldn&rsquo;t afford to buy it and 
        the countries had massive debts to service, as well as poor internal infrastructure 
        and often problems with high level corruption. This is a serious issue because, based upon current projections, the 
        rate of increase in crop yields from conventional breeding methods is 
        not sufficient to maintain the projected increase in the world&rsquo;s population. 
        Therefore even if distribution problems could be solved (a very large 
        if) there could still be great difficulties.QUESTIONS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONQ 4: How can GE ensure environmental sustainability as well as increase 
        food production when pressure on environmental resources like land and 
        water is growing?There are two ways in which GE can help promote environmental sustainability. 
        One way is to increase total food production, thereby making it unnecessary 
        to put marginal or environmentally sensitive areas under plow. The other 
        way is to employ crop production methods that place fewer burdens on the 
        environment. First, consider productivity. Growing more food on a given area of land 
        means that for any level of output (whether it&rsquo;s enough to feed six billion 
        people today, or nine billion people in 50 years) more land is available 
        for other purposes. That&rsquo;s important, because adding new cropland has 
        historically meant plowing under virgin wilderness area. Greater productivity 
        can be achieved with a combination of processes, including more traditional 
        methods, as described in the answer to Question 1 above. But GE technology 
        is an important tool that allows agronomists to alter plants more quickly 
        and more precisely than do older techniques.Next, consider the ability to use less agricultural chemicals, including 
        pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Rainwater 
        tends to make these chemicals run-off farms into rivers, streams, and 
        sensitive lands, sometimes upsetting the ecological balance of those systems. 
        Agronomists know, however, that some crop plants, such as certain legumes, 
        have the ability to &quot;fix&quot; nitrogen, absorbing it from the air. 
        If we can splice the ability to fix nitrogen into other crop plants, we 
        could reduce the need for synthetic chemical fertilizers and make a giant 
        step in sustainability. Similarly, if we can increase disease resistance in crop plants, that 
        added trait would allow farmers to reduce the use of fungicides and improve 
        no-till methods. Genetically engineered plants that are drought resistant, 
        or enable the use of less toxic herbicides could also help achieve these 
        goals. Glyphosate tolerance has shown itself to be a sound technology 
        in this respect, as glyphosate is far less toxic than many other herbicides 
        and becomes effectively inactive within a few days after spraying.There are currently seed banks established around the world at CIMMYT, 
        CGIAR, and other research centers that were established to maintain diverse 
        germplasms that may provide useful traits for cultivated species. These 
        seed banks are also a source for biotechnologists to identify useful genes 
        that they can move between related species to improve crops. For example 
        the Mlo gene was recently cloned from barley and it provides resistance 
        to powdery mildew. Powdery mildew is a problem worldwide in cereals and 
        other crops. GE allows us to take that gene and introduce it into other 
        cereals. Then we can give that seed to farmers and the resistance should 
        restore productivity in fields that are typically devastated by the disease.An important part of the question is whether this technology will &quot;ensure&quot; 
        sustainability. There is no reason to believe that GE or any one technique 
        will by itself ensure environmental sustainability. There are numerous 
        factors that lead to environmental degradation. For instance, the emissions 
        and other waste created by an affluent, formerly starving nation could 
        have a considerable impact. However, it is highly likely that the use 
        of GE technology can help promote sustainability quite significantly. 
      Q 5: Won&rsquo;t herbicide-tolerant and pesticidal GE crops lead to intensified 
        use of agro-chemicals?Herbicide tolerance enables the use of fewer types of herbicides (reducing 
        usually to one) and reduces the number of applications needed. Fewer, 
        higher doses of the resisted herbicide are possible without damaging the 
        crop. The end result is that close to the same amount of the resisted 
        herbicide is used but many other herbicides are eliminated&mdash;an overall 
        reduction.Most current complaints about pesticides and genetic engineering concern 
        the introduction of genes allowing the plants to produce biological insecticides 
        such as Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. This, of course, directly 
        reduces the need for applied synthetic chemical pesticides.For example, Bt crops have saved about 1,000,000 liters of insecticide 
        applications in the US during the past 4 years.Q 6: How can GE deal with possible environmental threats such as &quot;super 
        weeds&quot;?The transfer of herbicide resistance from crop to weed is a possibility, 
        and one that presumably increases with the likelihood of cross-pollination. 
        However, agronomists know that many weeds and some crop plants develop 
        resistance to herbicides through natural selection and evolution, over 
        long-term exposure to certain herbicides. It is currently unclear whether 
        the transfer of herbicide resistance is greater for genetically engineered 
        resistance than the type of resistance that arises as a result of natural 
        selection. No matter what methods of weed control we use, the weeds that survive 
        become &quot;super weeds&quot; for that method. An example is silver leafed 
        nightshade in cotton fields. Before herbicides, persistence of silver 
        leafed nightshade was a different type of problem: that is, there were 
        no resistance issues, but farmers had to hoe the weeds twice to keep them 
        under control. Soon after farmers started using herbicides, resistant 
        strains began to arise. The same is true for every herbicide or management 
        practice. Resistance to herbicides is an on going problem and it will 
        require the continued development of new herbicides regardless of what 
        technology we use. GE is just another tool. However, many of the newer 
        herbicides developed over the past several years have much less impact 
        on the environment than the ones they replaced. On balance, that should 
        be viewed as a positive step.Neal Stewart is a scientist who studies the transgene movement and persistence 
        in crops and weedy wild relatives. He and his team are attempting to make 
        &quot;superweeds&quot; by putting transgenes in wild relatives of transgenic 
        crops and then looking at the ecological performance. There is no doubt, 
        he says, that transgenes will move into weeds. It is less clear what the 
        ecological consequence would be. It is clear that herbicide tolerance 
        genes will move from plant to plant&mdash;such a case could cause trouble for 
        the farmer who is trying to control an herbicide tolerant weed in a field 
        with herbicide tolerant crop. Stewart suspects that, using GE to make 
        better crop plants could make slightly more problematic weeds. However, 
        he doesn&rsquo;t think that using GE will create the superweeds that many GE 
        critics predict.Thus far, no threats from &quot;superweeds&quot; have arisen from genetically 
        engineered plants. If there is a concern about genes crossing into weedy relatives, there 
        are ways to prevent it or mitigate against it. However, the first example 
        of this&mdash;what has been dubbed &quot;terminator&quot; technology&mdash;was widely 
        criticized by those who did not understand how it could be used to prevent 
        gene flow into relatives.It appears as though criticism of &quot;terminator&quot; technology arose 
        less from a misunderstanding of the technology than from a realization 
        that it would allow companies to commercialize a process that would prevent 
        farmers from saving seeds for planting in subsequent years. There was 
        an enormous protest about this, and most of the major agricultural biotech 
        companies have agreed not to develop the technologies further. [Editor&rsquo;s 
        Note: I was actually present at a scientific conference when the adoption 
        of this technology was first announced, and many of the scientists there 
        were quite literally horrified. -CSP]Q 7: How can undesirable &quot;genetic drifts&quot; be controlled?The ecological impact of GE crops is a complex issue, and a case-by-case 
        evaluation of crops and biogeography is necessary.For example, corn has no sexually compatible relatives in areas outside 
        of Mexico and southward in the Americas. In other areas the possibility 
        of genetic drift of transgenes does not exist. In this case, there is 
        no problem.In Canada, many wild relatives of canola exist in and near agricultural 
        lands. The drift of genetic traits such as herbicide resistance (transgenic 
        and non transgenic varieties exist) that are selected for in an agricultural 
        setting are a real possibility in such a case. Wild relatives of rice exist in many parts of the world where agricultural 
        varieties are grown, and genetic drift is prevalent. The movement of (trans)genes 
        could bring genetic material for nutritional enhancement or increased 
        seed production into weeds.The primary question, however, should not be whether gene flow will occur, 
        but whether the movement of genes from crops to weedy relatives would 
        provide the weeds with a selective advantage. If it confers no advantage 
        on the weeds, then weeds with the new genes would not out-compete other 
        wild plants, and the gene flow is unlikely to pose any real problem. Q 8: Shouldn&rsquo;t biotech companies bear total liability for any harm 
        to environment and public health?In the US and most other countries, standard product safety laws already 
        cover this issue. Furthermore, there is the opportunity for harm to be 
        redressed by lawsuits. In other words, biotech companies are clearly liable 
        for harm to the environment and public health as well. Such responsibilities are the same as they have previously been: Inventors 
        are liable for the safe operation of their products; growers are responsible 
        for following guidelines to safeguard the environment; processors are 
        responsible for safe, hygienic handling of materials; and consumers are 
        responsible for knowing their own health concerns (e.g. allergies to foods 
        like wheat or dairy) and consuming prudently. No one party has &lsquo;total&rsquo; 
        responsibility.QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN HEALTHQ 10: Shouldn&rsquo;t it be possible to demand zero risks from GE?We do not demand zero health or environmental risks from anything else&mdash;including 
        medical treatment, providing water and power to cities, building cheap 
        housing for poor people. In all these cases, risks are minimized and policed 
        to an acceptable safety standard. But these things can never truly be 
        made &quot;risk free&quot;.The question we should ask is whether there is evidence of risk or harm 
        beyond what we are already experiencing when we grow traditionally bred 
        crops and eat the foods made from those traditionally bred crops. There 
        is no hard evidence that food or environmental safety is any less than 
        what we are used to with non-engineered crops or foods.Conventional breeding mixes tens of thousands of genes from two (or more) 
        organisms together, and involves sorting through many progeny for the 
        desired characteristics. The functions of many if not all the genes being 
        introduced to each other are not known. Consider the genes that are being 
        introduced to each other in two hypothetical cases:Conventional Breeding mixes 40,000 unknown genes from one plant with 
        40,000 unknown genes from another plant.Genetic Engineering mixes just 1-10 genes with known functions with the 
        40,000 unknown genes of the recipient plant. Of course, zero risk cannot be promised by any technology, nor can it 
        be ensured by preventing the use of any technology. Even with these older 
        methods of breeding, there have been some unwanted traits: For example, 
        wheat, a hexaploid, is allergenic to many people. Nevertheless, the risk/benefit 
        assessment of the traditional cross-breeding experiment (the last 10,000-plus 
        years of agriculture) can be examined: our population has enjoyed substantial 
        biological success. Similarly, consider what is the known about the risks associated with 
        pesticide use. What are we gaining by having a GE seed that requires less 
        pesticide? Next, evaluate if the risk of GE seed is known or unknown, 
        probable or implausible. The analysis here should focus on the risks associated 
        with the practices GE will help curtail. We need not forget about the possible benefit of GE foods. For example 
        if you can increase nutrient content in rice resulting in less disease 
        or blindness, what risk are you willing to take to solve a known problem? 
        Too often when dealing with GE issues we forget to look at the dangers 
        we are reducing with the new inputs as well as forget to look at the tremendous 
        societal advantages that can come from GE seeds. Only when these critical 
        factors are examined alongside any possible risk of GE technology, can 
        we determine our risk tolerance level. Q 9: What about the health risks from GE, such as antibiotic resistance?GE critics have raised the possibility that anti-biotic resistant genes 
        used in genetic engineering, could spread to harmful bacteria, making 
        infectious diseases difficult or impossible to treat. The problem we currently 
        have with antibiotic resistant bacteria is principally a product of the 
        indiscriminate use of antibiotics in humans. However, there are some issues 
        to consider with GE.Sometimes, engineered plant cells don&rsquo;t take up the genes for a desired 
        trait, or don&rsquo;t take them up in a manner that allows the desired trait 
        to be expressed. Consequently, when scientists engineer plants, we usually 
        introduce two genes: one that confers the desired trait, such as resistance 
        to the mold Fusarium, and another that confers resistance to an 
        antibiotic, such as ampicillin. The plants are then grown in the presence 
        of ampicillin so that we can identify transgenic plants from non-transgenic 
        plants in the laboratory. Cells that haven&rsquo;t taken up the resistance genes 
        won&rsquo;t grow in the presence of ampicillin, and only the truly transgenic 
        plants will survive.After we have analyzed our plants to confirm that they express the desired 
        traits, we give the seeds to the agronomists. The agronomists then cross-breed 
        the transgenic variety with commercial varieties to introduce the desired 
        trait into plants and seeds that will be distributed to farmers. There are two scenarios. In scenario one, cross-breeding may incorporate 
        the desired trait into the cultivated varieties, but not ampicillin resistance. 
        So there is no problem. However, breeders have little control over which 
        genes are incorporated into the final plants, so this doesn&rsquo;t always happen. 
        In scenario two, cross-breeding does incorporate the antibiotic resistance. 
        Is this a problem? Not generally. For example, eating a tomato that is 
        ampicillin resistant does not make you ampicillin resistant&mdash;just like 
        eating a tomato doesn&rsquo;t make you turn red, or grow leaves. We eat genes 
        and DNA in almost all food (all foods start out with DNA, though some 
        processing methods break down DNA), but the genetic material is destroyed 
        in the digestive process. In addition, studies that have looked at this issue have not shown that 
        the transmission antibiotic resistance from transgenic plants to microbes 
        occurs at a detectable frequency. Recent attempts to get microbes to pick 
        up the trait suggested that it would not occur at all.Besides, not all crops have been engineered with antibiotic marker resistance, 
        so if this is really a legitimate concern, there are ways to avoid the 
        use of these markers as well. One way is to use the mannose-based selectable 
        marker recently developed by Novartis.Q 11: What is the sound scientific basis for considering GE to be 
        safe?Safety is a relative concept. Agriculture and animal husbandry have inherent 
        dangers, as do the consumption of their products. Any sound evaluation 
        of the safety of genetic engineering must also consider the &quot;safety&quot; 
        of current methods of producing food. As mentioned above, nothing is risk 
        free.Nonetheless, every GE crop plant that is now on the market has been extensively 
        studied in toxicity and environmental impact tests, and in most countries 
        the results of those tests are available through the government. Second, 
        many crops have been placed into the field over the past 20 years and 
        experience has shown they are not a problem. There also exist data for 
        both food safety and ecological safety of GE in the food supply.Moreover, the experience of over 200 million consumers in North America 
        over the past four years, and the planting of tens of millions of acres 
        of genetically engineered crops over that time, gives us additional evidence 
        that the products of genetic engineering we have today are safe. Q 12: Critics of biotechnology say that while reductionist biologists 
        claim patents on life, they believe that 95 percent of DNA is &quot;junk&quot; 
        (with unknown functions). On the other hand, genetic engineers have to 
        use this junk DNA to get their results. Science often progresses ahead of our understanding. Intron sequences, 
        what we commonly call &quot;junk DNA&quot;, are not known to carry any 
        meaningful information. However, they somehow still contribute to enhanced 
        gene expression. Thus, we often include these sequences and the process 
        of understanding them in the scientific literature and in practical applications. 
        Nevertheless, all GE organisms are extensively tested, and there is no 
        reason to believe that intron sequences in GE organisms pose any heightened 
        risk.Q 13: If GE does not directly benefit consumers, why should consumers 
        bear any possible risk? It would be a mistake to view GE as not benefiting consumers. Presumably, 
        as the cost of producing a bushel of wheat goes down, so will the price. 
        In other cases, where enhance productivity does not result in increased 
        output, the efficiency gains will free up labor and resources for other 
        activities. Also, there are indirect benefits to the environment that 
        affect consumers. Likewise, in underdeveloped nations, GE can allow for 
        more targeted food production enhancements that more directly benefit 
        the people of those countries. Some products, such as GE rice that is 
        modified to contain essential vitamins, actually will benefit consumers 
        directly. GE plants now being studied can be used to produce medicines 
        and plastics that are non-petroleum based. Also, one cannot objectively concede there is any substantial or unusual 
        risk from GE organisms. Zero risk is absolutely impossible and would not 
        ever be required for drugs or any other food products. Theoretically, 
        we might imagine a future harm by GE organisms. But there is no credible 
        evidence that would indicate that the harm is anything more than theoretical.Q 14: Isn&rsquo;t biotechnology, such as GE techniques, substantively different 
        from conventional breeding methods?Conventional breeding and biotechnology both depend on moving genes around 
        to produce a plant with desired traits. Distinctions about the source 
        of the genes or the manner of moving them are largely artificial. Only 
        the results of such efforts are meaningful or relevant.The primary difference is that biotechnology is precise and fast. In 
        principle it is like conventional breeding in that new combinations of 
        genetic material are created. It is also different in a second respect, 
        in that millions fewer variables (genes) are involved each time it is 
        performed. Q 15: In conventional breeding within species, it is said that &quot;vertical 
        transfer&quot; of genes takes place. However, biotechnology allows &quot;horizontal 
        transfer&quot; of genes across species. Isn&rsquo;t such horizontal transfer 
        unnatural, and therefore possibly unsafe, as well as unethical?The question makes a false assumption. Horizontal transfer of genes across 
        species has been occurring naturally for millennia. Therefore, it is natural. 
        For example, one of the techniques scientists use to create transgenic 
        plants is to splice new genes into a naturally occurring soil bacterium 
        called Agrobacterium tumefaciens. This is especially useful, because 
        A. tumefaciens is known to readily insert genes into the DNA of 
        live plants, a naturally occurring case of horizontal gene transfer.It would be better to ask why anyone would think it is &quot;unethical&quot; 
        to improve foodstuffs? It&rsquo;s much more unethical to leave millions of innocent 
        people hungry. In an important sense, everything about modern agriculture is &quot;unnatural.&quot; 
        If we were to have to grow only wild tomatoes, maize or soybeans, we would 
        all starve. The entire recorded history of the human race has been fueled 
        by &quot;unnatural,&quot; that is, man-made advances in agriculture by 
        intervening in the DNA of plants and animals. Q 16: Is there a difference between applications of biotechnology 
        in agriculture and medicine? Why are the two perceived differently?Producers of GM seeds focused first on introducing production traits 
        that most directly benefit farmers, millers, and manufacturers. To the 
        consumer there is little difference, if any, between foods made with and 
        without genetic engineering. This makes the benefits of genetic engineering 
        less noticeable than the benefits of medicine.More importantly, though, present-day civilization does not regard agriculture 
        as highly as medicine. Why? Because it is very clear how medicine saves 
        people from dying, but less clear how agriculture keeps people from dying. 
        Few in developed countries notice that they are alive today because of 
        the food they eat. They take it for granted.Undernourishment is a disease that needs treatment with food. Only the 
        well fed think differently about &lsquo;medicine&rsquo; and food.Q 17: Applications of biotechnology range from development of vaccines, 
        to pollution cleaning bacteria, biodegradable plastics, colored cotton, 
        herbicide- and pest-resistant crops, and nutritionally-enhanced crops. 
        Isn&rsquo;t it possible to draw a line between permissible and impermissible 
        applications of biotechnology?It is possible not only to draw lines between permissible and impermissible 
        applications of biotech, it is also possible to justify these lines on 
        the basis of considerations other than mere human whim. The justifications 
        will involve both ethical considerations and more tangible issues of human 
        health and environmental safety. For example, it is ethically justifiable to develop applications of biotech 
        that will, without any adverse environmental or social consequences, help 
        to feed hungry children. It is ethically unjustifiable to develop applications 
        of biotech that will do no good, but may kill hungry children. It is ethically 
        justifiable to develop GE organizations that will allow more efficient 
        use of arable land, provide nutrients and vitamins to malnourished people, 
        and reduce the use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture. It is ethically 
        unjustifiable to develop GE organizations that could produce superweeds 
        (canola genes moving into and wild brassicus) without a consideration 
        of how to prevent this from occurring or mitigate against it. We also draw lines based on considerations having to do with moral facts, 
        such as individual human rights, the duty to do no harm to innocents, 
        the duty to take into consideration the beauty, integrity, and balance 
        of nature, the duty to help liberate the oppressed and to maximize the 
        ratio of good over evil in the world. However, the main consideration for what is impermissible should not 
        be drawn on a categorical basis: such as prohibiting GE crop plants, or 
        GE microorganisms for environmental remediation. Each individual application 
        should be evaluated on the basis of the potential dangers it is likely 
        to pose and the dangers it is likely to avert. Q 18: Isn&rsquo;t the credibility of regulatory agencies influencing the 
        popular perception of genetic engineering? Is fear of biotechnology a 
        failure of the regulatory agencies or is it a failure of the market and 
        corporate ethics as such?The credibility of regulatory agencies has had a strong influence. Loss 
        of it in the UK has resulted in a pronounced fear of biotechnology. Maintenance 
        of it in the US has coincided with a majority of consumers worrying little 
        about genetically engineered foods. However, the credibility of those agencies often has more to do with 
        how people see the agencies, than what the agencies actually do. When 
        fearful people do not see their concerns addressed by the regulatory process, 
        they question the regulatory process. Corporate ethics has also been influential. Trade protectionism has motivated 
        many European food producers to help fuel fear of biotechnology products 
        made by their competitors overseas. The failure in the market is more 
        of a failing in our education system that has left many people so scientifically 
        illiterate that they are easily manipulated by misinformation.Other factors contribute indirectly to the credibility of regulatory 
        agencies. In Europe, mad cow disease and other food-related scandals have 
        made many fearful of their food, and this prompts them to think that regulatory 
        agencies could have prevented them from happening.It is also important to realize that regulators are going to make mistakes. 
        The food supply never can or will be 100 percent safe. QUESTIONS ABOUT SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUESQ 19: How can modern profit-driven agricultural biotechnology meet 
        the basic needs of the poor? As previously noted, the amelioration of malnutrition in the short term 
        appears to be one major promise of biotechnology. One example is the development 
        of more nutritionally complete crops that have the potential to reduce 
        the prevalence of specific food deficiencies in areas dependent upon diets 
        with little variety. Though publicly funded research is important, efforts 
        that benefit large numbers of low-income people need not be unprofitable. 
      Poor nutrition is one factor in low productivity, and genetically engineered 
        crops might thus provide a benefit more general than the relief of malnutrition. 
        Similarly, if the use of more robust and more nutritionally complete crops 
        becomes widespread, small village farmers could become productive enough 
        to improve their financial condition. These are only two examples of how 
        biotechnology, which is no more profit driven than current agricultural 
        practice, might meet the &quot;basic needs&quot; of the poor.The big question is whether the cost can be kept low enough for poor 
        farmers. Put simply, this may appear unlikely (and may indeed be unlikely 
        in the short term), as the development of agricultural biotechnology is 
        carried out primarily by large multinational corporations. However, a very common misconception is a belief that the products of 
        agricultural biotechnology are being developed solely in the private sector. 
        To cite only three examples: such products as nutritionally enhanced rice, 
        virus resistant cassava, and vaccine-carrying bananas are under development 
        in public sector research institutions. These innovations are specifically 
        targeted at reducing the ills of poor populations. Furthermore, it may seem paradoxical, but it actually can be profitable 
        to help the poor. &quot;Poor&quot; countries are often key marketing opportunities 
        for a seed corporation such as Monsanto or Novartis. While costly to create 
        the seed, the increased yields and pest resistance of the crops may well 
        justify the additional cost of the technology even to small farmers. One 
        of the key concerns of developing countries is trying to minimize the 
        yield swing between good and bad years. By helping crops better deal with 
        environmental stresses, such as droughts, diseases, and insect pests, 
        GM can help farmers better manage the feast or famine effect of having 
        several inches too little rain. GM crops are only tools in the struggle for sustainable agricultural 
        initiatives in developing countries, but they are a critical tool because 
        of their ease to use and their dramatic yield increases, especially when 
        arable land is scarce. On whole, the net increase in yield and crop protection should outweigh 
        the modest cost of the seeds, even in developing countries. If this were 
        not the case, GM producers would have lots and lots of inventory they 
        could not sell to any farmer, anywhere. Q 20: Would not the poor farmers in developing countries become dependent 
        on commercial biotech corporations? In the developed countries, all farmers are dependent on the large input 
        suppliers for 90% of inputs. Seed is the basis of agricultural production, 
        and nobody can be competitive with outdated cultivars. A better question might be, is such a dependence always a negative? Whether this is better or worse than being dependent upon the vicissitudes 
        of current production, or donor aid, is a debatable issue.There is no obligation to purchase GM seed. Nor is there reason to suspect 
        that there would be a lack of traditional seed available to small farmers 
        who save seed from year to year. The only time a developing country or 
        individual farmers in a developing country would purchase GM seed at a 
        premium over traditional seed is if they believed the seed to be worth 
        the extra cost. Generally speaking&mdash;though not always&mdash;the amount of additional crop produced 
        from GM seeds greatly outweighs the modest cost of the technology. Even 
        in the absence of markedly improved yields, GM seeds tend to require substantially 
        fewer inputs, such as synthetic pesticides or herbicides. In those cases, 
        many farmers will also find it worth paying the premium for GM seeds.Indeed, the corporations become dependent on their customers in a commercial 
        relationship just as much as the reverse is true. Q 21: How can the interests of developing countries be safeguarded?In general, a primary interest in developing countries is to produce 
        more food, and to produce more nutritious food. Genetic engineering can 
        help safeguard this interest.Accordingly, the biggest threat is preventing developing countries from 
        being able to use biotechnology. The dogmatic ideology of activist groups 
        currently constitutes the greatest danger to them.It is overly simplistic to think that food security will happen purely 
        by the development of the appropriate crops. Farmers in developing nations 
        need a suitable political and social infrastructure to ensure that the 
        application of the new technologies is effectively handled and does not 
        cause more problems than it solves. Developing countries definitely can benefit from the yield increases 
        of GM seeds. The question is how can we make it profitable for seed companies 
        to provide GM products to developing countries. In part, developing world 
        governments with support from the World community (or individual UN members) 
        may have to help subsidize the cost of the technology in their countries. 
      To build the necessary infrastructure, one key for developing countries 
        is to secure financing for &quot;sustainable agriculture&quot;, a whole 
        collection of farming practices, which should include GM seeds. Current 
        aid programs focus on providing assistance largely only when there is 
        an emergency. But some public and charitable funding has been available 
        for improving farming methods in the developing world. Greater investment 
        in promoting sustainable agriculture can help developing nations substantially.Q 22: Won&rsquo;t GE crops accelerate the trend towards fewer varieties 
        of crops? Will not such a loss of crop diversity make agriculture more 
        vulnerable?The narrowing of the genetic base of crops has already occurred through 
        conventional breeding, which farmers have carried on for thousands of 
        years. It is more likely that genetic engineering will help reverse this 
        trend.The current evolution of agriculture in the US and other industrialized 
        countries, including the move toward genetic engineering, has generated 
        a select few highly specialized crops. If it is possible to move a gene 
        into a land race or other locally adapted variety and make it more productive 
        or better able to resist disease, this will preserve its use, and therefore 
        help preserve diversity as well. With conventional breeding a particular trait of interest has to be melded 
        with other desired traits, to the exclusion of unwanted traits over many 
        generations of selective breeding. With genetic engineering a single desired 
        trait can be added to any already optimized breed in a much more directed 
        and quicker manner. This will make it easier to diversify crops.As GM crop development begins to introduce targeted production traits, 
        such as resistance to certain pests in certain regions, the technology 
        can actually improve crop diversity. Of course, it is enormously expensive 
        to introduce a gene trait; so many producers will be interested in introducing 
        traits for which consumers will pay a premium. Variety will be further 
        increased as GM seed manufacturers introduce new consumer-focused traits, 
        such as added nutritional components or improved longevity. Genetic engineering may also expand the variety of crops by &quot;domesticating&quot; 
        currently unused plants. Some plants are used for food in only limited 
        geographical regions due to problems with naturally occurring toxins or 
        other problems. Cassava, for example, is often used as a food source in 
        sub-Saharan Africa. But cassava naturally contains high levels of cyanide 
        that can only be removed with very careful preparation. Reduced toxicity 
        and increased palatability would increase the number of species that could 
        be used for food.Finally, seed banks and DNA banks around the world preserve a multitude 
        of natural varieties, for future resurrection if it should be desirable. Q 23: What are the social and ethical implications of GE?The issues can be broken down into two areas: intrinsic and extrinsic. 
        Intrinsic concerns are those that have to do with moral concerns about 
        the very process of GE: that it is unnatural or against religious views 
        for one or more reasons. If intrinsic objections are held, then the extrinsic ones are irrelevant, 
        in the same way that if you object to capital punishment on moral grounds, 
        you don&rsquo;t argue about the methods by which it should be carried out. In New Zealand, for instance, the indigenous people (Maori) do not approve 
        of mixing genes from different species. Their objection is a spiritual 
        one, based on their belief that ancestors are like gods&mdash;to be revered&mdash;and 
        ancestral heritage and inheritance are therefore also sacred. However, 
        the Maori culture never had to deal with such complexities as GE until 
        recently. It is fair to say that an &lsquo;intrinsic&rsquo; spiritual argument is 
        the only one which cannot be refuted by an ethics committee. Other &lsquo;intrinsic&rsquo; objections include: GE is unnatural; trying to play 
        God; arrogating to ourselves historically unprecedented levels of power; 
        disrespecting life by patenting it; &quot;commodifying&quot; life; illegitimately 
        abrogating species boundaries or exhibiting arrogance, hubris, and disaffection. 
        Such objections are difficult, if not impossible to refute, because they 
        rest on strongly-held beliefs, rather than on facts.Extrinsic objections, which rest more on facts and reasoning, have to 
        do with consequences arising from the application of the technology.Such objections include claims that GE organisms may have disastrous 
        effects on animals, ecosystems, and humans. Potential harms to animals 
        include unjustified pain to individuals used in research and production. 
        Potential harms to ecosystems include possible environmental catastrophe, 
        inevitable narrowing of germplasm diversity, and irreversible loss or 
        degradation of air, soils, and waters. Possible harms to humans include 
        perpetuation of social inequities in modern agriculture, decreased food 
        security for women and children on subsistence farms in developing countries, 
        a growing gap between well capitalized economies in the Northern hemisphere 
        and less capitalized peasant economies in the South, risks to the food 
        security of future generations, and the promotion of reductionistic and 
        exploitative science.Consider the fable of Prometheus giving fire to mortals. When he brought 
        fire, did mankind extinguish it? Or did we attempt to learn how to use 
        it to the best of our ability?Increasing yields and decreasing inputs can only benefit society. Genetic 
        engineering is merely the latest in a long line of technologies that humanity 
        has devised to improve its prospects. Technophobes will produce arguments 
        that it is unethical. Technophiles will defend it. But passions aside, 
        most agree that societies would be far better served by carefully using 
        technology, while critically monitoring its progress and performance.Q 24: Shouldn&rsquo;t consumers have the right to know whether they are 
        consuming GE?Opinion on this topic is strongly divided.Some want GE food products to be labeled because they personally would 
        prefer to consume such products, and want to have a means for finding 
        them. Others want such products to be labeled because they wish to avoid 
        them.Whether or not such desires require the creation of a &quot;right&quot; 
        to know if they are consuming GE food products is another matter entirely. 
        It is generally agreed that consumers have a right to know things that 
        are directly relevant to their health and safety. For instance, if a food 
        contains allergens, or is high in sodium or cholesterol, the consumer 
        is considered to have a right to know.Governments typically prescribe what aspects of foods consumers have 
        a legal right to know, with the view to making an optimal amount of useful 
        information available. In most cases, ingredients that are generally agreed 
        to be safe and do not form major proportions of the product need not be 
        listed. Otherwise, labels would be encyclopedic lists that practically 
        no one would consult. As long as genetically engineered ingredients are 
        subject to the same rules as any other product, most scientists agree 
        that there is no need to expand the consumer&rsquo;s legal right to know beyond 
        what is necessary and useful.If a consumer&rsquo;s right to know goes beyond legitimate health and safety 
        matters, no one has yet proposed how extensive that right would be. Some 
        will want to know about the pesticides, manure, trace elements, fertilizer, 
        or variety of crop, to mention only a few.Q 25: Shouldn&rsquo;t GE foods be labeled? If not, why not?If we assume that a consumer has a legal right to know whether a food 
        has been produced with GE, then it would be appropriate to assume that 
        such foods should be labeled.Questions of the &quot;right to know&quot; aside, a more reasonable question 
        would be: Should all consumers be forced to accept the cost of this knowledge? 
      The costs include: 1) farmers needing to segregate grains; 2) silos needing 
        to be extremely careful about when they take deliveries to keep GE and 
        non-GE grains separate; 3) food processors needing to test shipments; 
        and so on down the food chain.If you ask 100 people if they would want to know if there were GE materials 
        in their foods, most would say yes. If you asked the same 100 people if 
        they would want to know if there was GE material in their food AND that 
        finding out would cost them 5 cents a loaf of bread and 25 cents a pound 
        of beef, fewer would be interested. But surveys also show that, if you 
        told that same group of people that, in the judgment of scientific experts, 
        there was no difference in safety or nutrition, fewer still would demand 
        that GE foods be labeled. Should the majority of consumers who understand that there is no health 
        difference between GE and non-GE foods or simply do not care, be forced 
        to pay the cost of providing information to a minority of consumers who 
        what it? Is that fair?Some suggest that the markets rather than government regulation should 
        dictate whether or not consumers would prefer low food costs or labeling, 
        and this underpins the notion that labeling should be optional, not mandatory. 
        This would lead to a traditional food market and a niche market for non-GE 
        foods similar to the niche market for organic foods. The customer would 
        pay a premium for non-GM foods and retail grocery stores would have a 
        much larger margin on such products. Likewise, farmers would be paid a 
        premium for non-GM maize. In the end, it is the consumers who actually 
        want that information who would bear the cost of providing it.If the issue really is of concern to consumers, then consumers will be 
        willing to bear the cost of the labeling process. Q 26: Is it fair to grant patents on GE organisms?This is a complex issue, having to do with different appreciations of 
        what is meant by ownership. Patenting does not in fact give patent-holders 
        ownership; it temporarily gives them the exclusive legal right to use 
        some process or to exploit some information that they have discovered. 
        That exclusive right, in turn, enables individuals and companies to protect 
        their investments when making inventions available to the public. Without patents, much innovative research would not be done. Universities 
        and companies typically must invest several million dollars to discover 
        a novel gene, and to learn how to use it. Regulatory requirements and 
        developmental difficulties often add several million dollars more to the 
        overall cost. An assurance that the discoverers will have a protected 
        right to recoup this investment is essential. This is exactly similar to human medicine or even to conventional crop 
        breeding. As one inventor says: &quot;No patents, no progress.&quot; Even 
        public institutions such as the CGIAR centers need patents to justify 
        and protect their investments.With some modest variability, patents usually last only about 20 years. 
        Much of this time tends to be devoted to developing the technologies to 
        the point where they become useful commercial products. Once patents expire, 
        anyone is then free to use the innovation.More contentious, is the issue of taking a process or a crop that has 
        been used by a country or culture for a long time, making a scientific 
        analysis of the use, and patenting some aspect of it that may prevent 
        or limit traditional uses. The WTO under the GATT agreement has surprisingly 
        wide ranging legal powers in this regard. However, agreements do appear 
        to be emerging which may either restrict this kind of thing, or at least 
        ensure that some appropriate financial remuneration is made. It should be recognized, however, that much of the objection to patenting 
        (and indeed to the further commercialization of agriculture, of which 
        GE is only a small part) arises from deep seated cultural differences. 
        Some cultures regard certain assets as part of the commons (an equal heritage, 
        communally shared), while others regard all aspects of social assets as 
        commodities, which can ultimately be exploited. Socially, the current prevailing world view held in developed nations 
        is the latter view, and advocates argue that this increases the efficiency 
        with which these resources can be used. Q 27: Doesn&rsquo;t patenting life forms encourage violence: first by treating 
        life forms as mere machines and denying their self-organizing capacity; 
        and second, by denying self-reproducing capacity (that is, by allowing 
        patents on future generations of plants and animals)?Much of the heat in discussions of biotechnology results from a genuine 
        clash of world views. Unfortunately, when such clashes occur, reason is 
        not always a sufficient tool to sort out the difficulties and disagreements. 
      However, human cultures have permitted ownership of specially bred plants 
        and animals for eons&mdash;from livestock given as dowries to grains held as 
        tribal property. Viewing such ownership as a violent injustice is not 
        typical in any part of the world, so sociologically, it is not a serious 
        issue.It bears pointing out that patents cannot prevent plants and animals 
        from reproducing. Humans already exert a great deal of control over reproduction 
        of plants and animals in agriculture without patents, and patents in the 
        GE field do not inherently enhance this type of control. Most experts agree that the patent system is similar to, or at least 
        compatible with, historical agricultural practices.Q 28: When a patent is granted on the basis of a GE organism being 
        novel and not occurring in nature, how can the intellectual property right 
        (IPR) holders then seek to escape the responsibility of consequences of 
        releasing the organisms? How can they treat the issue of biosafety as 
        unnecessary?All parties using a technology are responsible for damage caused by its 
        use. This is just as true of GE organisms as it is for automobiles.A related question is one of regulatory treatment. When regulatory agencies 
        evaluate new GE organisms, the organisms are classified as either &quot;substantially 
        equivalent&quot; to their conventional counterparts or &quot;not substantially 
        equivalent&quot; to their conventional counterparts and then regulated 
        accordingly. That is, if a GE tomato is found to be substantially equivalent 
        to conventionally bred tomatoes, the GE tomatoes are not typically subjected 
        to more stringent regulatory controls. Critics often ask, &quot;If a GE organism is substantially equivalent 
        to its conventional counterpart,&quot; how can IPR be granted?&quot; Such 
        a question stems from a common misunderstanding of the concept of substantial 
        equivalence. Substantial equivalence is a legal concept (not a scientific 
        one), used in evaluating the risks of a GE organism relative to the risks 
        of non-GE organisms. If the GE tomato is found to have the same nutritional 
        and compositional make-up of the conventional variety, and is found to 
        have no new toxins or allergens, it is deemed to be substantially equivalent 
        in all relevant aspects pertaining to health and safety. It is also important 
        to note, that a determination that a GE organism is substantially equivalent 
        can be made only after the relevant scientific testing for safety has 
        been conducted.The best way to avoid any damage that GE organisms might cause, and the 
        responsibility that would entail, is to be sensitive to biosafety issues 
        and conduct thorough evaluations. That is why there are regulatory agencies 
        in place. That is why there are regulations governing the early stages 
        of development of these crops. That is why large amounts of data have 
        to be compiled to obtain regulatory approvals. No one treats this issue 
        lightly. However, we can be assured that when genetically engineered crops 
        go through the safety evaluations and are approved for release, all issues 
        of safety have been addressed.Q 29: Won&rsquo;t IPR put restrictions on creativity of nature (i.e., inherent 
        to living systems that reproduce and multiply in self-organized freedom) 
        by shifting common rights and excluding intellectual commons&rsquo; knowledge, 
        ideas and innovations? Apart from corporate control over minds, IPR may 
        become intellectual theft or bio-piracy?No patent can prevent nature from doing what she pleases. No patent allows 
        anyone to exert control over minds. Common knowledge is not patentable. 
        That is why applicants have to demonstrate that their inventions are distinct 
        from the &quot;prior art&quot; and &quot;not obvious&quot;.Intellectual property rights free man&rsquo;s creativity and give him protection 
        for the fruits of his creativity. Plant Variety Acts and similar statutes 
        do not allow people to claim intellectual property rights on plant varieties 
        or &quot;things of nature&quot;. Nature&rsquo;s creativity is protected alongside 
        man&rsquo;s creativity. &quot;Bio-piracy&quot; is a relatively recent concept, referring to the 
        act of gaining intellectual property protection for someone else&rsquo;s invention, 
        or for something that is already commonly known or used. However, intellectual 
        property rights usually are denied for such things. The recent revocation 
        of the neem oil patent is a classical example.Q 30: Doesn&rsquo;t the emergence of GE threaten to change the meaning and 
        value of biodiversity from life-support base for poor communities to raw-material 
        base for private corporations?Much historical evidence shows that poor communities are exceptionally 
        good at destroying biodiversity without the aid of genetic engineering. 
        Poor communities grow cash crops for sale because they cannot otherwise 
        afford to produce or purchase goods and services not available through 
        traditional agriculture and animal husbandry. The key issue is that private corporations and public research institutions 
        have developed products that would enormously help developing countries 
        increase their sustainable agriculture programs. GM seeds are one such 
        product, helping increase yields and generate crops on lands that were 
        once unsuitable for agriculture or where crops would often suffer from 
        terrible pest damage. Corporations and communities alike have a long history of viewing biodiversity 
        as a raw material. Biotechnology does not itself do anything to change 
        this. How we use technology is the issue.Q 31: Is there any possible benefits of the so-called &quot;Terminator 
        technology&quot;? Or is it simply a means to exercise control over farmers&rsquo; 
        right to grow their own seed?The most obvious benefit of the &quot;Terminator&quot; technology is 
        to ensure that the rights of plant breeders are protected. Meanwhile, 
        farmers will always have the right to grow their own seed. Growing someone 
        else&rsquo;s seed is another thing entirely. The fundamental right rests with the producers of GE seed to be compensated 
        for their inventions. In most cases, farmers are purchasing the enhancement 
        just as much as they purchase fertilizer or other inputs that help them 
        grow more or better crops.When farmers buy GM seeds, it is common practice for them to make a promise 
        to only use that seed one time, just as purchasers of computer software 
        make an implied promise not to make duplications of their software. Saving 
        seed from the harvest is a violation of the farmers&rsquo; promise. Terminator 
        technology would only enforce the obligations on potential cheaters, while 
        sparing everyone the cost and aggravation of going to court. The other obvious benefit is to allay the fears of those who believe 
        that genes from modified crops will &lsquo;escape&rsquo; into the environment and 
        create &lsquo;superweeds.&rsquo; Since the seeds produced by any plant with the &quot;Terminator&quot; 
        gene will not germinate, any crosses between crops and weedy relatives 
        would have no impact on the environment.  


              









Document Number: 5739 

Don't Denounce Biotech Deccan Herald (Bangalore, India)
        July 6, 1999
        By Dr C. S. Prakash Looking at recent developments in India, I am struck by how a small 
        group of activists opposed to biotechnology have been making headlines 
        in India. They have gone on the warpath against genetically improved crops. 
        They are sowing the seeds of fear in the minds of the Indian public through 
        well-orchestrated campaigns, and attempting to intimidate and influence 
        policy makers by twisting facts about biotechnology and vilifying its 
        proponents. Test trials of genetically improved cotton have been burnt 
        down without regard to what their farmer owners think, amidst relentless 
        rumour campaigns suggesting that multinational seed companies are conspiring 
        to dominate India's agriculture. 
      These self-styled "eco-terrorists" with their anti-science and anti-technology 
        agenda seem bent on reversing India's path to agricultural progress and 
        ensuring that Indian farmers are deprived of the latest technological 
        developments. They are clearly hypocritical in their stance because while 
        personally enjoying the technological innovations from the West they are 
        out to deny the Indian farmer the most radical technology that could help 
        him make a quantum leap over his handicaps and transform life for him 
        and his family in less than a generation. 
      Many of these activists in India have strong links with environmental 
        group such as Greenpeace. Their opposition to biotechnology in India is 
        self serving and is clearly against the national interests of India. For 
        instance, the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) of Canada 
        is at the forefront in opposing biotechnology in developing countries 
        and is arduously supporting groups opposed to biotechnology in India. 
        David Wood of England wrote recently in the prestigious science journal 
        Nature that the primary goal of RAFI is to protect the grain exports of 
        North American farmers, and by actively blocking farmers in developing 
        countries like India from getting access to biotechnology, RAFI strives 
        to maintain the dominance of the West in the grain trade. Those in India 
        aligning with such vested interests from overseas are inadvertently and 
        unthinkingly (I hope) hurting India's prospects of becoming an agricultural 
        superpower in the next century. 
       These environmental activists have been invoking flawed philosophical, 
        ethical and even technological arguments to buttress their case and promote 
        the hidden agenda of vested interests in the West. They use selective 
        or fictitious data to spread false information and denigrate biotechnology 
        in a very articulate and convincing manner. Unfortunately, the Indian 
        press, some policymakers and even intellectuals have accepted these arguments 
        at face value without questioning the rationale or motives behind them. 
      When asked recently in a Deccan Herald interview (February 7, 1999) as 
        to what alternatives would she propose to the Indian farmer in lieu of 
        biotechnology, a well-known activist from New Delhi mentioned biodiversity 
        intensification, ecological intensification, and further reduction of 
        Indian farm size (!) along with terms like 'ontological schizhoprenia'. 
        These activists with their patronising attitudes and surreptitious links 
        to Western leftist organisations have little contact with grassroots Indian 
        farmers and propose no workable alternatives to the technological solutions 
        they vehemently oppose. They are clearly not the voices of India's vast 
        farming community. 
      While Western nations like England or Switzerland can sustain the luxury 
        of ignoring crop biotechnology without compromising their high standard 
        of living, India cannot afford to do that with its large agricultural 
        sector, low rural income and huge population. Without strong scientific 
        assistance to help increase their farm productivity, our farmers will 
        continue to remain an underclass of Indian society. Activists opposed 
        to biotechnology will thus reinforce this status and perpetuate the entrenched 
        urban-hierarchy in India. 
      Unfortunately, the anti-science and anti-biotechnology campaigns launched 
        by self- styled 'bio-vigilantes' seems to have impacted public opinion 
        in India. Even responsible individuals have come out with rather irresponsible 
        statements. For instance, Dr P. M. Bhargava, the noted molecular biologist 
        who founded the Centre for Cell and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, said 
        recently that suicides by farmers last year were a conspiracy by multinational 
        companies and called for a moratorium on genetic engineering! Any Human Activity has Inherent RisksWhile most scientists and policy-makers recognise that biotechnology 
        is not a panacea for all food production problems in India, it is the 
        single most powerful tool India has right now to address this problem. 
        There are risks inherent in any technological intervention. Human beings 
        down the centuries have learnt to weigh the perceived and real risks against 
        the benefits of emerging technologies, and have responsibly integrated 
        these to foster progress. For instance, the use of electricity, automobiles, 
        air travel and even immunisation all involve some risks, but this has 
        not prevented humankind from benefiting from them.But public acceptance is driven by perception of the risk rather than 
        the physical reality. This is clearly illustrated by the reluctance of 
        even industrialised nations, with the horrors of Hiroshima in mind, to 
        accept irradiated food although clearly such food poses no danger and 
        can save lives lost because of contaminated meat products. If the 'electric 
        chair' had been the first product of the invention of the electricity, 
        then we would have felt uneasy every time we switched on an electric light!What we need is a sensible and responsible approach to integrating biotechnology 
        in Indian agricultural research while ensuring that any risk posed by 
        this technology is kept to a minimum through rigorous scientific approach. 
        We do not need militant and violent paths in keeping the biotechnology 
        away from Indians as this will only ensure continued backwardness of our 
        Indian agriculture. As one wise person put it "A man who has food has 
        several problems. A man without food has only one".== == ==C. S. Prakash is at Tuskegee University, USA. 


              









Document Number: 856 

Trust Emotions or Facts on Biotechnology? 
           Birmingham News
        By C.S. Prakash
        May 17, 2000 I suspect that the average American, hearing or reading 
        something about biotechnology, is at a loss to understand all that is 
        involved. I suspect that for many, the discussion of genes and proteins 
        boils down to this: Who am I going to believe, those who oppose biotechnology 
        or those who support it? 
      Last month in Boston, 1,500 to 2,000 people, many dressed as Frankenstein 
        monsters, butterflies and ears of corn, demonstrated outside the Biotechnology 
        Industry Organization meeting. Inside, about 8,000 scientists, researchers, 
        physicians and industry representatives exchanged ideas and discussed 
        research on ways to improve crop yields, reduce pesticide usage, improve 
        nutrition and develop cures for disease. 
      The evidence 
        On April 5, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report which stated 
        that there is no evidence suggesting foods produced through biotechnology 
        are any less safe than conventional crops. In fact, the scientific panel 
        concluded, growing such crops could have environmental advantages over 
        other crops. Another report was issued on April 13 by the Basic Research 
        Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science. It makes a very strong 
        case for the safety of biotechnology and warns against needless over regulation, 
        which could delay development of a technology with great potential for 
        good. 
      Around the world, more than 2,000 scientists, including two Nobel Prize 
        winners, have signed a petition in support of genetically modified crops.Overwhelmingly, 
        scientific organizations, professional societies, and inter national bodies 
        such as the World Health Organization agree that over sight of biotech 
        crops should focus on the characteristics of the plant, its in tended 
        use and the environment into which it will be introduced, not on the method 
        used to produce it. In other words, the scientific community is strongly 
        united in the view that there is nothing inherently more risky about biotech 
        crops than crops developed through conventional breeding methods. 
      But activists get more attention. On April 10, CBS Evening News aired 
        a story about biotech opponents ripping up millions of dollars worth of 
        research plots. On New Year's Eve, someone set fire to a 90-year-old building 
        at Michigan State University, where genetic researchers had their offices. 
        CBS quoted a professor as saying, "I lost basically my entire profes sional 
        life. I lost every paper I ever wrote that analyzed the benefits and risks 
        of this technology." 
      Prior to the Boston meetings, Seattle police told their Boston counterparts 
        to beware of being sprayed with urine and bleach, a popular tactic in 
        the street riots that accompanied the World Trade Association meeting 
        in Seattle. Are these the kinds of people who engender trust? In truth, 
        most activists are not like that. The Boston demonstration was peaceful, 
        as are the vast majority of protests against biotechnology. But while 
        they are peaceful, they do mimic more radical activities by focusing on 
        emotion rather than fact. 
      While most Americans would never participate in street demonstrations 
        or condone criminal vandalism, they must wonder if those who do have a 
        valid point to make. 
      The new report from the House subcommittee is an excellent opportunity 
        to read and understand. It would be a great source for student term papers 
        or for anyone wanting a basic understanding. 
      The report tells how biotechnology works and how it can help solve problems. 
        It discusses the risks and benefits,reviews the regulatory system and 
        shows why many of the emotional issues raised by opponents have little 
        scientific support. Testimony from 17 scientists, including some critics 
        of biotechnology, was the basis for the report, which can be viewed on 
        the Internet at www.house.gov/science. 
      The findings
        The report makes several findings. Among them: Biotechnology is reduc 
        ing chemical pesticides and will continue to do so; there is no greater 
        risk of introducing allergens into biotech crops than with traditionally 
        bred crops; the risk of biotech crops be coming weedy pests is no greater 
        than that for other crops. And perhaps most comforting to those who have 
        heard the activist claims, there is this statement: "The risks associated 
        with plant varieties developed using agricultural biotechnology are the 
        same as those for similar varieties developed using classical breeding 
        methods." 
      The report gives enough pro and con for a reader to decide whom to believe. 
       


              









Document Number: 2552 

Fear Of Technology Becomes Britain's Biggest ExportCradle Of Scientific Discovery Is Rocked By Green 
        Activists Who
        Exploit Consumers' Worries To Promote Anti-Capitalist Agenda BridgeNews Forum 
        By C.S. Prakash 
        May 6, 2000  Based on history, one could have legitimately predicted that the United 
        Kingdom would be among the world's leaders in developing biotechnology 
        today. Instead, the U.K. is known worldwide as the nation most responsible 
        for impeding introduction of this technology. 
       Those of us who work in agricultural biotechnology know that it has 
        the potential to solve many of the food production problems of the world, 
        whose population will increase by at least 50% in the next 30 years or 
        so. Biotechnology can improve nutrition among developing nations. It can 
        help fight disease by delivering vaccines in common foods such as bananas. 
        It can improve crop yields, thus preventing natural areas from being converted 
        to agriculture to meet global food demand, and it can drastically reduce 
        the use of chemical pesticides. Biotechnology has the potential to save 
        and improve millions of lives worldwide. 
       Yet many in the United Kingdom, which produced scientific icons such 
        as Edward Jenner, Maurice Wilkins, Francis Crick, Alexander Fleming and 
        Charles Darwin, demonize this new technology as ''Frankenstein food.'' 
        Who would have predicted it? Certainly not Jenner, the 18th century physician 
        who discovered the vaccine that eventually eradicated smallpox. By injecting 
        a cattle virus into people, he prevented them from getting the disease. 
        His work set the course for the science of immunology, which could be 
        further advanced through plant biotechnology. British biophysicists Wilkins 
        and Crick teamed with American biophysicist James Watson to unlock the 
        mysteries of DNA. The three received the 1962 Nobel Prize for their discoveries, 
        which are the basis for all genetics research. Sir Alexander Fleming, 
        a British bacteriologist, discovered lysozyme and penicillin. For his 
        discovery of penicillin, he shared the 1945 Nobel Prize with other British 
        scientists -- Howard Walter Florey and Ernst Boris Chain. British influence 
        in genetics is most famously represented by Charles Darwin and his discoveries 
        and theories on natural selection, which revolutionized global thought. 
        Does anyone believe Darwin would oppose research in biotechnology? And 
        there are, of course, British giants in other fields, such as Sir Isaac 
        Newton, who explained the mysteries of gravity and light, and Stephen 
        Hawking, whose work with quantum theory and thermodynamics has extended 
        the work of Albert Einstein. 
       The United Kingdom has been a cradle of scientific discovery, so it 
        is ironic that British consumers have so rapidly coddled green activist 
        groups, who use fears rather than science to extend their anti-capitalist 
        agenda. To paraphrase the great British poet John Donne, no man (or island 
        nation) is an island. The influence of one of the great nations of the 
        world extends well beyond its shores. Likewise, British insistence on 
        biotech-free foods sends a negative message with sad repercussions around 
        the globe. 
       Consider Thailand, the largest rice exporter in the world. Only 1% of 
        Thai rice gets to Britain, but because of British opposition, the Thai 
        government is reducing support for its own biotech rice research. This 
        means that a poor child in rural Thailand could miss out on the benefits 
        of Golden Rice, which is rich in vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is a 
        leading cause of childhood blindness in developing countries. The cutback 
        in research could also bring to a halt rice varieties that are resistant 
        to insects, meaning Thai farmers will continue to work with harmful chemical 
        insecticides, if they can afford crop protection products at all. 
      In Africa, where mass starvation is a very real problem, governments 
        have halted introduction of improved food crops, such as virus-resistant 
        sweet potatoes that would protect tons of food from disease. They have 
        done this because the British response to biotechnology has frightened 
        them. 
      The same is true in India, the Philippines and several nations in Southeast 
        Asia British consumers are frightened as well, and understandably, because 
        of recent food safety scares. BSE, bovine spongiform encephalitis (mad 
        cow disease), has damaged people's faith in regulatory mechanisms, even 
        though the failure in the regulatory process was not by scientists. A 
        well-financed campaign against biotechnology exploits these fears. The 
        biotech opponents' agenda, however, has nothing to do with risk assessment 
        or science. It is based on opposition to global capitalism. The same agenda 
        that has spawned the vandalism and destruction of biotech research sites 
        across the United Kingdom culminated in the desecration of British war 
        memorials and Winston Churchill's statue on May Day. The British press 
        finally got it right, identifying the protesters as ''anti-capitalist 
        anarchists'' and ''thugs.'' 
      More than 2,000 scientists around the globe, including many outstanding 
        British scientists and Nobel Prize winners, have signed a petition supporting 
        biotechnology (at www.agbioworld.org). 
        My fellow signers and I sincerely hope that Great Britain will soon re-embrace 
        its proud scientific past, because, sadly, the most notable British export 
        today is fear. 
      === 
       C.S. PRAKASH is a professor of plant molecular genetics and director 
        of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University 
        in Tuskegee, Alabama. He recently participated in a series of biotechnology 
        debates in England. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews, 
        whose ventures include the Internet site www.bridge.com. 
       


              









Document Number: 2622 

Foes of Biotechnology Ignore Global Hunger 
         Atlanta Journal-Constitution
        December 5, 1999
        By Dr C. S. PrakashAnti-technology activists accuse corporations of "playing God" by genetically 
        improving crops, but it is these so-called environmentalists who are really 
        playing God, not with genes but with the lives of poor and hungry people. 
      While activist organizations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to 
        promote fear through anti-science newspaper ads, 1.3 billion people, who 
        live on less than $1 a day, care only about finding their next day's meal. 
        Biotechnology is one of the best hopes for solving their food needs today, 
        when we have 6 billion people, and certainly in the next 30 to 50 years, 
        when there will be 9 billion on the globe. 
      Those people, who battle weather, pests and plant disease to try to raise 
        enough for their families, can benefit tremendously from biotechnology, 
        and not just from products created by big corporations. Public-sector 
        institutions are conducting work on high-yield rice, virus-resistant sweet 
        potato and more healthful strains of cassava, crops that are staples in 
        developing countries. 
      But none of these benefits will be realized if Western-generated fears 
        about biotechnology halt research funding and close borders to exported 
        products. Public perception is being manipulated by fringe groups opposed 
        to progress and taken advantage of by politicians favoring trade protectionism. 
      There is no safety reason for this. Foods produced through biotechnology 
        are just as safe, if not safer, than conventionally produced foods because 
        they are rigorously tested. David Aaron of the U.S. Commerce Department 
        recently told the Senate Finance Committee that "13 years of U.S. experience 
        with biotech products have produced no evidence of food safety risks; 
        not one rash, not one cough, not one sore throat, not one headache." 
       More recently, a panel of entomology experts has questioned the only 
        seemingly legitimate environmental issue raised to date - the alleged 
        threat to Monarch butterflies. 
      Yet activists continue to look for a new cause, a new evil in this technology. 
        While these well-fed folks jet around the world plotting ways to disrupt 
        the technology, they cannot or will not see the conditions of millions 
        who are at grave risk of starvation. Activists resist development of longer-lasting 
        fruits and vegetables, at the expense of Third World people who have no 
        refrigeration to preserve their foods. 
      Critics of biotechnology invoke the trite argument that the shortage 
        of food is caused by unequal distribution. There's plenty of food, they 
        declare, we just need to distribute it evenly. That's like saying there 
        is plenty of money in the world so let's just solve the problem of poverty 
        in Ethiopia by redistributing the wealth of Switzerland (or maybe the 
        United Kingdom, where the heir to the throne is particularly opposed to 
        companies "playing God" with biotechnology). 
      The development of local and regional agriculture is the key to addressing 
        both hunger and low income. Genetically improved food is "scale neutral," 
        in that a poor rice farmer with one acre in Bangladesh can benefit as 
        much as a large farmer in California. And he doesn't have to learn a sophisticated 
        new system; he only has to plant a seed. New rice strains being developed 
        through biotechnology can increase yields by 30 to 40 percent. Another 
        rice strain has the potential to prevent blindness in millions of children 
        whose diets are deficient in Vitamin A. 
       Edible vaccines, delivered in locally grown crops, could do more to 
        eliminate disease than the Red Cross, missionaries and U.N. task forces 
        combined, at a fraction of the cost. 
      These are some of the benefits that the Church of England saw when church 
        leaders recently issued a position statement on "playing God" through 
        biotechnology: "Human discovery and invention can be thought of as resulting 
        from the exercise of God-given powers of mind and reason; in this respect, 
        genetic engineering does not seem very different from other forms of scientific 
        advance." 
       More recently, the Vatican director on bioethics, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, 
        criticized the "catastrophic sensationalism with which the press reports 
        on biotechnology" and he rejected the "idea of conceiving scientific progress 
        as something that should be feared." 
      So, if scientists who are developing biotechnology are not "playing God" 
        in the eyes of these religious leaders, what are we to think of self-appointed 
        guardians who would deny its benefits to those who need it most? We have 
        the means to end hunger on this planet and to feed the world's 6 billion 
        - or even 9 billion - people. For the well-fed to spearhead fear-based 
        campaigns and suppress research for ideological and pseudo-science reasons 
        is irresponsible and immoral. 
      == == == 
      C. S. Prakash directs the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research 
        at Tuskegee University in Tuskegee, Ala.  


              









Document Number: 9486 

Can GM Crops Play a Role in Developing Countries?Published in the PBI Bulletin, &quot;Biotechnology 
        and Developing Countries: The potential and the challenge&quot; 
        2004 Issue 2 AgBioWorld
        By Gregory Conko and C.S. Prakash
        December 13, 2004In 2002, while more than 14 million people in six drought-stricken southern 
        African countries faced the risk of starvation, efforts by the U.N.'s 
        World Food Programme were stifled by the global &quot;GM&quot; food controversy. 
        Food aid, containing kernels of bioengineered corn from the United States, 
        was initially rejected by all six governments, even though the very same 
        corn has been consumed daily by hundreds of millions in North and South 
        America and has been distributed by the World Food Programme throughout 
        Africa since 1996.Four of those governments later accepted the grain on condition that 
        it be milled to prevent planting, but Zimbabwe and Zambia continue to 
        refuse to this day, and recently Angola also joined this group. Zambian 
        President Levy Mwanawasa said his people would rather starve than eat 
        bioengineered food, which he described as &quot;poison.&quot; The actually 
        starving Zambian people felt differently, though. One news report after 
        another described scenes of hungry Zambians rioting and overpowering armed 
        guards trying to release tens of thousands of tons of the corn locked 
        away in warehouses by the government.This is one of the tragic consequences of global fearmongering about 
        recombinant DNA technology and bioengineered crops. Although many varieties 
        that are of use to resource-poor farmers in less developed countries are 
        at very early stages of the development process, even ones that have already 
        been commercialized in such countries as Canada and the United States 
        are being kept from farmers by governments skeptical of &quot;genetic 
        modification&quot;.In the most fundamental sense, however, all plant and animal breeding 
        involves &#150; and always has involved &#150; the intentional genetic 
        modification of organisms. And though critics of recombinant DNA believe 
        it is unique, there have always been Cassandras to claim that the latest 
        technology was unnatural, different from its predecessors, and inherently 
        dangerous.As early as 1906, Luther Burbank the noted plant breeder said that, &quot;We 
        have recently advanced our knowledge of genetics to the point where we 
        can manipulate life in a way never intended by nature. We must proceed 
        with the utmost caution in the application of this new found knowledge,&quot; 
        a quip that one might just as easily hear today regarding recombinant 
        DNA modification.But just as Burbank was wrong to claim that there was some special danger 
        in knowledge or technology, so are today's skeptics wrong to believe that 
        modern genetic modification poses some inherent risk. It is not genetic 
        modification per se that generates risk. Recombinant DNA-modified, conventionally 
        modified, and unmodified plants could all prove to be invasive, harm biodiversity, 
        or be harmful to eat. It is not the technique used to modify organisms 
        that makes them risky. Rather risk arises from the characteristics of 
        individual organisms, as well as how and where they are used.That is why the use of bioengineering technology for the development 
        of improved plant varieties has been endorsed by dozens of scientific 
        bodies. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization, 
        the UK's Royal Society, the American Medical Association, and the French 
        Academies of Medicine and Science, among others, have studied bioengineering 
        techniques and given them a clean bill of health. Moreover, bioengineered 
        crop plants may be of even greater value in less developed countries than 
        in industrialized ones.In a report published in July 2000, the UK's Royal Society, the National 
        Academies of Science from Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the U.S., 
        and the Third World Academy of Science, embraced bioengineering, arguing 
        that it can be used to advance food security while promoting sustainable 
        agriculture. &quot;It is critical,&quot; declared the scientists, &quot;that 
        the potential benefits of GM technology become available to developing 
        countries.&quot; And an FAO report issued in May 2004 argued that &quot;effective 
        transfer of existing technologies to poor rural communities and the development 
        of new and safe biotechnologies can greatly enhance the prospects for 
        sustainably improving agricultural productivity today and in the future,&quot; 
        as well as &quot;help reduce environmental damage caused by toxic agricultural 
        chemicals.&quot;Today, some 740 million people go to bed daily on an empty stomach, and 
        nearly 40,000 people&#151;half of them children&#151;die every day due 
        to hungeror malnutrition-related causes. Despite commitments by industrialized 
        countries to increase international aid, Africa still is expected to have 
        over 180 million undernourished citizens in 2030, according to a report 
        published this year by the UN Millennium Project Task Force. Although 
        bioengineered crops alone will not eliminate hunger, they can provide 
        a useful tool for addressing the many agricultural problems in Africa, 
        Asia, Latin America, and other poor tropical regions.Indeed, recombinant DNA-modified crops have already increased crop yields 
        and food production, and reduced the use of synthetic chemical pesticides 
        in both industrialized and less developed countries. These advances are 
        critical in a world where natural resources are finite and where hundreds 
        of millions of people suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Critics dismiss 
        such claims as nothing more than corporate public relations puffery. However, 
        while it is true that most commercially available bioengineered plants 
        were designed for farmers in the industrialized world, the increasing 
        adoption of biotech varieties by underdeveloped countries over the past 
        few years demonstrates their broader applicability.Globally, bioengineered varieties are now grown on more than 165 million 
        acres (67.7 million hectares) in 18 countries, such as Argentina, Australia, 
        Brazil, Canada, China, India, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, and 
        the United States, according to the International Service for the Acquisition 
        of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA). Nearly one-quarter of that acreage 
        is farmed by some 6 million resource-poor farmers in less developed countries. 
        Why? Because they see many of the same benefits that farmers in industrialized 
        nations do.The first generation of biotech crops&#151;approximately 50 different 
        varieties of canola, corn, cotton, potato, squash, soybean, and others&#151;were 
        designed to aid in protecting crops from insect pests, weeds, and plant 
        diseases. As much as 40 percent of crop productivity in Africa and Asia 
        and about 20 percent in the industrialized countries of North America 
        and Europe is lost to these biotic stresses, despite the use of large 
        amounts of insecticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals. 
        Poor tropical farmers may face different pest species than their industrial 
        country counterparts, but both must constantly battle against these threats 
        to their productivity.That's why South African and Filipino farmers are so eager to grow bioengineered 
        corn resistant to insect pests, and why Chinese, Indian, and South African 
        farmers like biotech insect-resistant cotton so much. Indian cotton farmers 
        and Brazilian and Paraguayan soy growers didn't even wait for their governments 
        to approve biotech varieties before they began growing them. It was discovered 
        in 2001 that Indian farmers were planting seed obtained illegally from 
        field trials of a biotech cotton variety then still under governmental 
        review. Farmers in Brazil and Paraguay looked across the border and saw 
        how well their Argentine neighbors were doing with transgenic soybean 
        varieties and smuggling of bioengineered seed became rampant.When the Indian government finally approved bioengineered cotton in 2002 
        for cultivation in seven southern states it proved to be highly successful. 
        A study conducted by the University of Agriculture in Dharwad found that 
        more insect damage was done to conventional hybrids than to the bioengineered 
        variety and that the bioengineered cotton reduced pesticide spraying by 
        half or more, delivering a 30-40 percent profit increase.During the 2002-2003 growing season, some Indian cotton farmers saw no 
        increased yield from the more expensive biotech varieties, but droughts 
        during that year generated harsh conditions throughout India's southern 
        cotton belt. Many growers of conventional crop varieties also suffered 
        unanticipated and tragic crop losses. Most of the farmers who grew bioengineered 
        cotton decided to plant it again in 2003, however, and total planted acreage 
        grew from approximately 1 million acres in 2002-2003 to an estimated 3.3 
        million acres in 2003-2004.When the planting of bioengineered soybean was provisionally legalized 
        in Brazil for the 2003-2004 growing season, over 50,000 farmers registered 
        their intent to plant it &#150; including almost 98 percent of the growers 
        in the southern-most state of Rio Grande do Sul, where the soybeans originally 
        bred for Argentine climatic conditions will grow best. What is especially 
        noteworthy is that the government decree did not legalize commercial sales 
        of the biotech soybean, it only authorized the planting of illegal seed 
        already in the possession of farmers. Thus, by registering their intent 
        to grow the bioengineered variety, farmers were informing the government 
        of their prior guilt.There are few greater testaments to the benefits of biotechnology than 
        the fact that thousands of poor farmers are willing to acknowledge having 
        committed a crime just to gain access to the improved varieties. The clear 
        lesson is that, where bioengineered varieties become available (legal 
        or not), most farmers themselves are eager to try them.&quot;When the Indian government finally approved bioengineered cotton 
        in 2002 ... it proved to be highly successful.&quot;There is even evidence that biotech varieties have literally saved human 
        lives. In less developed nations, pesticides are typically sprayed on 
        crops by hand, exposing farm workers to severe health risks. Some 400 
        to 500 Chinese cotton farmers die every year from acute pesticide poisoning 
        because, until recently, the only alternative was risking near total crop 
        loss due to voracious insects. A study conducted by researchers at the 
        Chinese Academy of Sciences and Rutgers University in the U.S. found that 
        adoption of bioengineered cotton varieties in China has lowered the amount 
        of pesticides used by more than 75 percent and reduced the number of pesticide 
        poisonings by an equivalent amount. Another study by economists at the 
        University of Reading in the U.K. found that South African cotton farmers 
        have seen similar benefits.The productivity gains generated by bioengineered crops provide yet another 
        important benefit: they could save millions of acres of sensitive wildlife 
        habitat from being converted into farmland. The loss and fragmentation 
        of wildlife habitats caused by agricultural encroachment in regions experiencing 
        the greatest population growth are widely recognized as among the most 
        serious threats to biodiversity. Thus, increasing agricultural productivity 
        is an essential environmental goal, and one that would be much easier 
        in a world where bioengineering technology is in widespread use.Opponents of biotechnology argue that organic farming can reduce pesticide 
        use even more than bioengineered crops can. But organic farming practices 
        are less productive, because there are few effective organic controls 
        for insects, weeds, or pathogens. Converting from modern, technology-based 
        agriculture to organic would mean either reducing global food output significantly 
        or sacrificing undeveloped land to agriculture. Moreover, feeding the 
        anticipated population of eight or nine billion people in the year 2050 
        will mean increasing food production by at least 50 percent.As it is, the annual rate of increase in food production globally has 
        dropped from 3 percent in the 1970s to 1 percent today. Additional gains 
        from conventional breeding are certainly possible, but the maximum theoretical 
        yields for most crop plants are being approached rapidly. Despite the 
        simplistic claims made by critics of plant technology, providing genuine 
        food security must include solutions other than mere redistribution. There 
        is simply no way for organic farming to feed a global population of nine 
        billion people without having to bring substantially more land into agricultural 
        use. Dramatically improving crop yields will prove to be an essential 
        environmental and humanitarian goal.We have already realized significant environmental benefits from the 
        biotech crops currently being grown, including a reduction in pesticide 
        use of 20 million kg in the U.S. alone. A 2002 Council for Agricultural 
        Science and Technology report also found that recombinant DNA-modified 
        crops in the US promote the adoption of conservation tillage practices, 
        resulting in many other important environmental benefits: 37 million tons 
        of topsoil preserved; 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 
        from farm machinery; 70 percent reduction in herbicide run-off; 90 percent 
        decrease in soil erosion; and from 15 to 26 liters of fuel saved per acre.And, as we have seen, while the first generation of bioengineered crops 
        was not designed with poor tropical farmers in mind, these varieties are 
        highly adaptable. Examples of the varieties that now are being designed 
        specifically for resource-poor farmers include virus-resistant cassava, 
        insectresistant rice, sweet potato, and pigeon pea, and dozens of others. 
        Chinese scientists, leaders in the development of both bioengineered and 
        conventional rice have been urging their government to approve commercialization 
        of their biotech varieties that have been thoroughly tested and ready 
        for market for several years.The next generation of products, now in research labs and field trial 
        plots, includes crops designed to tolerate climatic stresses such as extremes 
        of heat, cold, and drought, as well as crops designed to grow better in 
        poor tropical soils high in acidity or alkalinity, or contaminated with 
        mineral salts. A Mexican research group has shown that tropical crops 
        can be modified using recombinant DNA technology to better tolerate acidic 
        soils, significantly increasing the productivity of corn, rice and papaya. 
        These traits for greater tolerance to adverse environmental conditions 
        would be tremendously advantageous to poor farmers in less developed countries, 
        especially those in Africa.Africa did not benefit from the Green Revolution as much as Asian and 
        Latin American nations did because plant breeders focused on improving 
        crops such as rice and wheat, which are not widely grown in Africa. Plus, 
        much of the African dry lands have little rainfall and no potential for 
        irrigation, both of which play essential roles in productivity success 
        stories for crops such as Asian rice. And the remoteness of many African 
        villages and the poor transportation infrastructure in landlocked African 
        countries make it difficult for African farmers to obtain agricultural 
        chemical inputs such as fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides &#150; 
        even if they could be donated by aid agencies and charities. But, by packaging 
        technological inputs within seeds, biotechnology can provide the same, 
        or better, productivity advantages as chemical or mechanical inputs, but 
        in a much more user-friendly manner. Farmers could be able to control 
        insect pests, viral or bacterial pathogens, extremes of heat or drought 
        and poor soil quality, just by planting these crops.And the now-famous Golden Rice, with added beta carotene, is just one 
        of many examples of bioengineered crops with improved nutritional content. 
        Indian scientists have recently announced development of a new highprotein 
        potato variety available for commercial cultivation. Another team of Indian 
        scientists, working with technical and financial assistance from Monsanto, 
        is developing an improved mustard variety with enhanced betacarotene in 
        its oil. One lab at Tuskegee University is enhancing the level of dietary 
        protein in sweet potatoes, a common staple crop in sub-Saharan Africa. 
        Researchers are also developing varieties of cassava, rice, and corn that 
        more efficiently absorb trace metals and micronutrients from the soil, 
        have enhanced starch quality, and contain more beta-carotene and other 
        beneficial vitamins and minerals.Ultimately, while no assurance of perfect safety can be made, breeders 
        know far more about the genetic makeup, product characteristics, and safety 
        of every modern bioengineered crop than those of any conventional variety 
        ever marketed. Breeders know exactly what new genetic material has been 
        introduced. They can identify where the transferred genes have been inserted 
        into the new plant. They can test to ensure that transferred genes are 
        working properly and that the nutritional elements of the food have been 
        unchanged. None of these safety assurances have ever before been made 
        with conventional breeding techniques. We have always lived with food 
        risks. But modern genetic technology makes it increasingly easier to reduce 
        those risks.Societal anxiety over the new tools for genetic modification is, in some 
        ways, understandable. It is fueled by a variety of causes, including consumer 
        unfamiliarity, lack of reliable information on the current safeguards 
        in place, a steady stream of negative opinion in the news media, opposition 
        by activist groups, growing mistrust of industry, and a general lack of 
        awareness of how our food production system has evolved over time. But 
        saying that public apprehension over biotechnology is understandable is 
        not the same as saying that it is valid. With more than thirty years of 
        experience using recombinant DNA technology, and nearly two decades worth 
        of pre-commercial and commercial experience with bioengineered crop plants, 
        we can be confident that it is one of the most important and safe technologies 
        in the plant breeder's toolbox. It would be a shame to deny biotechnology's 
        fruits to those who are most in need of its benefits.Further ReadingJames, C. (2003). Preview-Global review of Commercialized Transgenic
        Crops: 2003. ISAAA Briefs No. 30. International Service for the Acquisition 
        of Agri-Biotech Applications: Ithaca, N.Y.Carpenter, J., Felsot, A.,Goode, T., Hammig, M., Onstad, D., and Sankula, 
        S. (2002) Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and 
        Traditional Soybean, Corn and Cotton Crops. Council on Agricultural Science 
        and Technology: Ames, Iowa.FAO (2004) The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004-Agricultural
        Biotechnology: Meeting the needs of the poor? Food and Agriculture Organization 
        of the United Nations: Rome.Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian 
        Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National 
        Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy 
        of Sciences. (2000) Transgenic Plants And World Agriculture. National 
        Academy Press: Washington D.C.United Nations Development Programme. (2001) Human Development Report
        2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development. Oxford University 
        Press: New York.Kessler, C and Economidis, I. (2001) EC-sponsored Research on Safety 
        of Genetically Modified Organisms: A Review of Results. Office for Official 
        Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. 


              









Document Number: 2750 

Genetically Modified Foods Are Nothing NewOur food has long been &quot;unnatural,&quot; and it's 
        a good thing. So why all the fuss about modern genetic practices?BetterHumans.com
        By Channapatna S. Prakash and Gregory ConkoOctober 06, 2003 From the dawn of civilization, mankind has been modifying plants at the 
        genetic level to suit its needs, and the fates of human society and agricultural 
        crops have been inextricably linked and mutually interdependent ever since. 
        Agriculture allowed humans to abandon hunter-gatherer behavior, in turn 
        spawning broader economic and cultural development. And the suitability 
        of certain plant species for food or fiber&#151;which provided the proximate 
        cause for their eventual domestication&#151;let those organisms survive 
        and thrive far beyond their original ranges. 
      Our ancestors chose a few once-wild plants and gradually modified them 
        simply by selecting those with the largest, tastiest or most robust offspring 
        for propagation. In that way, organisms have been altered so greatly over 
        the millennia that traits present in existing populations of cultivated 
        rice, wheat, corn, soy, potatoes, tomatoes and many others have very little 
        in common with their ancestors. Wild tomatoes and potatoes contain very 
        potent toxins, for example. But today's cultivated varieties have been 
        modified to produce healthy and nutritious food.Breeding safe and useful crops from wild plants was a remarkable feat, 
        given how poorly those first plant breeders understood the dynamics of 
        selection and heritability. It was not until the 19th century that plant 
        genetic modification became anything other than a hit or miss affair. 
        Gregor Mendel's discovery of the principles of inheritance in the 1860s 
        gave rise to a revolution in crop hybridization, perhaps best characterized 
        by the life of horticulturalist Luther Burbank. Burbank developed more 
        than 800 new varieties of fruits, vegetables, flowers, and trees&#151;some 
        so unique that he was eventually awarded patents on 16 of his plants.Yet, despite the predictive capacity that arose from Mendelian principles, 
        actual understanding of the source of plant characteristics was still 
        quite limited until the turn of the 20th century. Verification of Mendel's 
        principles initiated a wave of new genetic discoveries clarifying how 
        nucleic acids within plant cells controlled the generation of specific 
        traits. From that point forward, hybridization could truly be considered 
        more a science than an art.Early experiments in corn hybridization by G.H. Shull in the 1900s established 
        the modern genetics foundation for a revolution in food and fiber production. 
        Shull's scientifically guided corn breeding helped lay the groundwork 
        for the Green Revolution some half a century later, and initiated yield 
        growth from fewer than 30 bushels per acre in the 1920s to more than 130 
        bushels per acre in the late 1990s. Such productivity gains helped North 
        American and European farmers grow more food at a lower cost, without 
        having to encroach upon forests and other wildlands to feed an ever-growing 
        population. Crop improvement has thus been one of the most important environmental 
        success stories in history.Modern genetics has been so powerful an influence on food production 
        that, in a recent survey, members of the North American Agricultural Journalists 
        professional society ranked crop hybridization, recombinant DNA genetic 
        modification, discovery of DNA's double helix structure and the Green 
        Revolution as the four most important developments in agriculture during 
        the past 50 years.The productivity gains derived from scientifically bred, high yielding 
        crop varieties allowed the world's farmers to double output during the 
        last 50 years, on roughly the same amount of land, at a time when global 
        population rose more than 80%. Without genetics and other scientific developments 
        in agriculture, we would today be farming on every square inch of arable 
        land to produce the same amount of food, destroying hundreds of millions 
        of hectares of pristine wilderness in the process.How natural are our crops?All crops are unnatural. Not only are they vastly different from their 
        wild ancestors, but most also had their origin and domestication far from 
        where they are now grown. For instance, the US is the world's leading 
        producer of corn and soy, yet these crops are native to Mexico and China, 
        respectively. Wheat, grown throughout Western Europe, was domesticated 
        in Mesopotamia. The world's largest traded commodity, coffee, had a humble 
        origin in Ethiopia. But now, most coffee is produced in Latin America 
        and Asia. Florida oranges have their roots in India, while sugarcane arose in Papua 
        New Guinea. Food crops that today are so integral to the culture or diet 
        in the Old World, such as the potato in Europe, chili pepper in India, 
        cassava in Africa and sweet potato in Japan, were introduced from South 
        America. For that matter, every crop in North America other than the blueberry, 
        Jerusalem artichoke, sunflower and squash is borrowed from somewhere else.All our crops, domesticated long ago, have more recently been improved 
        for human use. Rapeseed, grown in Asia for centuries, naturally contains 
        two dangerous chemicals that make it more amenable for use as a lubricant 
        than a cooking oil. But in the 1960s, Canadian scientists used conventional 
        breeding techniques to eliminate the genes responsible for producing those 
        toxic and smelly chemicals. They named their creation canola (short for 
        Canadian oil), a popular but completely new crop now grown widely in North 
        America and Europe.In the most fundamental sense, all plant and animal breeding involves, 
        and always has involved, this kind of intentional genetic modification&#151;adding 
        useful new genes and shedding old deleterious ones. And though critics 
        of today's most advanced breeding method, recombinant DNA, believe it 
        is somehow unique, there have always been Cassandras to claim that the 
        latest technology was unnatural, different from its predecessors and inherently 
        dangerous. As early as 1906, Luther Burbank noted that, &quot;We have 
        recently advanced our knowledge of genetics to the point where we can 
        manipulate life in a way never intended by nature. We must proceed with 
        the utmost caution in the application of this new found knowledge,&quot; 
        a cautionary note one might just as easily hear today regarding recombinant 
        DNA&#151;modern genetic modification.But just as Burbank was wrong to claim that there was some special danger 
        in the knowledge that permitted broader sexual crosses, so are today's 
        skeptics wrong to believe that modern genetic modification poses some 
        inherently greater risk. It is not genetic modification per se that generates 
        risk. Recombinant DNA modified, conventionally modified and unmodified 
        plants could all prove to be invasive, harmful to biodiversity or harmful 
        to eat. Rather, risk arises from the characteristics of individual organisms, 
        as well as how and where they are used. Thus, an understanding of the 
        historical context of genetic modification in agriculture may help us 
        to better appreciate the potential role of recombinant DNA technology, 
        and quell public anxieties about its use.Even though it is guided by human hands, hybridization may seem perfectly 
        natural when it simply assimilates desirable traits from several varieties 
        of the same species into elite cultivars. But when desired characteristics 
        are unavailable in cultivated plants, hybridization can be used to borrow 
        liberally from wild and sometimes quite distant relatives. Domesticated 
        tomato plants are commonly bred with wild tomatoes of a different species 
        to introduce improved resistance to pathogens, nematodes and fungi. Successive 
        generations then have to be carefully back-crossed into the commercial 
        cultivars to eliminate any unwanted traits accidentally transferred from 
        the wild varieties, such as glyco-alkaloid toxins common in the wild species.When crop and wild varieties do not readily mate, various tricks can 
        be employed to produce so-called &quot;wide crosses&quot; between two 
        plants that are otherwise sexually incompatible. Still, the embryos created 
        by wide crosses usually die prior to maturation, so they must be &quot;rescued&quot; 
        and cultured in a laboratory. Even then, the rescued embryos typically 
        produce sterile offspring. They can only be made fertile again by using 
        mutagenic chemicals that cause the plants to produce a duplicate set of 
        chromosomes. The plant triticale, an artificial hybrid of wheat and rye, 
        is one such example of a wide-cross hybrid made possible solely by the 
        existence of embryo rescue and chromosome doubling techniques. Triticale 
        is now grown on more than three million acres worldwide, and dozens of 
        other wide-cross hybrids are also common.Finally, when a desired trait cannot be found within the existing gene 
        pool, breeders can create new variants by intentionally mutating plants 
        with x-ray or gamma radiation, with mutagenic chemicals or simply by culturing 
        clumps of cells in a petri dish. A relatively new mutant wheat variety 
        has been produced with chemical mutation to be resistant to the BASF herbicide 
        ClearField. Mutation breeding has been in common use since the 1950s, 
        and more than 2,250 known mutant varieties have been bred in at least 
        50 countries, including France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US.It is important to note that these sophisticated and unnatural breeding 
        techniques are considered &quot;conventional,&quot; and go almost totally 
        unregulated. Yet, despite the massive genetic changes and potential for 
        harm, consumers and anti-technology activists are largely unaware of their 
        existence and evince no concern.Along comes recombinant DNAAs we have seen, all modern crops are a product of various genetic meddling. 
        Recombinant DNA methods can therefore be seen as an extension of the continuum 
        of techniques used to modify organisms over the millennia. The biggest 
        difference is that modern genetically modified crops involve a precise 
        transfer of one or two known genes into plant DNA&#151;a surgical alteration 
        of the crop's genome compared to the sledgehammer approaches of traditional 
        hybridization or mutagenesis. Furthermore, unlike varieties developed 
        from more conventional breeding, modern genetically modified crops are 
        rigorously tested and subject to intense regulatory scrutiny prior to 
        commercialization.There has been widespread acceptance and support for recombinant DNA 
        modification from the scientific community, plant breeders and farmers. 
        Accumulated experience and knowledge of decades of crop improvement combined 
        with expert judgment, science-based reasoning and empirical research has 
        generated confidence that modern genetically modified crops will pose 
        no new or heightened risks that can not be identified and mitigated, and 
        that any unforeseen hazards are likely to be negligible and manageable.Many growers have embraced modern genetically modified technology because 
        it makes farming more efficient, protects or increases yields and reduces 
        their reliance on chemicals that, other things being equal, they would 
        prefer not to use. Crops enhanced with recombinant DNA technology are 
        now grown on nearly 58 million hectares in 16 countries. More importantly, 
        more than three-quarters of the 5.5 million growers who benefit from genetically 
        modified crops are resource-poor farmers in the developing world.High anxiety?Ingredients produced from modern genetic modification are found in thousands 
        of food products consumed worldwide. Yet, even though no legitimate evidence 
        of harm to human health or the environment from these foods is known or 
        expected, there is an intense debate questioning the value and safety 
        of genetically modified organisms.Although it may seem reasonable for consumers to express a concern that 
        they &quot;don't know what they're eating with genetically modified foods,&quot; 
        it must be repeated that consumers never had that information with conventionally 
        modified crops either. Indeed, while no assurance of perfect safety can 
        be made, breeders know far more about the genetic makeup, product characteristics 
        and safety of every modern genetically modified crop than those of any 
        conventional variety ever marketed. Breeders know exactly what new genetic 
        material has been introduced. They can identify where the transferred 
        genes have been inserted into the new plant. They can test to ensure that 
        transferred genes are working properly and that the nutritional elements 
        of the food have been unchanged. None of these safety assurances can be 
        made with conventional breeding techniques.Consider, for example, how conventional plant breeders would develop 
        a disease-resistant tomato. Sexual reproduction introduces chromosome 
        fragments from a wild relative to transfer a gene for disease resistance 
        into cultivated varieties. In the process, hundreds of unknown and unwanted 
        genes are also introduced, with the risk that some of them could encode 
        toxins or allergens. Yet regulators never routinely test conventionally 
        bred plant varieties for food safety or environmental risk factors, and 
        they are subject to practically no government oversight.We have always lived with food risks. But modern genetic technology makes 
        it increasingly easier to reduce those risks.What about the environment?All of us have to eat to live, and organized food production is the most 
        ecologically demanding endeavor we have pursued. Agricultural expansion 
        over the millennia has destroyed millions of acres of forestland around 
        the world. Alien plant species have been introduced into nonnative environments 
        to provide food, feed, fiber and timber, and as a result have disrupted 
        local fauna and flora. Certain aspects of modern farming have had a negative 
        impact on biodiversity and on air, soil and water quality. But do modern 
        genetically modified crops really pose even greater environmental risks, 
        as critics claim?The risk of cross-pollination from crops to wild relatives has always 
        existed, and such &quot;gene flow&quot; occurs whenever crops grow in 
        close proximity to sexually compatible wild relatives. Yet breeders have 
        continuously introduced genes for disease and pest resistance through 
        conventional breeding into all of our crops. Traits, such as stress tolerance 
        and herbicide resistance, have also been introduced in some crops with 
        conventional techniques, and the growth habits of every crop have been 
        altered. Thus, not only is gene modification a common phenomenon, but 
        so are many of the specific kinds of changes made with recombinant DNA 
        techniques.Naturally, with both conventional and recombinant DNA-enhanced breeding, 
        we must be vigilant to ensure that newly introduced plants do not become 
        invasive and that weeds do not become noxious as a result of genetic modification. 
        Although modern genetic modification expands the range of new traits that 
        can be added to crop plants, it also ensures that more will be known about 
        those traits and that the behavior of the modified plants will be, in 
        many ways, easier to predict. That greater knowledge, combined with historical 
        experience with conventional genetic modification, provides considerable 
        assurance that such risks will be minimal and manageable.It should also be comforting to recognize that no major weed or invasiveness 
        problems have developed since the advent of modern plant breeding, because 
        domesticated plants are typically poorly fit for survival in the wild. 
        Indeed, concerns about genetically modified crops running amok, or errant 
        genes flowing into wild species&#151;sometimes characterized as &quot;gene 
        pollution&quot;&#151;pale in comparison to the genuine risk posed by introducing 
        totally unmodified &quot;exotic&quot; plants into new ecosystems. Notable 
        examples of the latter include water hyacinth in Lake Victoria, cord-grass 
        in China, cattail in Nigeria and kudzu in North America.This is, of course, not to say that no harm could ever come from the 
        introduction of modern genetically modified or conventionally modified 
        crop varieties. Some traits, if transferred from crops to wild relatives, 
        could increase the reproductive fitness of weeds and cause them to become 
        invasive or to erode the genetic diversity of native flora. But the magnitude 
        of that risk has solely to do with the traits involved, the plants into 
        which they are transferred and the environment into which they are introduced. 
        Consequently, breeders, farmers and regulators are aware of the possibility 
        that certain traits introduced into any new crop varieties, or new varieties 
        introduced into different ecosystems, could pose genuine problems, and 
        these practices are carefully scrutinized. Again, though, this risk occurs 
        regardless of the breeding method used to introduce those traits into 
        the crop.Finally, one must also recognize the potential positive impact of recombinant 
        DNA modified crops on the environment. Already, commercialized genetically 
        modified crops have reduced agricultural expansion and promoted ecosystem 
        preservation, improved air, soil and water quality as a consequence of 
        reduced tillage, chemical spraying and fuel use and enhanced biodiversity 
        because of lower insecticide use.Studies have shown that the eight most common modern genetically modified 
        crops grown in the US alone increased crop yields by nearly 2 billion 
        kilograms, provided a net value of US$1.5 billion and reduced pesticide 
        use by 20 million kilograms. A 2002 Council for Agricultural Science and 
        Technology report also found that recombinant DNA modified crops promote 
        the adoption of conservation tillage practices, resulting in many other 
        important environmental benefits: 37 million tons of topsoil preserved, 
        85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from farm machinery, 70% reduction 
        in herbicide runoff, 90% decrease in soil erosion and from 15 to 26 liters 
        of fuel saved per acre.Conclusion: Societal anxiety over the new genetic modification is, in 
        some ways, understandable. It is fueled by a variety of causes, including 
        unfamiliarity, lack of reliable information about regulatory safeguards, 
        a steady stream of negative opinion in the news media, opposition by activist 
        groups, growing mistrust of industry and a general lack of awareness of 
        how our food production system has evolved.Humans and crops will always be mutually dependent upon one another's 
        survival, and the guided evolution of crops will continue but increasingly 
        will be more precise and safer. An appreciation of the history of agricultural 
        development, however, may provide us with a useful roadmap for devising 
        appropriate strategies for informing the public and making rational societal 
        responses to crop improvement.Channapatna S. Prakash is a professor of plant biotechnology at Tuskegee 
        University in Alabama and the president of AgBioWorld Foundation based 
        in Auburn, Alabama. Gregory Conko is director of food safety policy at 
        the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington and vice-president 
        of AgBioWorld Foundation. This article first appeared in the retrospective 
        50 Years of DNA published in London by Business Weekly and the Wellcome 
        Trust this spring. 


              









Document Number: 1054 

Time for the GM Moratorium to Go  Wall Street Journal (Europe)
        Gregory Conko and C.S. Prakash
        May 13, 2003 After months of anticipation, the U.S. government is expected to file 
        a formal complaint today with the World Trade Organization against the 
        European Union's five-year moratorium on new genetically modified crop 
        varieties. 
      The move will undoubtedly be ridiculed as a cynical attempt by Americans 
        to force GM products down the throats of skeptical Europeans. Yet, while 
        the U.S. is surely motivated by a parochial desire to aid American farmers, 
        filing such a complaint will have benefits far beyond U.S. borders. The 
        biggest beneficiaries are sure to be resource-poor farmers in less developed 
        countries.By now, many readers will be familiar with the story of Zambian President 
        Levy Mwanawasa who, last autumn, rejected some 23,000 metric tons of food 
        aid in the midst of a two-year-long drought that threatened the lives 
        of over two million Zambians.President Mwanawasa's public explanation was that the GM maize from the 
        United States was &quot;poison.&quot; But, other Zambian government officials 
        conceded that the bigger concern was for future corn exports to the EU 
        market. If even a little of the food aid were diverted to seed stock, 
        it could threaten the exportability of the entire Zambian maize crop for 
        many years to come.Zambia is not unique. European GM restrictions have had other, similar, 
        consequences throughout the developing world. Thai government officials 
        have been warned by European importers not to authorize any GM rice varieties. 
        Uganda has stopped research on GM bananas and postponed their introduction 
        indefinitely. Argentina has limited its approvals to two GM crop varieties 
        that are already permitted in European markets. Even China, which has 
        spent hundreds of millions of euros funding advanced biotechnology research, 
        has refused to authorize any new GM food crops since the moratorium began.Critics often deride GM crops with built-in pest, weed, and disease resistance 
        as helpful only for wealthy farmers in industrialized nations, but developing 
        countries could benefit tremendously from the adoption of GM crops.As much as 40% of conventional crop productivity in Africa and Asia is 
        lost to insect pests, weeds, and plant diseases. But many of the same 
        GM crops available in North America are already helping poor farmers in 
        South Africa, India, China, and the Philippines combat often-voracious 
        insects while reducing the amount of insecticides or eliminating them 
        altogether. Indeed, studies of South African and Chinese cotton growers 
        suggest that small farmers actually achieve disproportionately higher 
        benefits from GM relative to larger competitors, because expensive machinery 
        can at times be made obsolete.What's more, GM crops with added nutritional benefits -- such as the 
        much-touted golden rice and high-protein sweet potatoes -- are likely 
        to be available within a few years.Still, the EU moratorium persists after five long years despite copious 
        evidence that genetic modification does not pose any risks that aren't 
        also present in other crop-breeding methods. A review of 81 separate research 
        projects conducted over 15 years and funded exclusively by the EU found 
        that GM crops and foods are just as safe for the environment and for human 
        consumption as conventional crops, and in some cases are even safer because 
        the genetic changes in the plants are much more precise.Dozens of scientific organizations, including the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture 
        Organization and the World Health Organization, have studied GM techniques 
        and given them a clean bill of health. And in December, the French Academies 
        of Medicine and Science added their names to that growing list and called 
        for an end to the moratorium.Some will claim that the EU is already set to end the moratorium just 
        as soon as its new approval regulations and labeling and traceability 
        rules are implemented by member nations. Why risk a consumer backlash 
        at a time when the moratorium's end is within sight? But this na&Ocirc;ve 
        assertion overlooks four important facts.First, several EU members have already missed the first deadline for 
        implementing the new GM rules, and debates still rage over the coexistence 
        of GM, conventional, and organic crops. How close are they really to ending 
        the moratorium?Second, even if implementation is ultimately completed, what is to prevent 
        individual members from ignoring the EU-wide rules? The European Commission 
        has been famously impotent in pressing Austria, Luxembourg, and Italy 
        to accept GM products that have already been approved by the EU.Third, the new GM labeling and traceability rules are hardly an improvement 
        on the current situation. Industrialized countries like the United States, 
        Canada, and Australia may be able to comply. But for poor developing countries, 
        the added cost and complexity of the labeling and traceability rules would 
        only replace a de jure ban with a de facto one, shutting them out of the 
        GM revolution for good.Fourth, special regulations based solely on the process used in a product's 
        creation are just as illegal as a ban under the terms of international 
        treaties signed and ratified by the EU. So, the new GM rules don't even 
        serve to bring the EU into WTO compliance. Nor are they needed, since 
        voluntarily labeled non-GM foods can be found in almost every shop in 
        Western Europe, giving consumers choice.Interestingly, studies of consumer behavior show that, where labeled 
        GM foods and labeled non-GM foods are available, even most European consumers 
        seem to be indifferent to the &quot;genetic status&quot; of the goods 
        they purchase. Indeed, the best possible scenario for all involved would 
        be to end the moratorium immediately and genuinely expand consumers' ability 
        to choose.The EU's blatant flaunting of scientific assessments is why a WTO challenge 
        is likely to succeed. And the fact that less developed countries are most 
        likely to benefit is why the United States should file it. A decision 
        by the 140-member World Trade Organization would send an important signal 
        from the international community that the EU's groundless and genuinely 
        harmful biotechnology restrictions must go.
        --Mr. Conko is director of food safety policy with the Competitive Enterprise 
        Institute in Washington, DC. Mr. Prakash is professor of plant genetics 
        at Tuskegee University in Alabama. The authors are also co-founders of 
        the nonprofit AgBioWorld Foundation. 


              









Document Number: 5824 

GM Animal Feed Safety Papers (abstracts)Compiled by Wayne Parrot
        October, 2005Aeschbacher K, Messikommer R, Meile L, Wenk C (2005) Bt176 corn in 
          poultry nutrition: Physiological characteristics and fate of recombinant 
          plant DNA in chickens. Poultry Science 84:385-394Abstract: A genetically modified Bt176 corn hybrid, which contains 
        an insecticidal protein against the European corn borer, and its conventional, 
        nonmodified counterpart were evaluated in 4 separate trials to verify 
        substantial equivalence in feeding value and animal performance. Thirty-six 
        individually kept laying hens and 3 replicates of 94 broiler chickens 
        each, assigned to 12 cages, were fed 2 different hen and broiler diets 
        containing either 60% conventional or 60% Bt176 corn. The nutrient compositions 
        of the 2 corn hybrids and the 2 corn diets revealed no major differences. 
        Furthermore, metabolism and performance data revealed no significant differences 
        between the birds that received the conventional, nonmodified corn, and 
        those that received the modified corn diets. The detection of the genetic 
        modification, by PCR, in feed obtained from insect-resistant Bt corn, 
        in tissues and products from animals fed Bt corn is described. In all 
        evaluated chicken tissues of muscle, liver, and spleen, the corn-chloroplast 
        ivr gene fragment was amplified. It can be deduced from these findings 
        and from other studies that the transfer of DNA fragments into the body 
        is a normal process that takes place constantly. Nevertheless, no recombinant 
        plant DNA fragments such as recombinant bla or cry1A(b) fragments could 
        be found. Bt-gene specific constructs from the Bt corn were not detected 
        in any of the poultry samples, neither in organs, meat, nor eggs.
          Alexander TW, Sharma R, Deng MY, Whetsell AJ, Jennings JC, Wang YX, 
          Okine E, Damgaard D, McAllister TA (2004) Use of quantitative real-time 
          and conventional PCR to assess the stability of the cp4 epsps transgene 
          from Roundup Ready (R) canola in the intestinal, ruminal, and fecal 
          contents of sheep. Journal of Biotechnology 112:255-266Abstract: The stability of transgenic DNA encoding the synthetic 
        cp4 epsps protein in a diet containing Roundup Ready (RR)&reg; canola 
        meal was determined in duodenal fluid (DF) batch cultures from sheep. 
        A real-time TaqMan&reg; PCR assay was designed to quantify the degradation 
        of cp4 epsps DNA during incubation in DF at pH 5 or 7. The copy number 
        of cp4 epsps DNA in the diet declined more rapidly (P &lt; 0.05) in DF 
        at pH 5 as compared to pH 7. The decrease was attributed mainly to microbial 
        activity at pH 7 and perhaps to plant endogenous enzymes at pH 5. The 
        62-bp fragment of cp4 epsps DNA detected by real-time PCR reached a maximum 
        of approximately 1600 copies in the aqueous phase of DF at pH 7, whereas 
        less than 20 copies were detected during incubations in DF at pH 5. A 
        1363-bp sequence of cp4 epsps DNA was never detected in the aqueous fraction 
        of DF. Additionally, genomic DNA isolated from RR&reg; canola seed was 
        used to test the persistence of fragments of free DNA in DF at pH 3.2, 
        5, and 7, as well as in ruminal fluid and feces. Primers spanning the 
        cp4 epsps DNA coding region amplified sequences ranging in size from 300 
        to 1363 bp. Free transgenic DNA was least stable in DF at pH 7 where fragments 
        less than 527 bp were detected for up to 2 min and fragments as large 
        as 1363 bp were detected for 0.5 min. This study shows that digestion 
        of plant material and release of transgenic DNA can occur in the ovine 
        small intestine. However, free DNA is rapidly degraded at neutral pH in 
        DF, thus reducing the likelihood that intact transgenic DNA would be available 
        for absorption through the Peyer's Patches in the distal ileum.
          Ash J, Novak C, Scheideler SE (2003) The fate of genetically modified 
          protein from Roundup Ready Soybeans in laying hens. Journal of Applied 
          Poultry Research 12:242-245Abstract: A study was conducted to determine the extent of genetically 
        modified (GM) protein from Roundup Ready Soybeans in tissues and eggs 
        of laying hens. Because a breakdown of the modified portion of protein 
        was expected due to the digestive process of the hen, an immunoassay test 
        was run. By using a double antibody sandwich format specific for the CP4 
        EPSPS protein, a qualitative test was performed to determine the presence 
        of modified proteins in various samples. Raw soybeans, soybean meal, complete 
        diet, whole egg, egg albumen, liver, and feces from laying hens were collected 
        from two independent commercial egg producers. Roundup Ready soybeans, 
        soybean meal, and complete diets ere determined to contain the GM proteins. 
        Whole egg, egg albumen, liver, and feces were all negative for GM protein. 
        In conclusion, the digestive process of the laying hen effectively broke 
        down the GM protein from the soybean meal portion of the diet, hence no 
        modified protein was found in the liver, egg; or feces in this brief field 
        trial.
          Aulrich K, Bohme H, Daenicke R, Halle I, Flachowsky G (2001) Genetically 
          modified feeds in animal nutrition 1st communication: Bacillus thuringiensis 
          (Bt) corn in poultry, pig and ruminant nutrition. Archives of Animal 
          Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 54:183-195Abstract: Investigates the substantial equivalence of a transgenic 
        Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn and nontransgenic hybrid Cesar and a 
        nutrition psychology for poultry, pigs and ruminants. Details of experiments 
        conducted on corn, laying hens, broilers, pigs and ruminants; Overview 
        on the cultivation of transgenic plants; Information on the concept of 
        substantial equivalence.
          Barriere Y, Verite R, Brunschwig P, Surault F, Emile JC (2001) Feeding 
          value of corn silage estimated with sheep and dairy cows is not altered 
          by genetic incorporation of Bt176 resistance to Ostrinia nubilalis. 
          Journal of Dairy Science 84:1863-1871Abstract: A genetically modified Bt176 corn hybrid (Rh208Bt)-providing 
        control of European corn borer damage-and the conventional isogenic hybrid 
        (Rh208)-harvested as whole plant silage-were evaluated in three separate 
        feeding trials to verify that the in vivo feeding value was substantially 
        equivalent among modified and conventional hybrids. In the first trial, 
        after a week of preexperiment, two sets of six Texel sheep, housed in 
        digestibility crates, were fed silage sources of Rh208 and Rh208Bt; hybrids, 
        and silage of three additional control varieties of low, intermediate, 
        and high feeding value (Rh289, Adonis, and Adonis bm3) for 1 wk. Feed 
        offered to sheep was adjusted to maintenance requirements based on metabolic 
        body weight. Agronomic and biochemical traits were similar among the Rh208 
        and Rh208Bt; hybrids. Organic matter digestibility (67.1 and 67.6%), crude 
        fiber digestibility (52.9 and 54.2%), and neutral detergent fiber digestibility 
        (50.2 and 49.0%) were not significantly different among Rh208 and Rh208Bt 
        hybrids. In the second trial, two sets of 24 Holstein cows were fed silage 
        from Rh208 and Rh208Bt corn hybrids for 13 wk, 9 wk after calving, and 
        including 2 wk of preexperiment. Fat-corrected milk yield (31.3 and 31.4 
        kg/d), protein content (31.7 and 31.6 g/kg) and fat content (36.7 and 
        37.0 g/kg) in milk of dairy cows were unaffected by hybrid source. Body 
        weight gains of cattle were not different. However, intake was significantly 
        higher in cows fed Rh208Bt silage. In the third trial, five midlactation 
        multiparous Holstein cows were successively fed the silage from Rh208 
        and Rh208Bt corn hybrids 2 or 3 wk. Data were considered only for the 
        last week of each period. There were no significant effects on protein 
        fractions, fatty acid composition, or coagulation properties of milk between 
        Rh208 and Rh208Bt fed cattle. Cattle and sheep can perform equally well 
        with a conventional or a genetically modified Bt176 corn silage
          Bohme H, Aulrich K, Daenicke R, Flachowsky G (2001) Genetically modified 
          feeds in animal nutrition 2nd communication: Glufosinate tolerant sugar 
          beets (roots and silage) and maize grains for ruminants and pigs. Archives 
          of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 54:197-207Abstract: To analyse substantial equivalence of genetically modified 
        sugar-beets and maize, in which the glufosinate-tolerant (Pat) gene is 
        inserted, crude nutrients, the amino acid and the fatty acid profiles 
        as well as the composition of the NDF-fraction of maize grains were determined 
        and compared with those of the corresponding non-transgenic cultivars. 
        Due to the genetic manipulation differences in crude nutrient contents 
        including sugar and starch were not detected, The amino acid profile of 
        maize grains was analysed to be the same, Fatty acid profile and composition 
        of cell wall constituents did not show any influences as well. Digestibility 
        of Pat-sugar-beets and maize grains for pigs did not demonstrate meaningful 
        differences as compared to the corresponding non-transgenic cultivars. 
        Digestibility of sugar-beet roots and sugar-beet top silage for ruminants 
        proved to be also in the scope of natural variance. As the digestibility 
        of the macro nutrients remained unaffected, the Pat-gene introduction 
        into both crops did not show an influence on the energetic feeding value. 
        For pigs the ME-content of Pat-sugar-beets was determined to be 14.1 MJ/kg 
        DM versus 13.7 MJ of the non-transgenic cultivars. ME-content of Pat-maize 
        grains was 16.0 MJ/kg DM versus 15.8 MJ for controls. For ruminants the 
        feeding value of Pat-sugar-beets was found to be 8.5 MJ NEL/kg DM or 13.2 
        MJ ME/kg DM, regardless of whether the Pat-gene was inserted or not. The 
        corresponding energy values of sugar-beet top silage ranged between 5.2 
        and 5.5 MJ NEL/kg DM or 8.6 and 9.1 MJ ME/kg DM, with differences considered 
        in the biological range
          Brake DG, Thaler R, Evenson DP (2004) Evaluation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) 
          corn on mouse testicular development by dual parameter flow cytometry. 
          Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52:2097-2102.Abstract: The health safety of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn 
        (Zea mays L.) was studied using mouse testes as a sensitive biomonitor 
        of potential toxic effects. Pregnant mice were fed a Bt corn or a nontransgenic 
        (conventional) diet during gestation and lactation. After they were weaned, 
        young male mice were maintained on the respective diets. At 8, 16, 26, 
        32, 63, and 87 days after birth, three male mice and an adult reference 
        mouse were killed, the testes were surgically removed, and the percentage 
        of germ cell populations was measured by flow cytometry. Multigenerational 
        studies were conducted in the same manner. There were no apparent differences 
        in percentages of testicular cell populations (haploid, diploid, and tetraploid) 
        between the mice fed the Bt corn diet and those fed the conventional diet. 
        Because of the high rate of cell proliferation and extensive differentiation 
        that makes testicular germ cells highly susceptible to some toxic agents, 
        it was concluded that the Bt corn diet had no measurable or observable 
        effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development. 
        If data from this study were extrapolated to humans, Bt corn is not harmful 
        to human reproductive development. Brake J, Vlachos D (1998) Evaluation of transgenic event 176 &quot;Bt&quot; 
          corn in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 77:648-653.Abstract: A 38-d feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler 
        diets prepared with transgenic Event 176-derived &quot;Bt&quot; corn (maize) 
        grain had any adverse effects on male or female broiler chickens as compared 
        to diets prepared with nontransgenic (isogenic) control corn grain. No 
        statistically significant differences in survival or BW were observed 
        bet ia een birds reared on mash or pelleted diets prepared with transgenic 
        corn and similar diets prepared using control corn. Broilers raised on 
        diets prepared from the transgenic corn exhibited significantly better 
        feed conversion ratios and improved yield of the Pectoralis minor breast 
        muscle. Although it is not clear whether this enhanced performance was 
        attributable to the transgenic corn per se, or due to possible slight 
        differences in overall composition of the formulated diets, it was clear 
        that the transgenic corn had no deleterious effects in this study
          Brake J, Faust MA, Stein J (2003) Evaluation of transgenic event Bt11 
          hybrid corn in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 82:551-559Abstract: A feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler diets 
        prepared with grain derived from Syngenta Seeds NK Brand Bacillus thuringiensis 
        (Bt) Corn hybrids had any adverse effects on male or female broiler chickens. 
        Four kinds of corn grain were used in this study: (1) grain from the Bt-expressing 
        field corn hybrid N7070Bt, (2) grain from the N7070Bt hybrid that had 
        been sprayed with Liberty brand herbicide (glufosinate) according to manufacturer's 
        instructions (N7070Bt + Liberty), (3) grain from standard N7070 (non-Bt 
        isoline of N7070Bt) grain, and (4) a lot of North Carolina grown grain 
        from the 2000 growing season (NC2000). The amino acid balance for the 
        four lots of corn was similar relative to their crude protein content; 
        however, the NC2000 corn had higher protein content. Diets with the higher 
        protein NC2000 season corn were amended with a combination of sand, ground 
        cardboard (Solka Floc), and poultry fat so that the metabolizable energy 
        and crude protein content of the diluted diets would be similar to that 
        of the isoline and transgenic diets. Growth of broilers was excellent 
        with males being significantly heavier than females (2,497 g vs. 2,103 
        g) at 42 d of age. BW of live birds at 42 d was within 26 g for the three 
        treatment groups fed corn that was from the same genetic background, i.e., 
        the two Bt transgenic groups (N7070Bt, N7070Bt + Liberty), and the non-Bt 
        N7070 isoline corn group, while BW for the NC2000 group was significantly 
        lower by 93 g. There was no overall corn source effect on feed conversion 
        ratio (FCR) among the isoline and transgenic corn sources to 42 d of age, 
        but FCR was poorer for broilers consuming the commercial NC2000 corn. 
        There was no overall effect of corn source on survivability to 42 d. Carcass 
        analysis at 48 d demonstrated no differences in percentage carcass yield 
        due to corn source among males and females. The transgenic N7070Bt and 
        N7070Bt + Liberty hybrid diets supported excellent broiler chicken growth 
        with mortality and FCR that were similar to that supported by the N7070 
        isoline control and better than rates from the commercial NC2000 corn 
        without significant differences among treatment groups in carcass yield. 
        It was clear that the transgenic corn had no deleterious or unintended 
        effects on production traits of broiler chickens in this study
          Brake J, Faust M, Stein J (2005) Evaluation of transgenic hybrid corn 
          (VIP3A) in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 84:503-512Abstract: A 49-d feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler 
        diets prepared with Syngenta Seeds VIP3A transgenic derived corn grain 
        had any unanticipated adverse effects on male or female broiler chickens 
        as compared with diets prepared with nontransgenic (isoline) control corn 
        grain. Two commercial lots of grain grown in North Carolina during the 
        1999 (NC 1999) and 2000 (NC 2000) seasons were included for reference 
        purposes. Broiler growth was excellent with males reaching 3,466 g and 
        females reaching 2,882 g at 49 d of age. Final BW of the VlP3A, isoline, 
        and NC 1999 corn groups were within 21.1 g, whereas the NC 2000 group 
        was 42.4 g lower than the lowest of this group. There was no overall corn 
        source effect on adjusted feed conversion ratio (FCR) or mortality to 
        49 d of age. Carcass analysis demonstrated no differences in percentage 
        yield due to corn source among males and females other than percentage 
        wings in females. Comprehensive clinical chemical analyses of blood taken 
        from representative birds at 49 d of age showed no differences due to 
        corn sources. The transgenic VIP3A hybrid diets numerically supported 
        the most rapid broiler chicken growth, the second lowest mortality rate 
        and best FCR, without practical differences in carcass yield. The few 
        differences found in this study were not unique to a given corn source 
        but instead appeared to be distributed equally across the diet groups 
        evaluated in the study. Although it was not clear whether small differences 
        in performance were attributable to the transgenic corn per se or were 
        due to possible slight differences in overall composition of the formulated 
        diets, it was clear that the transgenic corn had no deleterious effects 
        on broiler performance and carcass yield in this study.
          Broll H, Zagon J, Butschke A, Leffke A, Spiegelberg A, Bohme H, Flachowsky 
          G (2005) The fate of DNA of transgenic inulin synthesizing potatoes 
          in pigs. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 14:337-340Abstract: Silage from a genetically modified potato expressing 
        the 1-SST (sucurose:sucrose 1-fructosyltransferase) and the l-FFT (fructan:fructan 
        1-fructosyltransferase) was used in a feeding experiment with pigs. After 
        a feeding period of 42 days samples from various organs and digesta were 
        collected and investigated with four different real time PCR systems, 
        in order to identify the fate of the foreign DNA. No plant specific DNA 
        or DNA specific for the genome alteration in the transgenic potato were 
        detected in any organ. In contrast, chloroplast specific DNA was detected 
        in the digesta of duodenum, jejunum, colon and rectum. The single-copy 
        metallo-carboxypeptidase inhibitor gene sequence was detected only in 
        samples from the stomach content of pigs fed the isogenic potato and in 
        those from duodenum and jejunum of animals fed the transgenic one. No 
        evidence for the integration of the foreign DNA into the host genome was 
        observed.
          Chesson A, Flachowsky G (2003) Transgenic plants in poultry nutrition. 
          Worlds Poultry Science Journal 59:201-207Abstract: Studies on genetically modified (GM) feedstuffs, for 
        poultry (and other livestock species) have not added any substance to 
        public concerns in Europe about their safety for human or bird health. 
        The compositions of maize lines engineered for insect resistance (Bt-maize) 
        or herbicide tolerance (glyphosate) and herbicide-tolerant soybean have 
        all proved to be essentially indistinguishable from their conventional 
        counterparts. Consequently, and not surprisingly, comparative feeding 
        studies with broilers and layers in which conventional maize (50 to 78%) 
        or soybeans (27%) were replaced in feeds by transgenic varieties, also 
        have failed to show differences of any significance in production parameters. 
        These data indicate that feeding studies with target livestock species 
        contribute very little to the safety assessment of crops engineered for 
        input traits that have little or no detectable effect on chemical composition. 
        However, comparative growth studies made with broiler chicks, particularly 
        sensitive to any change in nutrient supply or the presence of toxic elements 
        in their feed, can be used to screen for any unintended adverse consequence 
        of the recombinant event not detected by compositional analysis. This 
        does, however, depend on whether the GM plant can be matched to a parental 
        line or another suitable control and its suitability for inclusion in 
        broiler diets. The discovery that DNA fragments from the digestive tract 
        can be found in the tissues of animals evoked interest in the fate of 
        ingested transgenes. Plant DNA derived from feed has been detected in 
        the muscle, liver, spleen and kidneys of broilers and layers, although 
        not in eggs. However, no fragments of transgenic DNA or its expressed 
        protein have been found to date in poultry meat or eggs or in any other 
        animal tissues examined
          Chowdhury EH, Mikami O, Murata H, Sultana P, Shimada N, Yoshioka M, 
          Guruge KS, Yamamoto S, Miyazaki S, Yamanaka N, Nakajima Y (2004) Fate 
          of maize intrinsic and recombinant genes in calves fed genetically modified 
          maize Bt11. Journal of Food Protection 67:365-370Abstract: Sixteen multiparous Holstein cows averaging 74 d in 
        milk were used in a replicated 4 x 4 Latin square to compare the effects 
        on animal performance of feeding whole plant silage and grain from a glyphosate-tolerant 
        corn hybrid (event NK603), a nontransgenic control hybrid, and two commercial 
        nontransgenic hybrids (DK647 and RX740). The grain and silage from the 
        four corn hybrids were produced using the same procedures and under similar 
        agronomic conditions at the University of Illinois. On a dry matter (DM) 
        basis, diets contained 30% corn silage and 27.34% corn grain produced 
        either from event NK603, a nontransgenic control, or commercial hybrids. 
        Apart from the DM content of silages, the chemical composition of both 
        grain and silage produced from the four corn hybrids were substantially 
        equivalent. Feeding diets that contained event NK603 and DK647 hybrids 
        tended to decrease DM intake (DMI) compared with the control nontransgenic 
        and RX740. The intakes of crude protein (CP), acid and neutral detergent 
        fiber, and nonfiber carbohydrates were not different for cows fed event 
        NK603 and control diets. The RX740 diet resulted in the highest intakes 
        of fiber and CP, whereas the DK647 diet resulted in the lowest intake 
        of CP. These differences in nutrient intake arose from small variations 
        in both the DMI and the chemical composition of feed ingredients and experimental 
        diets. Production of milk and 3.5% fat-corrected milk; milk fat, CP, and 
        true protein percentage and yield; milk urea N; milk total solids percentage 
        and yield; and somatic cell count were not affected by treatments. These 
        data indicate that the stable insertion of the gene that confers tolerance 
        to glyphosate (event NK603) in the corn line used in this experiment does 
        not affect its chemical composition and nutritional value for lactating 
        dairy cows when compared with conventional corn.
          Chrenkova M, Sommer A, Ceresnakova Z, Nitrayova S, Prostredna M (2002) 
          Nutritional evaluation of genetically modified maize corn performed 
          on rats. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 56:229-235Abstract: Presents a study that determined the composition and 
        nutritional value of conventional and transgenic maize with an introduced 
        gene of glyphosate resistance that was fed to rats. Background on genetically 
        modified crops; Details on the chemical analysis performed; Implications 
        of the results.
          Daenicke R, Aulrich K, Flachowsky G (1999) GMO in animal feedstuffs: 
          nutritional properties of Bt-maize... Mais: Fachzeitschrift uber Forschung, 
          Produktionstechnik, Verwertung und Okonomik 135-137Abstract: Die Verf&uuml;tterung gentechnisch ver&auml;nderter 
        Pflanzen oder von Teilen dieser Pflanzen und die anschlie&szlig;ende Nutzung 
        der tierischen Produkte werfen mannigfaltige Fragen auf. Die Diskussion 
        hier&uuml;ber wird bislang &auml;hnlich dem Lebensmittelbereich weitgehend 
        auf emotionaler Ebene gef&uuml;hrt.
          Donkin SS, Velez JC, Totten AK, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF (2003) 
          Effects of feeding silage and grain from glyphosate-tolerant or insect-protected 
          corn hybrids on feed intake, ruminal digestion, and milk production 
          in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86:1780-1788Abstract: Lactating dairy cows were used to determine effects 
        of feeding glyphosate-tolerant or insect-protected corn hybrids on feed 
        intake, milk production, milk composition, and ruminal digestibility. 
        Corn resistant to European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) infestation 
        (Bt-MON810), or its nontransgenic control (Bt-CON), were planted in alternating 
        fields, during two successive years. One-half of each strip was harvested 
        for whole plant corn silage and the remainder was allowed to mature and 
        harvested as grain. Effects of feeding diets containing either Bt-MON810 
        or Bt-CON grain and silage were determined in two experiments (1 and 2) 
        conducted during successive years. In experiment 3, glyphosate-tolerant 
        Roundup Ready corn (RR-GA21) or its nontransgenic control (RR-CON) corn 
        were grown in alternating fields during one cropping season. Diets contained 
        42 to 60% corn silage and 20 to 34% corn grain from Bt-MON810, RR-GA21, 
        or the appropriate nontransgenic counterpart; treatments were applied 
        using a switchback design. Cows were fed ad libitum and milked twice daily. 
        There were no differences for nutrient composition between silage sources 
        or between grain sources within an experiment. Data for experiments 1 
        and 2 indicated similar dry matter intake (DMI), 4% fat-corrected milk 
        (FCM) production, and milk composition between Bt-MON810 and Bt-CON diets. 
        There were no differences for DMI, 4% FCM production, and milk composition 
        between RR-GA21 and RR-CON diets. There was no difference in ruminal degradability, 
        determined separately for corn silage and corn grain, for RR-GA21 or Bt-MON810-hybrids 
        compared with their respective controls. These data demonstrate equivalence 
        of nutritional value and production efficiency for corn containing Bt-MON810 
        compared with its control and for RR-GA21 corn compared with its control
          Einspanier R, Lutz B, Rief S, Berezina O, Zverlov V, Schwarz W, Mayer 
          J (2004) Tracing residual recombinant feed molecules during digestion 
          and rumen bacterial diversity in cattle fed transgene maize. European 
          Food Research and Technology 218:269-273Abstract: The aim of this study was to trace selected nucleic 
        acid and protein components of isogene versus Bt transgene maize within 
        the bovine gastrointestinal tract (GIT). After feeding 22 cattle for 4 
        weeks with Bt176 maize, different plant genes and the recombinant protein 
        CryIAb were quantified during digestion. Furthermore, a first initial 
        characterization of rumen bacteria was approached, using 16rDNA gene sequencing 
        comparing isogene- against transgene-fed animals. Ingesta samples of different 
        GIT sections (rumen, abomasum, jejunum, colon) were analysed for chloroplast, 
        maize invertase, zein and Bt toxin (CryIAb) gene fragments using quantitative 
        real-time PCR. First, the initial gene dose of these maize genes was detected 
        in maize silage. During digestion, a significant reduction of high-to-medium 
        abundant plant gene fragments was shown depending on the dwell-time and 
        the initial gene copy number. Immunoreactive CryIAb protein was quantified 
        by ELISA in intestinal samples indicating a significant loss of that protein. 
        Remarkable amounts of Bt toxin were found in all contents of the GIT and 
        the protein was still present in faeces. For the first time, the influence 
        of CryIAb transgene maize on rumen bacterial microflora was investigated 
        compared to isogene material through analysis of 497 individual bacterial 
        16S rDNA sequences. In principle, specific bacterial leader-species could 
        be identified in all bovine rumen extracts, but no significant influence 
        of Bt176 maize feed was found on the composition of the microbial population. 
        This investigation provides supplementing data to further evaluate the 
        fate of novel recombinant material originating from transgene feed or 
        food within the mammalian GIT
          Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified 
          potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. 
          Lancet 354:1353-1354Abstract: Diets containing genetically modified (GM) potatoes 
        expressing the lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) had variable 
        effects on different parts of the rat gastrointestinal tract. Some effects, 
        such as the proliferation of the gastric mucosa, were mainly due to the 
        expression of the GNA transgene. However, other parts of the construct 
        or the genetic transformation (or both) could also have contributed to 
        the overall biological effects of the GNA-GM potatoes, particularly on 
        the small intestine and caecum.
          Fearing PL, Brown D, Vlachos D, Meghji M, Privalle L (1997) Quantitative 
          analysis of CryIA(b) expression in Bt maize plants, tissues, and silage 
          and stability of expression over successive generations. Molecular Breeding 
          3:169-176Abstract: The range and stability of expression of the transgenic 
        CryIA(b) protein was examined in Ciba Seeds Bt maize plants derived from 
        Event 176. Specifically, CryIA(b) levels were determined for: (1) various 
        plant tissues and developmental stages in three maize lines from 1993 
        field tests; (2) pollen and leaves from plants representing four backcross 
        generations of two genotypes; (3) leaves of 6 precommercial hybrids; and 
        (4) silage from one Bt maize hybrid. Significant levels were found only 
        in pollen and leaves. Genetic background did not greatly impact the level 
        seen in either tissue. CryIA(b) expression in maize plants derived from 
        transformation Event 176 was stable over at least four successive generations. 
        On a per acre basis, the highest amount of CryIA(b) protein (estimated 
        to be 2-4 g CryIA(b) protein/acre) was found to occur at anthesis, consistent 
        with the stage at which maximum plant vegetative biomass is reached. CryIA(b) 
        was not detected in silage prepared from CryIA(b)-expressing plants. The 
        maize-expressed CryIA(6) protein was found to have the expected size and 
        to be immunoreactive with antibodies prepared against crystals from Bacillus 
        thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki
          Glencross B, Curnow J, Hawkins W, Kissil GWM, Peterson D (2003) Evaluation 
          of the feed value of a transgenic strain of the narrow-leaf lupin (Lupinus 
          angustifolius) in the diet of the marine fish, Pagrus auratus. Aquaculture 
          Nutrition 9:197-206Abstract: This study assessed the nutritional and biological value 
        of a noncommercial, transgenic line of the Australian sweet lupin, Lupinus 
        angustifolius, (cv. Warrah), produced to increase the methionine content 
        of the seed. An initial experiment demonstrated that differences in the 
        methionine content of the transgenic and nontransgenic control lupins 
        had no apparent influence on the growth of juvenile red seabream fed practical 
        diets. Re-evaluation of the nutritional characteristics of the lupin meals 
        with subsequent digestibility studies allowed the determination of the 
        digestible value of the protein and energy content of each of the varieties. 
        The digestible protein content of either variety was similar, however 
        significant differences in the digestible energy value of each variety 
        existed (56.3% cf. 64.0%). This re-evaluation of the nutritional value 
        of the genetically manipulated (GM) and non-GM lupin varieties enabled 
        the reformulation of diets on a digestible protein and energy basis. A 
        second growth trial was undertaken using sub-satietal pair-feeding regimes, 
        with the experiment also involving protein-restrictive diets to allow 
        expression of the differences in the methionine content of the transgenic 
        and nontransgenic lupin meals. A significant benefit of the enhanced methionine 
        level in the transgenic lupin was observed. It is argued that in the high-protein 
        fish diets used, the importance of amino acid composition is relatively 
        limited. Economic modelling of the potential value of the increased methionine 
        in the transgenic lupin suggests that this will have limited benefit for 
        aquaculture industries, and that greater value would be attributable to 
        higher protein and energy levels in ingredients
          Grant RJ, Fanning KC, Kleinschmit D, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF (2003) 
          Influence of glyphosate-tolerant (event nk603) and corn rootworm protected 
          (event MON863) corn silage and grain on feed consumption and milk production 
          in Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86:1707-1715Abstract: Two studies were conducted to evaluate the effect of 
        a glyphosate-tolerant (event nk603) and a corn rootworm protected (event 
        MON863) corn hybrid on feed intake and milk production compared with the 
        nontransgenic hybrid and two reference hybrids. In Experiment 1, 16 multiparous 
        Holstein cows were assigned to one of four treatments in replicated 4 
        x 4 Latin squares with 28-d periods. Diets contained 40% (dry matter [DM] 
        basis) of either 1) glyphosate-tolerant corn silage (GT), 2) nontransgenic 
        control corn silage, or 3) two nontransgenic reference hybrids which are 
        commercially available. Each diet also contained 23% corn grain from the 
        same hybrid that supplied the silage. At ensiling, rapid drying conditions 
        prevailed and the GT hybrid was the last to be harvested which resulted 
        in greater DM content at similar physiological maturity. The 4% fat-corrected 
        milk (FCM) yield and DMI were reduced for cows fed the GT corn diet due 
        to the higher DM content of the GT silage (37.1 vs. 33.2 kg/d and 4.05 
        vs. 3.61% of BW, respectively). There was no effect of the GT diet on 
        milk composition or efficiency of 4% FCM production that averaged 1.43 
        kg/kg of DM intake for all diets. In Experiment 2, 16 multiparous Holstein 
        cows were assigned to one of four treatments in replicated 4 x 4 Latin 
        squares with 21-d periods. Diets contained 26.7% (DM basis) corn grain 
        from either 1) corn rootworm protected (event MON863) corn hybrid, 2) 
        nontransgenic control corn hybrid, or 3) the same two nongenetically enhanced 
        reference hybrids used in Experiment 1. The 4% FCM yield (34.8 kg/d) and 
        DM intake (4.06% of BW) were unaffected by diet. Efficiency of FCM production 
        (average 1.32 kg/kg of DMI) was not affected by diet. In summary, these 
        two studies indicated that insertion of a gene for glyphosate tolerance 
        or corn rootworm protection into a corn hybrid did not affect its nutritional 
        value (as measured by efficiency of milk production) for lactating dairy 
        cows compared with conventional corn hybrids. 
          Gulden RH, Lerat S, Hart MM, Powell JR, Trevors JT, Pauls KP, Klironomos 
          JN, Swanton CJ (2005) Quantitation of transgenic plant DNA in leachate 
          water: Real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis. Journal of Agricultural 
          and Food Chemistry 53:5858-5865Abstract: Roundup Ready (RR) genetically modified (GM) corn and 
        soybean comprise a large portion of the annual planted acreage of GM crops. 
        Plant growth and subsequent plant decomposition introduce the recombinant 
        DNA (rDNA) into the soil environment, where its fate has not been completely 
        researched. Little is known of the temporal and spatial distribution of 
        plant-derived rDNA in the soil environment and in situ transport of plant 
        DNA by leachate water has not been studied before. The objectives of this 
        study were to determine whether sufficient quantities of plant rDNA were 
        released by roots during growth and early decomposition to be detected 
        in water collected after percolating through a soil profile and to determine 
        the influence of temperature on DNA persistence in the leachate water. 
        Individual plants of RR corn and RR soybean were grown in modified cylinders 
        in a growth room, and the cylinders were flushed with rain water weekly. 
        Immediately after collection, the leachate was subjected to DNA purification 
        followed by rDNA quantification using real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction 
        (PCR) analysis. To test the effects of temperature on plant DNA persistence 
        in leachate water, water samples were spiked with known quantities of 
        RR soybean or RR corn genomic DNA and DNA persistence was examined at 
        5, 15, and 25 C. Differences in the amounts and temporal distributions 
        of root-derived rDNA were observed between corn and soybean plants. The 
        results suggest that rainfall events may distribute plant DNA throughout 
        the soil and into leachate water. Half-lives of plant DNA in leachate 
        water ranged from 1.2 to 26.7 h, and persistence was greater at colder 
        temperatures (5 and 15 C).
          Hamilton KA, Pyla PD, Breeze M, Olson T, Li MH, Robinson E, Gallagher 
          SP, Sorbet R, Chen Y (2004) Bollgard II cotton: Compositional analysis 
          and feeding studies of cottonseed from insect-protected cotton (Gossypium 
          hirsutum L.) producing the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 proteins. Journal of Agricultural 
          and Food Chemistry 52:6969-6976Abstract: Bollgard II cotton event 15985 producing the Cry1Ac 
        and Cry2Ab2 proteins has been developed by genetic modification to broaden 
        the spectrum of insects to which the plant is tolerant and to provide 
        an insect resistance management tool to impede the onset of resistance. 
        The purpose of this study was to evaluate the composition and nutrition 
        of Bollgard II cotton, relative to the use for food and animal feed, compared 
        to that of conventional cotton varieties. Compositional analyses were 
        conducted to measure proximate, fiber, amino acid, fatty acid, gossypol, 
        and mineral contents of cottonseed from a total of 14 U.S. field sites 
        over two years. Compositional analysis results showed that the cottonseed 
        and cottonseed oil from Bollgard II cotton were comparable in their composition 
        to those of the conventional control cotton line and other commercial 
        varieties. The composition data are supported by nutritional safety studies 
        conducted with dairy cows, catfish, and quail. Results from these studies 
        showed that Bollgard II performed similarly to the conventional control 
        cotton varieties. These data demonstrate that Bollgard II cotton is compositionally 
        and nutritionally equivalent to conventional cotton varieties. These data 
        support the conclusion that Bollgard II cotton is as safe and nutritious 
        as conventional cotton for food and feed use.
          Hemre GI, Sanden M, Bakke-Mckellep AM, Sagstad A, Krogdahl A (2005) 
          Growth, feed utilization and health of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L. 
          fed genetically modified compared to non-modified commercial hybrid 
          soybeans. Aquaculture Nutrition 11:157-167Abstract: The present paper represents a part of a major scientific 
        effort aiming to reveal possible effects, nutritional or health related, 
        of genetically modified (GM) feed ingredients for Atlantic salmon. For 
        3 months groups of post-smolt Atlantic salmon were treated with diets 
        holding 130 g kg(1) of the protein as soybean, one which contained 800 
        g kg(-1) GM type RR (Roundup Ready((TM))), and compared with a standard 
        counterpart (commercial hybrid, not isogenic line) analysed to be non-GM 
        (nGM), and again compared with a standard fishmeal diet without soybean 
        protein. All diets were composed to be within the category 'compositional 
        equivalent' and held exactly the same proximate compositions, starch and 
        sugar levels, above requirements for methionine and lysine, equal fatty 
        acid profiles, vitamin, mineral and pigment contents. There was, however, 
        a slight difference in levels of anti-nutrients between the three diets. 
        The various dietary treatments resulted in more than tripling of fish 
        weight in all groups. In addition no significant differences in feed utilization, 
        whole body, liver and muscle proximate compositions, and no significant 
        differences in muscle fatty acid profiles were measured. The diet without 
        soybean of either type resulted in greater retention of lipid, but equal 
        retention of protein (protein productive value). The relative sizes of 
        liver, kidney, head-kidney and brain were the same in all dietary groups, 
        while the relative size of the spleen showed significant differences between 
        fish fed the genetically modified soy diet compared with fish fed the 
        nGM soybeans. Fish fed the soy diets of either type also showed a somewhat 
        reduced mean erythrocyte cell volume. All other haematological values 
        were equal between diet groups. The detoxification system, measured as 
        glutathione peroxidase (GPx) and lysozyme activities, showed equal values 
        for all groups when measured in plasma and liver or head-kidney. The distal 
        part of the intestine showed reduced sizes as an effect of soybean additions, 
        without any differences between the GM and nGM type. Our results showed 
        high growth, no mortality, haematological values within normal ranges, 
        and efficient and equal responses in the detoxification system. This was 
        a first indication that up to 130 g kg(-1) RR-soybean protein can safely 
        be used in diets for Atlantic salmon. However, there is still a need to 
        elucidate higher inclusion levels of GM feed ingredients, and why spleen 
        index was reduced, and if this was a long- or short-term effect.
          Hyun Y, Bressner GE, Ellis M, Lewis AJ, Fischer R, Stanisiewski EP, 
          Hartnell GF (2004) Performance of growing-finishing pigs fed diets containing 
          Roundup Ready corn (event nk603), a nontransgenic genetically similar 
          corn, or conventional corn lines. Journal of Animal Science 82:571-580Abstract: Two studies were conducted at two locations to evaluate 
        growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing pigs 
        fed diets containing either glyphosate-tolerant Roundup Ready (event nk603) 
        corn, a nontransgenic genetically similar control corn (RX670), or two 
        conventional sources of nontransgenic corn (RX740 and DK647). A randomized 
        complete block design (three and four blocks in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) 
        with a 2 x 4 factorial arrangement of treatments (two genders and four 
        corn lines) was used. Study 1 used 72 barrows and 72 gilts (housed in 
        single-gender groups of six; six pens per dietary treatment) with initial 
        and final BW of approximately 22 and 116 kg, respectively. Study 2 used 
        80 barrows and 80 gilts (housed in single-gender groups of five; eight 
        pens per dietary treatment) with initial and final BW of approximately 
        30 and 120 kg, respectively. Pigs were housed in a modified open-front 
        building in Study 1 and in an environmentally controlled finishing building 
        in Study 2. The test corns were included at a fixed proportion of the 
        diet in both studies. Animals had ad libitum access to feed and water. 
        Pigs were slaughtered using standard procedures and carcass measurements 
        were taken. In Study 1, overall ADG, ADFI (as-fed basis), and gain:feed 
        (G:F) were not affected (P &gt; 0.05) by corn line. In Study 2, there 
        was no effect of corn line on overall ADFI (as-fed basis) or GY ratio. 
        In addition, overall ADG of barrows fed the four corn lines did not differ 
        (P &gt; 0.05); however, overall ADG of gilts fed corn DK647 was greater 
        (P &lt; 0.05) than that of pigs fed the other corn lines. There was no 
        effect (P &gt; 0.05) of corn line on carcass yield or fatness measurements 
        in either study. Differences between barrows and gilts for growth and 
        carcass traits were generally similar for both studies and in line with 
        previous research. Overall, these results indicate that Roundup Ready 
        corn (NK603) gives equivalent animal performance to conventional corn 
        for growing pigs.
          Ipharraguerre IR, Younker RS, Clark JH, Stanisiewski EP, Hartnell GF 
          (2003) Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage 
          and grain produced from a glyphosate-tolerant hybrid (event NK603). 
          Journal of Dairy Science 86:1734-1741Abstract: Sixteen multiparous Holstein cows averaging 74 d in 
        milk were used in a replicated 4 x 4 Latin square to compare the effects 
        on animal performance of feeding whole plant silage and grain from a glyphosate-tolerant 
        corn hybrid (event NK603), a nontransgenic control hybrid, and two commercial 
        nontransgenic hybrids (DK647 and RX740). The grain and silage from the 
        four corn hybrids were produced using the same procedures and under similar 
        agronomic conditions at the University of Illinois. On a dry matter (DM) 
        basis, diets contained 30% corn silage and 27.34% corn grain produced 
        either from event NK603, a nontransgenic control, or commercial hybrids. 
        Apart from the DM content of silages, the chemical composition of both 
        grain and silage produced from the four corn hybrids were substantially 
        equivalent. Feeding diets that contained event NK603 and DK647 hybrids 
        tended to decrease DM intake (DMI) compared with the control nontransgenic 
        and RX740. The intakes of crude protein (CP), acid and neutral detergent 
        fiber, and nonfiber carbohydrates were not different for cows fed event 
        NK603 and control diets. The RX740 diet resulted in the highest intakes 
        of fiber and CP, whereas the DK647 diet resulted in the lowest intake 
        of CP. These differences in nutrient intake arose from small variations 
        in both the DMI and the chemical composition of feed ingredients and experimental 
        diets. Production of milk and 3.5% fat-corrected milk; milk fat, CP, and 
        true protein percentage and yield; milk urea N; milk total solids percentage 
        and yield; and somatic cell count were not affected by treatments. These 
        data indicate that the stable insertion of the gene that confers tolerance 
        to glyphosate (event NK603) in the corn line used in this experiment does 
        not affect its chemical composition and nutritional value for lactating 
        dairy cows when compared with conventional corn.
          Jennings JC, Kolwyck DC, Kays SB, Whetsell AJ, Surber JB, Cromwell GL, 
          Lirette RP, Glenn KC (2003) Determining whether transgenic and endogenous 
          plant DNA and transgenic protein are detectable in muscle from swine 
          fed Roundup Ready soybean meal. Journal of Animal Science 81:1447-1455Abstract: Questions regarding the digestive fate of DNA and protein 
        from transgenic, feed have been raised in regard to human consumption 
        and commercial trade of animal products (e.g., meat, milk, and eggs) from 
        farm animals fed transgenic crops. Using highly sensitive, well-characterized 
        analytical methods, pork loin samples were analyzed for the presence. 
        of fragments of transgenic and endogenous. plant DNA and transgenic protein 
        from, animals fed meal prepared from conventional or glyphosate-tolerant 
        Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans. Pigs were fed diets containing 24, 19, and 
        14%, RR or conventional soybean meal during grower, early-finisher, and 
        late-finisher phases of growth, respectively, and longissimus muscle samples 
        were collected (12 per treatment) after slaughter. Total DNA was extracted 
        from the samples and analyzed by PCR, followed by Southern blot hybridization 
        for the presence of a 272-bp fragment of the cp4 epsps coding region (encoding 
        the synthetic enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase derived 
        from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and a 198-bp fragment of the endogenous 
        soybean gene le1 (encoding soy lectin). Using 1 mug of input DNA per reaction, 
        none of the extracted samples was positive for cp4 epsps or le1 at the 
        limit of detection (LOD) for these PCR/Southern blot assays. The LOD for 
        these assays was shown to be approximately one diploid genome equivalent 
        of RR soybean DNA, even in the presence of 10 mug of pork genomic DNA. 
        A 185-bp fragment of the porcine preprolactin (prl) gene, used as a positive 
        control, was. amplified from all samples showing that the DNA preparations 
        were amenable to PCR amplification. Using a competitive immunoassay with 
        an LOD of approximately 94 ng of CP4 EPSPS protein/g of pork muscle, neither 
        the CP4 EPSPS protein nor the immunoreactive peptide fragments were detected 
        in loin muscle homogenates from pigs fed RR soybean meal. Taken together, 
        these results show that neither small fragments of transgenic DNA nor 
        immunoreactive fragments of transgenic protein are detectable in loin 
        muscle samples from pigs fed a diet containing RR soybean meal.
          Jennings JC, Whetsell AJ, Nicholas NR, Sweeney BM, Klaften MB, Kays 
          SB, Hartnell GF, Lirette RP, Glenn KC (2003) Determining whether transgenic 
          or endogenous plant DNA is detectable in dairy milk or beef organs. 
          Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 383:41-46Abstract: The fate of transgenic DNA in products derived from 
        farm animals fed genetically modified feed was assessed. Sensitive methods 
        were developed to analyze milk for the presence of transgenic and plant 
        DNA from cows fed a diet containing conventional or transgenic cottonseed 
        or maize. Genomic DNA was extracted from milk and analyzed by PCR followed 
        by Southern blot for fragments of the cry1Ac transgene and an endogenous 
        cotton gene, acp1, from cows fed a diet containing whole cottonseed. Additionally, 
        milk, liver, kidney, and spleen were assessed for fragments of the cry1Ab 
        transgene and an endogenous maize gene, sh2, from animals fed a diet containing 
        maize grain. No sample was positive for transgenic or plant DNA fragments 
        at the limits of detection for the assays following detailed data evaluation 
        criteria. Results for sh2 analyses of milk were, however, indeterminate. 
        A fragment of a bovine gene, prl, was amplified from each DNA extract 
        to show that all preparations were amenable to PCR. These results indicate 
        that DNA, whether derived from conventional or transgenic feed, is not 
        present at detectable levels in bovine milk or organs.
          Jung HG, Sheaffer CC (2004) Influence of Bt transgenes on cell wall 
          lignification and digestibility of maize stover for silage. Crop Science 
          44:1781-1789Abstract: There have been inconsistent reports that maize (Zea 
        mays L.) hybrids with the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cry1 Ab transgene 
        contain more lignin than non-Bt hybrids of similar genetic background. 
        Our objective was to evaluate the impact of the cry1 Ab transgene on lignin 
        concentration (using three different assays), yield, and forage quality 
        traits of maize. Replicated trials were conducted at four locations in 
        Minnesota with 12 commercial hybrids (three MON810 and three Bt11 cry1 
        Ab transgene event hybrids, and respective near-isogenic controls). Whole 
        plants and the fourth elongated, above-ground internodes were harvested 
        at silage maturity. Samples were analyzed for crude protein, starch, neutral 
        detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber, 24- and 96-h in vitro ruminal 
        NDF digestibility, and lignin (acid detergent, Klason, and acetyl bromide). 
        European corn borers (Ostrinia nubilalis Hubner) were not controlled and 
        damage was limited to the non-Bt hybrids, averaging 1.5 internodes plant(-1) 
        with tunnels. Environment and environment x hybrid interactions affected 
        all measures of maize performance and quality, but comparisons of non-Bt/Bt 
        hybrid pairs, for both whole plants and internodes, found no consistent 
        differences in yield, nutrient content, in vitro ruminal NDF digestibility, 
        or lignin concentration. Differences in lignin concentration were infrequent, 
        small in magnitude, and inconsistent between a few non-Bt/Bt hybrid pairs 
        at individual locations. Two non-Bt/Bt hybrid pairs did not differ in 
        lignin concentration at any location. Contrary to some earlier reports, 
        presence of the cry1 Ab transgene did not alter lignin concentration or 
        other forage quality traits of maize stover in commercial maize hybrids.
          Kosieradzka I, Sawosz E, Pastuszewska B, Szwacka M, Malepszy S, Bielecki 
          W, Czuminska K (2001) The effect of feeding diets with genetically modified 
          cucumbers on the growth and health status of rats. Journal of Animal 
          and Feed Sciences 10:7-12Abstract: The composition of the fruits of non-transgenic or transgenic 
        (GM) cucumbers with genes coding the synthesis of a sweet protein, thaumatin, 
        were compared and effects of feeding the fruits in balanced diets to rats 
        were determined. The transgenic cucumbers contained more protein (20.3 
        vs 17.9% DM) and less fibre (9.4 vs 11.4% DM) and also had lower Na, K, 
        Ca and Mg contents and higher levels of Fe and Cu in ash than normal cucumbers. 
        Feeding male rats of initial body weight 150 g for 5 weeks on isoprotein 
        diets containing 0 or 15% lyophilized transgenic or non-transgenic cucumbers 
        did not affect weight gain, apparent health status, or relative organ 
        weights of animals. Protein digestibility was slightly but significantly 
        lower (89.2 vs 90.0%), that of crude fibre was higher (28.2 vs 15.0%) 
        in diets containing transgenic than non-transgenic cucumbers, while digestibility 
        of fat and N-free extractives did not differ
          Kosieradzka I, Sawosz E, Skomial J, Szopa J (2005) Transgenic potato 
          tubers with overexpression of 14-3-3 protein in growing rat diets. 1. 
          Selected hormone activities and liver function status. Journal of Animal 
          and Feed Sciences 14:545-548Abstract: In a 4-week experiment, growing rats were fed diets 
        containing 30% transgenic potatoes with overexpression of PI4-3-3 protein, 
        non-transgenic dehydrated potato tubers of the same variety (Desiree), 
        or a control diet. The activity of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) as well 
        as increases in the concentrations of NO3- ions, Fe and Zn in the liver 
        of rats fed diets containing transgenic potatoes were observed. The reaction 
        might be related to oxidative stress linked to the altered chemical composition 
        of potato tubers resulting from transgenesis, changed concentrations of 
        some minerals or biologically active substances.
          Lutz B, Wiedemann S, Einspanier R, Mayer J, Albrecht C (2005) Degradation 
          of Cry1Ab protein from genetically modified maize in the bovine gastrointestinal 
          tract. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53:1453-1456Abstract: Immunoblotting assays using commercial antibodies were 
        established to investigate the unexpected persistence of the immunoactive 
        Cry1Ab protein in the bovine gastrointestinal tract (GIT) previously suggested 
        by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Samples of two different 
        feeding experiments in cattle were analyzed with both ELISA and immunoblotting 
        methods. Whereas results obtained by ELISA suggested that the concentration 
        of the Cry1Ab protein increased during the GIT passage, the immunoblotting 
        assays revealed a significant degradation of the protein in the bovine 
        GIT. Samples showing a positive signal in the ELISA consisted of fragmented 
        Cry1Ab protein of approximately 17 and 34 kDa size. Two independent sets 
        of gastrointestinal samples revealed the apparent discrepancy between 
        the results obtained by ELISA and immunoblotting, suggesting that the 
        antibody used in the ELISA reacts with fragmented yet immunoactive epitopes 
        of the Cry1Ab protein. It was concluded that Cry1Ab protein is degraded 
        during digestion in cattle. To avoid misinterpretation, samples tested 
        positive for Cry1Ab protein by ELISA should be reassessed by another technique.
          Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Rossi L, Battistelli S, Rocchi MBL, Tonucci 
          F, Gazzanelli G (2002) Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar 
          cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Journal of Anatomy 
          201:409-415Abstract: No direct evidence that genetically modified (GM) food 
        may represent a possible danger for health has been reported so far; however, 
        the scientific literature in this field is quite poor. Therefore, we investigated 
        the possible effects of a diet containing GM soybean on mouse exocrine 
        pancreas by means of ultrastructural, morphometrical and immunocytochemical 
        analyses. Our observations demonstrate that, although no structural modification 
        occurs in pancreatic acinar cells of mice fed on GM soybean, quantitative 
        changes of some cellular constituents take place in comparison to control 
        animals. In particular, a diet containing significant amount of GM food 
        seems to influence the zymogen synthesis and processing.
          Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MBL, Serafini S, Tiberi 
          C, Gazzanelli G (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical 
          analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified 
          soybean. Cell Structure and Function 27:173-180Abstract: No direct evidence that genetically modified (GM) food 
        may represent a possible danger for health has been reported so far; however, 
        the scientific literature in this field is still quite poor. Therefore, 
        we carried out an ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical 
        study on hepatocytes from mice fed on GM soybean, in order to investigate 
        eventual modifications of nuclear components of these cells involved in 
        multiple metabolic pathways related to food processing. Our observations 
        demonstrate significant modifications of some nuclear features in GM-fed 
        mice. In particular, GM fed-mice show irregularly shaped nuclei, which 
        generally represents an index of high metabolic rate, and a higher number 
        of nuclear pores, suggestive of intense molecular trafficking. Moreover, 
        the roundish nucleoli of control animals change in more irregular nucleoli 
        with numerous small fibrillar centres and abundant dense fibrillar component 
        in GM-fed mice, modifications typical of increased metabolic rate. Accordingly, 
        nucleoplasmic (snRNPs and SC-35) and nucleolar (fibrillarin) splicing 
        factors are more abundant in hepatocyte nuclei of GM-fed than in control 
        mice. In conclusion, our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence 
        hepatocyte nuclear features in young and adult mice; however, the mechanisms 
        responsible for such alterations remain unknown.
          Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi MBL, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli 
          G (2003) Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from 
          mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry 
          47:385-388Abstract: We carried out ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical 
        analyses on pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically 
        modified (GM) soybean, in order to investigate possible structural and 
        molecular modifications of nucleoplasmic and nucleolar constituents. We 
        found a significant lowering of nucleoplasmic and nucleolar splicing factors 
        as well as a perichromatin granule accumulation in GM-fed mice, suggestive 
        of reduced post-transcriptional hnRNA processing and/or nuclear export. 
        This is in accordance to already described zymogen synthesis and processing 
        modifications in the same animals.
          Nemeth A, Wurz A, Artim L, Charlton S, Dana G, Glenn K, Hunst P, Jennings 
          J, Shilito R, Song P (2004) Sensitive PCR analysis of animal tissue 
          samples for fragments of endogenous and transgenic plant DNA. Journal 
          of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52:6129-6135Abstract: An optimized DNA extraction protocol for animal tissues 
        coupled with sensitive PCR methods was used to determine whether trace 
        levels of feed-derived DNA fragments, plant and/or transgenic, are detectable 
        in animal tissue samples including dairy milk and samples of muscle (meat) 
        from chickens, swine, and beef steers. Assays were developed to detect 
        DNA fragments of both the high copy number chloroplast-encoded maize rubisco 
        gene (rbcL) and single copy nuclear-encoded transgenic elements (p35S 
        and a MON 810-specific gene fragment). The specificities of the two rbcL 
        PCR assays and two transgenic DNA PCR assays were established by testing 
        against a range of conventional plant species and genetically modified 
        maize crops. The sensitivities of the two rbcL PCR assays (resulting in 
        173 and 500 bp amplicons) were similar, detecting as little as 0.08 and 
        0.02 genomic equivalents, respectively. The sensitivities of the p35S 
        and MON 810 PCR assays were approximately 5 and 10 genomic equivalents 
        for 123 bp and 149 bp amplicons, respectively, which were considerably 
        less than the sensitivity of the rbcL assays in terms of plant cell equivalents, 
        but approximately similar when the higher numbers of copies of the chloroplast 
        genome per cell are taken into account. The 173 bp rbcL assay detected 
        the target plant chloroplast DNA fragment in 5%, 15%, and 53% of the muscle 
        samples from beef steers, broiler chickens, and swine, respectively, and 
        in 86% of the milk samples from dairy cows. Reanalysis of new aliquots 
        of 31 of the pork samples that were positive in the 173 bp rbcL PCR showed 
        that 58% of these samples were reproducibly positive in this same PCR 
        assay. The 500 bp rbcL assay detected DNA fragments in 43% of the swine 
        muscle samples and 79% of the milk samples. By comparison, no statistically 
        significant detections of transgenic DNA fragments by the p35S PCR assay 
        occurred with any of these animal tissue samples.
          Phipps RH, Beever DE, Humphries DJ (2002) Detection of transgenic DNA 
          in milk from cows receiving herbicide tolerant (CP4EPSPS) soyabean meal. 
          Livestock Production Science 74:269-273Abstract: Ten Holstein /Friesian cows with an average liveweight 
        of 630 kg and producing 25.3 kg milk/day received a total mixed ration 
        (TMR) in which the forage component formed 55% of total DM and contained 
        non-genetically modified (GM) grass and maize silage in a 1:3 DM ratio. 
        In study weeks 1-3 the TMR DM also contained non-GM supplernents of 18.5% 
        cracked wheat and 26.1% rapeseed meal. In weeks 4-12 soyabean meal, genetically 
        modified (CP4EPSPS) to be herbicide tolerant, replaced rapeseed meal at 
        26.1% of the total diet in weeks 4-5 and 13.9% of the total diet in weeks 
        6-12. Weekly milk samples were taken from all cows. Samples were spiked 
        with DNA extracted from the soyabean meal to establish the limit of detection 
        (LOD) of transgenic DNA using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses 
        designed to detect transgenic DNA fragments smaller than 200 bp. Subsequent 
        PCR analyses carried out in duplicate on TMR and milk samples collected 
        at weeks 3, 4 and 122 of the study used three DNA primer sets to establish 
        the presence or absence of transgenic DNA, The LOD of transgenic DNS in 
        milk was 7.5 mug/l. Feed and milk samples analysed at week 3 were negative. 
        The TMR feed samples at weeks 4 and 12 were positive for CP4EPSPS soyabean 
        meal DNA, but all milk samples were negative. The results showed that 
        transgenic DNA could not be detected in milk from cows receiving upto 
        26.1% of their diet DM as herbicide (glyphosate)-tolerant soyabean meal.
          Phipps RH, Deaville ER, Maddison BC (2003) Detection of transgenic and 
          endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, 
          and feces of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86:4070-4078Abstract: The objective was to determine the presence or absence 
        of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in ruminal fluid, duodenal digesta, 
        milk, blood, and feces, and if found, to determine fragment size. Six 
        multiparous lactating Holstein cows fitted with ruminal and duodenal cannulas 
        received a total mixed ration. There were two treatments (T). In T1, the 
        concentrate contained genetically modified (GM) soybean meal (cp4epsps 
        gene) and GM corn grain (cry1a[b] gene), whereas T2 contained the near 
        isogenic non-GM counterparts. Polymerase chain reaction analysis was used 
        to determine the presence or absence of DNA sequences. Primers were selected 
        to amplify small fragments from single-copy genes (soy lectin and corn 
        high-mobility protein and cp4epsps and cry1a[b] genes from the GM crops) 
        and multicopy genes (bovine mitochondrial cytochrome b and rubisco). Single-copy 
        genes were only detected in the solid phase of rumen and duodenal digesta. 
        In contrast, fragments of the rubisco gene were detected in the majority 
        of samples analyzed in both the liquid and solid phases of ruminal and 
        duodenal digesta, milk, and feces, but rarely in blood. The size of the 
        rubisco gene fragments detected decreased from 1176 bp in ruminal and 
        duodenal digesta to 351 bp in fecal samples.
          Phipps RH, Jones AK, Tingey AP, Abeyasekera S (2005) Effect of corn 
          silage from an herbicide-tolerant genetically modified variety on milk 
          production and absence of transgenic DNA in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 
          88:2870-2878Abstract: Data from 60 multiparous Holstein cows were used in 
        a 12-wk continuous design feeding trial. Cows were allocated to 1 of 4 
        experimental treatments (T1 to T4). In T1 and T2, the total mixed ration 
        (TMR) contained either corn silage from the genetically modified (GM) 
        variety Chardon Liberty Link, which is tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate 
        ammonium, or its near isogenic nonGM counterpart, whereas the TMR used 
        in T3 and T4 contained corn silage from the commercially available nonGM 
        varieties Fabius and Antares, respectively. The objectives of the study 
        were to determine if the inserted gene produced a marked effect on chemical 
        composition, nutritive value, feed intake, and milk production, and to 
        determine if transgenic DNA and the protein expressed by the inserted 
        gene could be detected in bovine milk. The nutritive value, fermentation 
        characteristics, mineral content, and amino acid composition of all 4 
        silages were similar. There were no significant treatment effects on milk 
        yield, milk composition, and yield of milk constituents, and the dry matter 
        (DM) intake of the GM variety was not significantly different from the 
        2 commercial varieties. However, although the DM intake noted for the 
        nonGM near-isogenic variety was similar to the commercial varieties, it 
        was significantly lower when compared with the GM variety. Polymerase 
        chain reaction analyses of milk samples collected at wk 1, 6, and 12 of 
        the study showed that none of the 90 milk samples tested positive, above 
        a detection limit of 2.5 ng of total genomic DNA/mL of milk, for either 
        tDNA (event T25) or the single-copy endogenous Zea mays gene, alcohol 
        dehydrogenase. Using ELISA assays, the protein expressed by the T25 gene 
        was not detected in milk.
          Reuter T, Aulrich K, Berk A (2002) Investigations on genetically modified 
          maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: Fattening performance and slaughtering 
          results. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 56:319-326Abstract: A grower finisher performance trial with forty-eight 
        pigs was designed to compare the growth performance of pigs fed diets 
        containing either genetically modified (GM) Bt-maize (NX6262) or its parental 
        maize (Prelude) line. During the experiment, the pigs were fed with a 
        grower and a finisher diet both containing 70% maize investigated in a 
        previously study which showed that they contained similar ME values and 
        digestibility of crude nutrients. The pigs with an initial live weight 
        of 23.9 +/- 3.0 kg were allotted to single boxes. During a 91 days growing 
        period the pigs of both groups recorded equal performance in daily weight 
        gain (DeltaW) 815 +/- 93 vs. 804 +/- 64g/d depending on equal amounts 
        of feed intake 1.95 +/- 0.15 vs. 1.94 +/- 0.15 kg/d (parental vs. transgenic). 
        The results confirm equal performance among growing-finishing pigs fed 
        parental or genetically modified maize containing diets. For slaughtering 
        the pigs were divided into 4 groups with a different duration of the finishing 
        period. After slaughtering the carcass characteristic were registered.
          Reuter T, Aulrich K, Berk A, Flachowsky G (2002) Investigations on genetically 
          modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: Chemical composition and 
          nutritional evaluation. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 
          56:23-31Abstract: The objective of the present study was to determine 
        the composition and the nutritional value of parental and transgenic maize 
        seeds fed to pigs. The parental maize line was genetically modified to 
        incorporate a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) expressing a toxin 
        against the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). Both (parental and 
        transgenic) maize lines were analyzed for crude nutrients, starch, sugar, 
        non-starch polysaccharides (NSP), amino acids, fatty acids, as well as 
        for selected minerals. Furthermore, four complete diets were mixed and 
        were analyzed for the same nutrients and some selected ingredients. The 
        diets contained 70% maize to attain a high effect level. To evaluate the 
        feeding value of one variety of genetically modified maize (transgenic) 
        compared to the feeding value of the unmodified maize (parental) line, 
        a balance study with twelve pigs was designed. Three collecting periods 
        were used for each maize line each with six animals. The collected faeces 
        were analyzed for crude nutrients. All measured parameters were virtually 
        the same (e.g. crude protein 11.59% vs. 11.06% in DM), especially the 
        digestibility of crude protein (85.8 +/- 2.3% vs. 86.1 +/- 1.8%), the 
        amount of nitrogen-free-extract (92.8 +/- 0.6% vs. 93.2 +/- 0.6%) and 
        the metabolizable energy (15.7 +/- 0.2% vs, 15.8 +/- 0.2% MJ/kg DM) for 
        both maize lines. Compared to the parental line, the chemical composition 
        and digestibility of crude nutrients and energy content were not significantly 
        affected by the genetic modification of maize. Therefore, from the view 
        of a nutritional assessment, the genetically modified maize can be regarded 
        as substantially equivalent to the parental maize line.
          Reuter T, Aulrich K (2003) Investigations on genetically modified maize 
          (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition: fate of feed-ingested foreign DNA in pig 
          bodies. European Food Research and Technology 216:185-192Abstract: The passage and fate of ingested DNA in 48 pigs fed 
        with diets containing (n = 12) parental or (n = 36) transgenic (Bt) maize 
        were examined. Pigs were fattened from an initial live weight of 24 kg 
        to approximately 108 kg. Animals fed transgenic maize were slaughtered 
        in groups (n = 6) 4, 8, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h after feeding the last maize-containing 
        diet. Those slaughtered at up to 12 h received no further feed, while 
        those held for longer prior to slaughter received a diet in which maize 
        was replaced by barley and wheat. Control animals were slaughtered at 
        4 and 8 h. DNA extracted from tissues and gut contents was examined by 
        PCR for the presence of plant DNA and for any transgenic material. Recombinant 
        DNA was detectable in the intestinal contents up to 48 h after the last 
        feeding of a diet containing the transgenic maize. PCR amplification of 
        plant gene spacers produced fragments of different sizes, dependent on 
        feed source. The feed source of rectum samples depended on individual 
        passage rate in the groups and their restriction analysis showed grain 
        species-specific patterns. Recombinant or maize-specific DNA was not detectable 
        in tissue samples of pigs. In contrast, plant DNA fragments were detectable 
        in the investigated pig tissues.
          Ridley WP, Sidhu RS, Pyla PD, Nemeth MA, Breeze ML, Astwood JD (2002) 
          Comparison of the nutritional profile of glyphosate-tolerant corn event 
          NK603 with that of conventional corn (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agricultural 
          and Food Chemistry 50:7235-7243Abstract: The composition of glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) 
        corn event NK603 was compared with that of conventional corn grown in 
        the United States in 1998 and in the European Union in 1999 to assess 
        compositional equivalence. Grain and forage samples were collected from 
        both replicated and nonreplicated field trials, and compositional analyses 
        were performed to measure proximates, fiber, amino acids, fatty acids, 
        vitamin E, nine minerals, phytic acid, trypsin inhibitor, and secondary 
        metabolites in grain as well as proximates and fiber in forage. Statistical 
        analysis of the data,was conducted to assess statistical significance 
        at the p &lt; 0.05 level. The values for all of the biochemical components 
        assessed for corn event NK603 were similar to those of the nontransgenic 
        control or were within the published range observed for nontransgenic 
        commercial corn hybrids. In addition, the compositional profile of Roundup 
        Ready corn event NK603 was compared with that of traditional corn hybrids 
        grown in Europe by calculating a 99% tolerance interval to describe compositional 
        variability in the population of traditional corn varieties in the marketplace. 
        These comparisons, together with the history of the safe use of corn as 
        a common component of animal feed and human food, support the conclusion 
        that Roundup Ready corn event NK603 is compositionally equivalent to, 
        and as safe and nutritious as, conventional corn hybrids grown commercially 
        today.
          Rossi F, Moschini M, Fiorentini L, Masoero F, Piva G (2003) Analytical 
          composition and rumen degradability of isogenic and transgenic corn 
          varieties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 83:1337-1341Abstract: Two different corn cultivars were compared with their 
        genetically modified counterparts containing the gene coding for the Cry1A(b) 
        protein of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). There were no analytical differences 
        between the conventional and transgenic genotype kernels, whereas stovers 
        from Bt(+) plants had higher sugar (148.3 g kg(-1) versus 115.9 g kg(-1); 
        P &lt; 0.01) and lower NDF (592.7 g kg(-1) versus 631.5 g kg(-1); P &lt; 
        0.05) contents than Bt(-) maize. A comparison of the amino acid profiles 
        showed higher phenylalanine content in kernels from the Bt(+) plants (49.1 
        g kg(-1) vs 47.8 g kg(-1); P &lt; 0.05) which was, however, not reflected 
        in the protein content. The initial dry matter rumen degradability of 
        the isogenic kernels was higher than that of Bt(+) varieties (569.5 g 
        kg(-1) vs 543.7 g kg(-1); P &amp;LT; 0.05), whereas the lower fibre content 
        increased the dry matter (548.6 g kg(-1) vs 526.6 g kg(-1); P &amp;LT; 
        0.01) and protein (695.6 g kg(-1) vs 647.9 g kg(-1); P &amp;LT; 0.01) 
        degradability after 24 h of incubation in stovers from Bt(+) plants. The 
        NDF degradability was higher in Bt(-) corn varieties because of the higher 
        proportion of hemicellulose in the total fibre. 
          Rossi F, Morlacchini M, Fusconi G, Pietri A, Mazza R, Piva G (2005) 
          Effect of Bt corn on broiler growth performance and fate of feed-derived 
          DNA in the digestive tract. Poultry Science 84:1022-1030Abstract: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect on broiler 
        performance of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn containing 
        the Cry1A(b) protein compared with the corresponding near isogenic corn 
        and to analyze the degradation of the CryIA(b) gene in the digestive tract. 
        Ross male broilers (432) were fed for 42 consecutive days with diets containing 
        Bt or isogenic corn. Diet, Bt corn, and the isogenic form of the Bt corn 
        were analyzed for composition and aflatoxin B-1, fumonisin B-1, and deoxynivalenol 
        contents. Broiler body weight and feed intake were recorded at regular 
        intervals (d 0, 21, and 42). The presence of the CryIA(b) gene and plant-specific 
        genes Zein and Sh-2 in gut contents of crop, gizzard, jejunum, cecum, 
        and samples of blood was determined in 10 animals per treatment at the 
        end of the trial using a PCR technique. Chemical composition was not different 
        between Bt and its isogenic form, whereas the fumonisin B, content for 
        Bt was lower than for isogenic corn (2,039 vs. 1,1034 ppb; P &lt; 0.05). 
        The results of the growth study showed no difference for average daily 
        weight gain (129.4 vs. 126.0 g/d), feed intake (63.4 vs. 61.8 g/d), and 
        feed conversion ratio (1.95 vs. 2.02) among the groups. No significant 
        relationship was observed between mycotoxins content and growth performances. 
        Feed-derived DNA is progressively degraded along the digestive tract. 
        Detection frequency of short fragments of maize-specific high copy number 
        Zein gene was high but significantly decreased in distal sectors. An 1,800-bp 
        fragment of the Cry1A(b) gene, corresponding to the minimal functional 
        unit, was detected only in crop and gizzard of birds fed Bt corn. Sh-2 
        showed the same detection frequency of CryIA(b) and was also found in 
        birds fed isogenic corn. Blood samples were positive with low frequency 
        only for the Zein gene fragment. No significant difference in DNA detection 
        was observed between birds fed Bt and isogenic corn, indicating that DNA 
        derived from transgenic feed undergoes the same fate as isogenic feed
          Russell, J. and Petersen, T. S. Bt corn and non-Bt corn crop residues 
          equal in grazing value. 30. 6-30-0099. Abstract: Preliminary research conducted by Iowa State University 
        and funded by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture shows no 
        difference in the performance of cattle that grazed Bt corn crop residues 
        and those which grazed non-Bt corn crop residues. &quot;The bottom line 
        is that in one year there was no effect of Bt corn on the quality of stalks 
        for winter grazing,&quot; said Jim Russell, forage grazing specialist 
        at the Iowa Beef Center at ISU. Russell said there was little difference 
        in the amount of hay required to maintain comparable body condition in 
        cows grazing the crop residues from different hybrids. The research was 
        conducted in direct response to cattle producers' questions about Bt corn 
        stalks as a forage.
          Russell, J., Farnham, D., Berryman, R. K., Hersom, M. J., Pugh, A., 
          and Barrett, K. Nutritive value of the crop residues from bt-corn hybrids 
          and their effects on performance of grazing beef cows. R1723, 56-61. 
          2000. 2000 Beef Research Report - Iowa State University. Abstract: One non bt-corn hybrid (Pioneer 3489) and three bt-corn 
        hybrids (Pioneer 34RO7, Novartis NX6236, and Novartis N64-Z4) were planted 
        in replicated 7.1-acre fields. After grain harvest, fields were stocked 
        with 3 mature cows in midgestation to be strip-grazed as four paddocks 
        over 126 days. Six similar cows were allotted to replicated drylots. All 
        cows were fed hay as necessary to maintain a condition score of 5 on a 
        9-point scale. Cows were condition-scored biweekly and weighed monthly. 
        Forage yield and weathering losses were determined by sampling one 4-m2 
        location per grazed or ungrazed paddock in each field with a minimum total 
        of 2 locations of grazed or ungrazed forage per field. To measure forage 
        selection during grazing, samples of grazed forage were collected from 
        the rumen of one fistulated steer that grazed for 2 hours after ruminal 
        evacuation. Non-bt-corn hybrids had greater (P&lt;.05) infestation of 
        corn borers in the upper stalk, lower stalk and ear shank than bt-corn 
        hybrids. However, there were no differences in grain yields or dropped 
        grain between hybrids. Crop residue dry matter, organic matter and in 
        vitro digestible dry matter yields at the initiation of grazing did not 
        differ between corn hybrids. Dry matter, organic matter and in vitro digestible 
        dry matter losses tended (P&lt;.10) to be greater from the NX6236 and 
        N64-Z4 hybrids than from the 3489 and 34RO7 hybrids and were greater (P&lt;.05) 
        from grazed than non-grazed areas of the fields. At the initiation of 
        grazing, dry matter concentrations of the crop residues from the NX6236 
        and N64-Z4 hybrids tended to be lower than those from the 3489 and 34RO7 
        hybrids. Crop residues from the NX6236 and N64-74 hybrids had lower concentrations 
        of acid detergent fiber (P&lt;.05) and acid detergent lignin (P=.07) and 
        higher concentrations of in vitro digestible organic matter than the 3489 
        and 34RO7 hybrids. Over the grazing season, corn hybrid did not affect 
        mean rates of change in forage composition. The concentration of in vitro 
        digestible organic matter in forage selected by steers after two weeks 
        of grazing did not differ. However, steers grazing corn crop residues 
        consumed forage with higher (P&lt;.05) concentrations of neutral detergent 
        fiber, acid detergent fiber, and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen than 
        steers fed hay. The acid detergent fiber concentration of forage selected 
        by steers grazing the 3489 and N64-Z4 hybrids was lower (P&lt;.05) than 
        concentrations from the 34RO7 and NX6236 hybrids. In order to maintain 
        similar body condition score changes, cows grazing crop residues from 
        the 3489, 34RO7, NX6236, and N64-Z4 hybrids required 650, 628 625, and 
        541 kg hay DM/cow compared with a hay requirement of 1447 kg hay DM/cow 
        for cows maintained in a drylot.
          Rutzmoser K, Mayer J, Obermaier A (1999) Feeding of maize silage of 
          strains 'Pactol' and 'Pactol CB' (genetically modified Bt-Hybrid) to 
          Dairy Cows. Soil Science and Plant Cultivation (Bodenkultur und Pflanzenbau) 
          3:25-34Abstract: Two maize silages (whole plants) were produced out of 
        the isogen strain 'Pactol' and the transgen strain 'Pactol CB' from the 
        crop year 1997. These silages were investigated in a digestibility trial 
        with rams and in a feeding trial with dairy cows (tied up, individually 
        fed). In two 5-week periods, the maize silages were fed alternately to 
        2x12 cow groups (cross over). There were only small differences in content 
        and digestibility of the crude nutrients within sampling and analyzing 
        error. In the feeding trial, the cows got contstantly 18 kg maize silage/day, 
        grass silage ad libitum and concentrate was apportioned by milk yield. 
        The consumption of dry matter varied during the trial, but no significant 
        differences could be found between the groups of the two strains. In view 
        of the relatively great individual variation, the groups differed only 
        small in the milk yield criteria (milk amount, percentage of fat and protein, 
        FPCM). The milk contents (lactose, urea, number of somatic cells), measured 
        in the single milk amounts, showed as well as the protein fractions, freezing 
        point, vitamins and minerals in mixed milk no systematic effects of the 
        two maize strains. In none of the investigated criteria could be found 
        a noticeable difference. So can be concluded that the two maize silages 
        are similar in their effect of feeding to dairy cows.
          Sanden M, Bruce IJ, Rahman MA, Hemre GI (2004) The fate of transgenic 
          sequences present in genetically modified plant products in fish feed, 
          investigating the survival of GM soybean DNA fragments during feeding 
          trials in Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. Aquaculture 237:391-405Abstract: Vegetable protein sources like soybeans, canola and 
        maize gluten are good alternatives to fish meal. However, a large proportion 
        of such products available on the international market may possess genetically 
        modified (GM) components. This report concerns a study to investigate 
        the fate and survival of ingested GM soy DNA fragments (120 and 195 bp) 
        and a 180-bp fragment of the lectin gene of soybean (Glycine max) during 
        feeding trials with Atlantic salmon post-smolt. Specifically, the study 
        focused on the fate of selected GM soy DNA fragments from feed to fish 
        to investigate their survival through the fish gastrointestinal (GI) tract 
        and whether the DNA could be traced in a variety of fish tissues. Fish 
        were fed three experimental diets for 6 weeks, which were formulated from 
        defined components and represented either GM or non-GM materials (17.2% 
        of the fish meal was replaced with either GM or non-GM soy). A control 
        diet composed of fish meal as the only protein source was used for comparison 
        purposes. The transgenic sequences (120 and 195 bp) and the lectin gene 
        (180 bp) could be detected in the GM soy feed. In the fish GI tract, however, 
        only the smaller DNA fragment (120 bp) could be amplified from the content 
        of the stomach, pyloric region, mid intestine and distal intestine. No 
        transgenic or conventional soy DNA fragments could be detected in liver, 
        muscle or brain tissues resected from sacrificed fish. The sensitivity 
        limit of the method was evaluated to be 20 copies. These data indicate 
        that GM soy transgenic sequences may survive passage through the GI tract 
        but that they cannot be traced in fish tissues.
          Taylor ML, Hyun Y, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa 
          K, George B, Astwood JD (2003) Comparison of broiler performance when 
          fed diets containing grain from YieldGard rootworm (MON863), YieldGard 
          plus (MON810 x MON863), nontransgenic control, or commercial reference 
          corn hybrids. Poultry Science 82:1948-1956Abstract: Two 42-d experiments compared the nutritional value 
        of YieldGard Rootworm corn (MON863; experiment 1) and YieldGard Plus corn 
        (MON810 x MON863; experiment 2) to their respective nontransgenic controls 
        and 6 commercial reference corn hybrids when fed to growing broilers. 
        For each experiment, a randomized complete block design was used with 
        8 dietary treatments in each of 5 replicated blocks of pens. In experiment 
        1, no differences among diets were observed (P &gt; 0.05) for final live 
        weights and feed conversion. Broilers fed diets containing MON863 corn 
        had adjusted feed conversion similar to the nontransgenic control and 
        the population of control and commercial diets. On a weight basis, there 
        were no differences among diets for chill, fat pad, and thigh, drum, and 
        wing weights. Differences (P &lt; 0.05) between MON863 and commercial 
        corn diets were noted for breast meat, chill and thigh, drum, and wing 
        weights on a percentage of weight basis. No differences were observed 
        (P &gt; 0.05) in the percentage of moisture, protein, and fat in breast 
        meat or thigh meat across treatment diets. In experiment 2, there were 
        no significant differences among diets for all broiler performance and 
        carcass parameters evaluated. Broilers overall performed consistently 
        and had similar carcass yields and meat compositions when fed diets containing 
        MON863 corn or MON810 x MON863 corn as compared with their respective 
        nontransgenic control and commercial diets, supporting a conclusion of 
        similar feeding values among diets.
          Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K, George 
          B, Astwood JD (2003) Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets 
          containing grain from YieldGard (MON810), YieldGard x Roundup Ready 
          (GA21), nontransgenic control, or commercial corn. Poultry Science 82:823-830Abstract: This 42-day experiment was undertaken to compare the 
        nutritional value of insect-protected corn event MON810 (YieldGard) and 
        YieldGard x herbicidetolerant corn event GA21 (Roundup Ready) to their 
        nontransgenic controls as well as four different commercial reference 
        corns, when fed to growing Cobb x Cobb broilers. A randomized complete 
        block design was used, an each treatment was replicated with five pens 
        of males and five pens of females with 10 broilers per pen. Broilers were 
        fed approximately 55% wt/wt corn during the first 20 d and approximately 
        60% wt/wt corn thereafter. The corn component of diets fed to broilers 
        was supplied entirely with grain from the eight hybrids included in the 
        experiment. Final live weights averaged 2.09 kg/bird fed YieldGard corn 
        and 2.15 kg/bird fed YieldGard x Roundup Ready corn and were not different 
        (P &gt; 0.05) from final weights for birds fed control or commercial corn. 
        Feed conversion was not affected (P &gt; 0.05) by YieldGard (1.72) or 
        YieldGard x Roundup Ready (1.77) corn feeding when compared with the feeding 
        of other corn diets. Chill weights, fat pad, thigh weights, and wing weights 
        were not affected by diets (P &gt; 0.05). Differences (P &lt; 0.05) were 
        noted for breast and drum weights across treatments. Broilers overall 
        performed consistently and had similar carcass yield and meat composition 
        when fed diets containing YieldGard (event MON810) or YieldGard (event 
        MON810) x Roundup Ready (event GA21) as compared with their nontransgenic 
        controls and commercial diets.
          Taylor ML, Hartnell GF, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Karunanandaa K, George 
          B, Astwood JD (2003) Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets 
          containing grain from roundup ready (NK603), YieldGard x roundup ready 
          (MON810 x NK603), non-transgenic control, or commercial corn. Poultry 
          Science 82:443-453Abstract: Two 42-d experiments compared the nutritional value 
        of the glyphosate-tolerant corn event NK603 (Roundup Ready corn) (experiment 
        1) and the combined traits, insect-protected corn event MON 810 (YieldGard 
        corn) x glyphosate-tolerant corn event NK603 (experiment 2) to their respective 
        non-transgenic controls and to commercial reference corn, when fed to 
        growing broilers. For each experiment, a randomized complete block design 
        was used with eight dietary treatments in each of five replicated blocks 
        of pens (eight pens for males and eight pens for females per block). Final 
        live weights and feed conversion were not different (P &gt; 0.05) across 
        all treatments in both experiments. In experiment 1, broilers fed diets 
        containing Roundup Ready corn had similar feed conversion adjusted for 
        mortalities to those fed the non-transgenic control and one of the commercial 
        corn diets. Chill weights and thigh, drum, and wing weights were not affected 
        by diets. Differences (P &lt; 0.05) were noted for breast meat and fat 
        pad weights across treatments. In experiment 2, the adjusted feed conversion 
        and carcass parameters were not affected by diets. Differences (P &lt; 
        0.05) were noted only for protein content of breast meat. Differences 
        observed in both experiments were consistent with natural variability. 
        Broilers in general performed consistently and had similar carcass yields 
        and meat compositions when fed diets containing Roundup Ready corn or 
        YieldGard x Roundup Ready corn as compared with their respective non-transgenic 
        control and commercial diets supporting similar feeding values among diets.Erratum
        The least significant difference (LSD) values for those carcass yield 
        parameters expressed on a percentage basis in Table 6 were not multiplied 
        by 100. Correct LSD (5.0%) values are listed with each parameter below. 
        
        Chill weight (% of live weight): 0.6
        Fat pad weight (% of live weight): 0.1
        Breast meat weight (% of chill weight): 0.5
        Thigh weight (% of chill weight): 0.3
        Drum weight (% of chill weight): 0.2
        Wing weight (% of chill weight): 0.2
          Taylor ML, Stanisiewski EP, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, George B, Hartnell 
          GF (2004) Comparison of broiler performance when fed diets containing 
          roundup ready (Event RT73), nontransgenic control, or commerical canola 
          meal (vol 83, pg 456, 2004). Poultry Science 83:1758Erratum
        The units for amino acids listed in the Table 1 title should be percentages 
        rather than milligrams per gram. The corrected title is as follows: TABLE 
        1. Proximate (%) and amino acid (%) composition of glyphosate-tolerant 
        canola (RT73) meal, non-transgenic control 46A65 meal, and commercial 
        canola meal (CM)
          Tony MA, Butschke A, Broll H, Grohmann L, Zagon J, Halle I, Danicke 
          S, Schauzu M, Hafez HM, Flachowsky G (2003) Safety assessment of Bt 
          176 maize in broiler nutrition: Degradation of maize-DNA and its metabolic 
          fate. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 57:235-252Abstract: Insect resistant Bt 176 maize has been developed by 
        genetic modification to resist European borer infection. In the present 
        investigation, the experiment was conducted to determine the effect of 
        feeding a new hybrid of Bt 176 maize (NX 6262-Bt 176) on general health 
        condition and performance of broiler chickens. Maize grains and diets 
        were subjected to proximate analysis. Amino and fatty acids investigation 
        were applied for both maize grains before used. To evaluate the degradation 
        of NX 6262 - Bt 176 maize DNA and its metabolic fate in broiler blood, 
        muscles and organs. One-day-old male broilers were fed ad libitum on either 
        an experimental diet containing NX 6262- Bt 176 or a control diet containing 
        the non-modified maize grains for 35 days. Feed consumption and body weight 
        were recorded weekly during the experimental period. All chickens were 
        subjected to nutritional evaluation period at day 20 of age for 5 successive 
        days, to calculate the percentage of apparent digestible nutrients in 
        both diets. At day 35 samples were collected at several intervals after 
        feed withdrawal. Prior to slaughter blood samples were collected from 
        all birds by heart puncture to prevent DNA cross contamination. Samples 
        from pectoral and thigh muscles, liver, spleen, kidney, heart muscle, 
        bursa and thymus glands were collected. Digesta from different sections 
        of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) were collected as well. Packed cell 
        volume (PCV) and some serum parameters were investigated. There were no 
        significant differences between control and experimental group concerning 
        chemical composition of feeds, apparent digestible nutrients, and all 
        performance parameters measured (P &gt; 0.05). Furthermore, there were 
        no differences in the PCV and the analysed serum parameters between the 
        control and experimental group. The results of maize DNA digestibility 
        showed that the new variety takes the normal physiological passage along 
        broiler GIT similar to the conventional line. In addition, Bt 176 maize 
        DNA appears to be partially degraded in different parts of GIT comparable 
        to the DNA of the control maize line. Results of the metabolic fate of 
        maize DNA in broiler blood, muscles and organs indicated that only short 
        DNA fragments (199 bp) derived from the plant chloroplast gene could be 
        detected in the blood, skeletal muscles, liver, spleen and kidney, which 
        disappeared after prolongation the fasting time. In heart muscle, bursa 
        of Fabricius and thymus, no plant chloroplast DNA was found. Bt gene specific 
        constructs from Bt 176 maize were not detected in any investigated blood 
        or tissue samples.
          Twardowski T, Potkanski A, Pruszynski SAK (2003) A note on silage from 
          genetically modified maize tested for biological activity. Polish Journal 
          of Environmental Studies 12:759-764Abstract: Forage from genetically modified (GM) maize in two consecutive 
        years (1999 and 2000) was ensiled in bins of 120 l volume in two combinations: 
        with formic acid (85%) and without. In the samples of ensilage material 
        GM maize, basic parameters have been determined such as pH and dry matter. 
        The determination of biological activity of the components of translational 
        apparatus in model translation systems showed the complete inactivation 
        of biological activities. In addition, degradation of nucleic acids in 
        examined silages was discovered.
          Van Deynze, A., Bradford, K. J., and Van Eenennaam, A. Crop biotechnology: 
          Feeds for livestock. Div.Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 
          8145, Univ.of California-Davis Pub. 8145, 1-6. 2004. Abstract: Most crops developed through biotechnology that are 
        on the market today provide farmers with increased convenience and product 
        quality while requiring fewer chemical inputs. According to the USDA Economic 
        Research Service (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops), herbicide- 
        and insect-resistant biotech varieties accounted for about 85 percent 
        of U.S. soybean acreage and 45 percent of corn acreage in 2003. Livestock 
        eat the meal from approximately 70 percent of the soybeans and consume 
        80 percent of the corn grain and silage grown in the United States (Etherton 
        et al. 2003), making the livestock industry a major user of biotech crops. 
        Plant breeders are concentrating on enhancing grains or protein sources 
        to produce feedstuffs that will improve feed utilization, performance, 
        product quality, and health of livestock while reducing production costs 
        and environmental impacts. It is likely that biotech crops of the future 
        will play an important role in this arena. This publication discusses 
        potential applications and safety issues associated with such products.
          von Wettstein D, Warner J, Kannangara CG (2003) Supplements of transgenic 
          malt or grain containing (1,3-1,4)-beta-glucanase increase the nutritive 
          value of barley-based broiler diets to that of maize. British Poultry 
          Science 44:438-449Abstract: 1. A diet with addition to normal barley of malt from 
        transgenic barley expressing a protein engineered, thermotolerant Bacillus 
        (1,3- 1,4)-beta-glucanase during germination has previously been demonstrated 
        to provide a broiler chicken weight gain comparable to maize diets. It 
        also reduced dramatically the number of birds with adhering sticky droppings, 
        but did not entirely eliminate sticky droppings. One of the objectives 
        of the broiler chicken trials reported here was to determine if higher 
        concentrations of transgenic malt could alleviate the sticky droppings. 
        2. Another aim was to investigate the feasibility of using mature transgenic 
        grain containing the thermotolerant (1,3- 1,4)-beta-glucanase as feed 
        addition and to compare diets containing transgenic grain to a diet with 
        the recommended amount of a commercial beta-glucanase-based product. 3. 
        Inclusion of 75 or 151 g/kg transgenic malt containing 4.7 or 98 mg/kg 
        thermotolerant (1,3- 1,4)-beta-glucanase with 545 or 469 g/kg non-transgenic 
        barley instead of maize yielded a weight gain in Cornish Cross broiler 
        chickens indistinguishable from presently used maize diets. The gene encoding 
        the enzyme is expressed in the aleurone with a barley alpha-amylase gene 
        promoter and the enzyme is synthesised with a signal peptide for secretion 
        into the endosperm of the malting grain. 4. Equal weight gain was achieved, 
        when the feed included 39 g/kg transgenic barley grain [containing 66 
        mg/kg thermotolerant (1,3- 1,4)-beta-glucanase] and 581 g/kg non-transgenic 
        barley instead of maize. In this case, the gene encoding the enzyme has 
        been expressed with the D-hordein gene (Hor3-1) promoter during grain 
        maturation. The enzyme is synthesised as a precursor with a signal peptide 
        for transport through the endoplasmic reticulum and targeted into the 
        storage vacuoles. Deposition of the enzyme in the prolamin storage protein 
        bodies of the endosperm protects it from degradation during the programmed 
        cell death of the endosperm in the final stages of grain maturation and 
        provides extraordinary heat stability. The large amount of highly active 
        (1,3- 1,4)-beta-glucanase in the mature grain allowed the reduction of 
        the transgenic grain ingredient to 0.2 g/kg diet, thus making the ingredient 
        comparable to that of the trace minerals added to standard diets. 5. A 
        direct comparison using transgenic grain supplement at the level of 1 
        g/kg of feed with the standard recommended addition of the commercial 
        enzyme preparation Avizyme 1100(R) at 1 g/kg yielded equal weight gain, 
        feed consumption and feed efficiency in birds fed a barley-based diet. 
        6. The production of sticky droppings characteristic of broilers fed on 
        barley diets was avoided with all 9 experimental diets and reduced to 
        the level observed with a standard maize diet by supplementation with 
        transgenic barley. 7. The excellent growth and normal survival of the 
        400 broilers tested on barley diets supplemented with transgenic grain 
        or malt showed the grain and malt not to be toxic. 8. The barley feed 
        with added transgenic grain or malt containing thermotolerant (1,3- 1,4)-beta-glucanase 
        provides an environmentally friendly alternative to enzyme additives, 
        as it uses photosynthetic energy for production of the enzyme in the grain 
        and thus avoids use of non-renewable energy for fermentation. The deposition 
        of the enzyme in the protein bodies of the grain in the field makes coating 
        procedures for stabilisation of enzyme activity superfluous. 9. Barley 
        feed with the small amount of transgenic grain as additive to normal barley 
        provides an alternative for broiler feed in areas where grain maize cannot 
        be grown for climatic reasons or because of unsuitable soil and thus has 
        to be imported
          Zdunczyk Z, Frejnagel S, Fornal J, Flis M, Palacios MC, Flis B, Zagorski-Ostoja 
          W (2005) Biological response of rat fed diets with high tuber content 
          of conventionally bred and transgenic potato resistant to necrotic strain 
          of potato virus (PVYN) Part I. Chemical composition of tubers and nutritional 
          value of diets. Food Control 16:761-766Abstract: In experiments on rats, nutritional properties of a 
        diet with high content (40%) of potato tubers obtained from conventional 
        or genetically-modified potato were determined. The potato cultivar Irga 
        was transformed with viral genome sequences in order to improve its resistance 
        to a necrotic strain of potato virus Y (PVYN). Four lines of genetically-modified 
        potato were compared with non-transgenic somaclone from cv. Irga and three 
        conventional cultivars Irga, Maryna and Ania. Potato tubers were autoclaved, 
        dried and introduced to the diets which contained similar amount of protein 
        (levelled through small addition of casein), fat, minerals and vitamins. 
        
        Genetic modification of potato had no effect on the chemical composition 
        (e.g. crude protein, starch, dietary fibre content and amino acid composition 
        of protein) and nutritional properties of tubers (diet intake, animal 
        growth, protein utilisation). Higher differences between chemical composition 
        (especially in crude protein and starch content) and biological response 
        of rats were determined in the case of diets containing tubers from conventional 
        potato cultivars Ania, Maryna and Irga. Obtained results indicate that 
        transgenic potatoes with genetically improved resistance to PVYN are substantial 
        and nutritional equivalence to the non-transgenic cultivar.
          Zdunczyk Z, Juskiewicz J, Fornal J, Mazur-Gonkowska B, Koncicki A, Flis 
          B, Zimnoch-Guzowska E, Zagorski-Ostoja W (2005) Biological response 
          of rat fed diets with high tuber content of conventionally bred and 
          transgenic potato resistant to necrotic strain of potato virus (PVYN). 
          Part II. Caecal metabolism, serum enzymes and indices of non-specific 
          defence of rats. Food Control 16:767-772Abstract: The potential effect of genetic modification on nutritional 
        properties of potatoes was determined in a rat experiment. The potato 
        cultivar Irga was transformed with viral genome sequences in order to 
        improve its resistance to a necrotic strain of potato virus Y (PVYN). 
        Four clones of genetically-modified potato were compared with the conventional 
        variety Irga and non-transgenic somaclone from cv. Irga. Autoclaved and 
        dried potato tubers were introduced in a high amount (40%) to rat diets. 
        The genetic status of the potato had no effect on the mass of the caecum 
        and caecal digesta. The parameters tested were pH, dry matter content 
        and bacterial enzyme activity, comprising a- and &szlig;-glucosidase, 
        a- and &szlig;-galactosidase, and &szlig;-glucuronidase. The results indicate 
        that improvement of potato resistance to PVYN by genetic transformation 
        had no negative effect on the ecosystem of the caecum of the rats, activity 
        of serum enzymes (aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, 
        lactate dehydrogenase and creatine kinase) and non-specific defence mechanisms 
        (lysozyme and ceruloplasmine level, number of bacteria taken up per cell 
        and the percentage of the phagocytic cells in the serum).
          Zhu Y, Li D, Wang F, Yin J, Jin H (2004) Nutritional assessment and 
          fate of DNA of soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans 
          using rats. Archives of Animal Nutrition-Archiv fur Tierernahrung 58:295-310Abstract: This study was conducted to compare the safety of soybean 
        meal prepared from genetically modified (GM) glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup 
        Ready; RR) soybeans and conventional soybeans. Eighty Sprague-Dawley rats 
        (40 males and 40 females) were randomly allotted to one of four groups 
        according to sex and body weight for a 13-week feeding experiment. The 
        rats were fed corn-based diets containing 60% conventional soybean meal, 
        a mixture of 30% conventional and 30% RR soybean meal, 60% or 90% RR soybean 
        meal. All diets were adjusted to an identical nutrient level except the 
        90% RR diet. The two soybean meals were similar in chemical analysis and 
        amino acid composition. During the 13-week growth trial, body weight (P&lt;0.05) 
        and feed intake (P&lt;0.05) decreased only in rats fed with 90% RR soybean 
        meal at the first week. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the 
        experiment. Gross necropsy findings, haematological or urinalysis values 
        and clinical serum parameters showed no meaningful differences between 
        rats fed the control and RR soybean meals. A 145 bp of cp4 epsps gene 
        specific for the GM constructs from RR soybean meal or a 407 bp of lec 
        gene from endogenous soybean DNA could not be detected in investigated 
        masseter muscle samples. No adverse effects of glyphosate-tolerant soybean 
        meal on rats were seen even at levels as high as 90% of the diet. 


              









Document Number: 9292 

Biotech Food Myths, Misconceptions and Misinformation 
        -- 
        A Response to False Activist ClaimsAgBioWorld
        June 21, 2003(PDF 
        Version)On June 15, a group of anti-biotech organic food activists 
        calling themselves the &quot;Independent Science Panel&quot; issued a 
        report called The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, regarding crops 
        and foods improved using modern biotechnology techniques. That report 
        makes a series of claims regarding bioengineered crops that is not supported 
        by the depth and breadth of extensive scientific and economic data collected 
        in laboratory tests, field trials and commercial cultivation over the 
        past two decades. The following report from the AgBioWorld Foundation 
        is a point-by-point refutation of those assertions.  Myth 1. Activists say: &quot;GM crops failed 
        to deliver promised benefits.&quot;   FACTS: Crops improved through biotechnology enjoy farmer satisfaction 
        levels in the high 90% ranges, and these new varieties have penetrated 
        the market at rates never before seen in agriculture. The reasons are 
        very simple: Despite the desperate denials of activists, these crops deliver 
        value to farmers, including lower overall costs and more efficient methods 
        for controlling insect pests, weeds and diseases with reduced environmental 
        impacts. This is why the overwhelming majority of farmers have freely 
        chosen to plant biotech improved crops year after year once they try them. 
        As a direct result of the introduction of biotech improved crops, 
        pesticide use has been dramatically reduced, and herbicide use has shifted 
        from older, narrow spectrum and higher toxicity compounds to the newer 
        generation of broader spectrum lower impact formulas (see Gianessi et 
        al. studies at www.ncfap.org). There have been no confirmed crop failures 
        with biotech-improved crops. The rare, ephemeral case of alleged under-performance 
        seems to be associated with the use of inferior starting varieties unrelated 
        to the biotechnology-mediated improvement.Myth 2. Activists say: &quot;GM crops [are] 
        posing escalating problems on the farm. The instability of 
        transgenic lines has plagued the industry from the beginning, and this 
        may be responsible for a string of major crop failures. A review in 1994 
        stated, 'While there are some examples of plants which show stable expression 
        of a transgene these may prove to be the exceptions to the rule. In an 
        informal survey of over 30 companies involved in the commercialisation 
        of transgenic crop plants&#133;almost all of the respondents indicated 
        that they had observed some level of transgene inaction. Many respondents 
        indicated that most cases of transgene inactivation never reach the literature.'&quot;FACTS: Predictions of widespread problems based on this ten-year-old 
        article have since been shown by vast experience with commercial crops 
        to be incorrect. Commercialized biotech varieties go through more screening 
        and scrutiny, in advance, in depth and detail, than any other new crop 
        varieties in history. The sort of instability alleged, which does happen 
        rarely during product development, is routinely eliminated by companies 
        for obvious reasons. In fact, data demonstrating stable Mendelian inheritance 
        of the transgene are required as a matter of law by regulators. Myth 3. Activists say: &quot;Triple herbicide-tolerant 
        oilseed rape volunteers that have combined transgenic and non-transgenic 
        traits are now widespread in Canada. Similar multiple 
        herbicide-tolerant volunteers and weeds have emerged in the United States.&quot; 
        Facts: Claims that herbicide-tolerant volunteer plants have become 
        problematic for Canadian growers of oilseed rape (known as canola in North 
        America) are both false and misleading. Most canola growers in Canada 
        do not have any problem with herbicide tolerant volunteers, as different 
        herbicides or cultivation remain satisfactory control measures. Unlike 
        conventional or organic crops, biotech improved pest resistant crops have, 
        from the beginning, been marketed with stewardship programs in place to 
        forestall the evolution of the type of pest resistance scientists have 
        in fact seen with conventional and organic crops. Indeed, as the activists 
        note in the quoted passage above, the few cases of herbicide tolerant 
        canola (oilseed rape) volunteers includes those that have inherited the 
        herbicide-tolerance trait from conventionally modified, rather than bioengineered 
        varieties.Myth 4. Activists say: &quot;Extensive transgenic 
        contamination [is] unavoidable. Extensive transgenic contamination 
        has occurred in maize landraces growing in remote regions in Mexico despite 
        an official moratorium that has been in place since 1998.&quot; FACTS: It is odd that some activists find the natural process of pollen 
        flow to be alarming when it comes from precisely improved biotech crops 
        that require fewer pesticide sprays, but are unremarkable from conventional 
        crops or wild plants. To use this natural biological phenomenon as a tool 
        to foment fear represents a significant departure from anything supportable 
        by science. IF pollen from biotech crops has carried DNA from biotech 
        improved varieties into Mexican landraces, it is because the landrace 
        stewards have continued their age-old practice of importing foreign genetic 
        material as a source of new variation to use in improving the ever dynamic 
        and evolving manmade corn varieties. The biotech traits involved, if transferred, 
        would not present any kind of threat; instead, they would add value to 
        these varieties by enabling the landraces to resist insect pests or herbicides. 
        If the landrace stewards do not find these traits desirable they can easily 
        eliminate them through selection. A pure or static crop landrace has never 
        existed and could not exist. Myth 5. Activists say: &quot;GM crops [are] 
        not safe.&quot; FACTS: Crops improved through biotechnology have undergone more safety 
        and environmental testing than any crop varieties in history, and have 
        been produced and consumed by humans and animals in millions of tons around 
        the world for years. They have been proven as safe as the scientific method 
        permits, by every valid method known to science and medicine. There is, 
        to date, not a single solitary confirmed case of human or animal illness 
        or disease associated with a biotech crop. Nor has a single negative environmental 
        impact been credibly attributed to biotech-improved varieties. The entire 
        body of this vast experience has shown these crops to be at least as safe 
        as, and in many ways safer than, conventional crops and foods. See the 
        recent International Council for Science report (www.icsu.org) 
        for a synthesis of the scientific studies on this topic, or refer to the 
        bibliography 
        of published scientific studies on the AgBioWorld Foundation website 
        (http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/articles/gen_safety.html). 
        Beyond the safety approval of three U.S. government agencies, both the 
        American Medical Association and British Medical Association, as well 
        as dozens of other scientific bodies, have said that there are no food 
        safety concerns with currently commercialized biotech crops.Myth 6. Activists say: 
        &quot;The principle of 'substantial equivalence', on which risk assessment 
        is based, is intended to be vague and ill-defined, thereby giving companies 
        complete licence in claiming transgenic products 'substantially equivalent' 
        to non-transgenic products, and hence 'safe'.&quot;
        Facts: The concept of &quot;substantial equivalence&quot; is misrepresented 
        in the passage quoted above. Transgenic products are not assumed to be 
        safe, allowing them to be exempt from safety testing. Substantial equivalence 
        is a conclusion that can only be reached AFTER testing to ensure that 
        the biotech improved crop is, in fact, equivalent to its conventional 
        counterpart in nutritional and safety aspects.Myth 7. Activists say: &quot;Dangerous gene 
        products are incorporated into crops.&quot;FACTS: Bt proteins are used because of their excellent and well-documented 
        specificity for narrow groups of insect pests, as well as their long history 
        of safe use by organic and non-organic farmers. Activists inconsistently 
        claim there are safety issues when used in biotech crops, but they make 
        no such representations when they are used indiscriminately and without 
        regulatory oversight by organic farmers. This appears to demonstrate that 
        the activists do not believe their own arguments about safety.Myth 8. Activists say: &quot;Food crops are 
        increasingly used to produce pharmaceuticals and drugs.&quot;Facts: Food crops used to produce pharmaceutical compounds provide 
        a highly promising way to increase the safe and effective production of 
        vital medicines to treat crippling diseases at lower costs to producers 
        and patients. Furthermore, scientists have vast experience deriving medicinal 
        and industrial compounds from plant sources. Indeed, canola (oilseed rape), 
        which is one of the most important food crops in North America, is a conventionally 
        modified variety of the same plant species used to produce industrial 
        lubricants that are toxic to human beings. It is disingenuous to oppose 
        the use of biotech improved food crops for producing medical or industrial 
        substances, while condoning the use of canola. Perhaps activists do not 
        oppose canola consumption precisely because growers and processors have 
        an outstanding record of safe production and segregation.Myth 9. Activists say: &quot;Terminator crops 
        spread male sterility. Crops engineered 
        with 'suicide' genes for male sterility have been promoted as a means 
        of 'containing', i.e., preventing, the spread of transgenes. In reality, 
        the hybrid crops sold to farmers spread both male sterile suicide genes 
        as well herbicide tolerance genes via pollen.&quot;FACTS: Sterile plants, by definition, cannot leave offspring and so 
        are incapable of &quot;spreading sterility.&quot; Furthermore, no &quot;terminator&quot; 
        plants have ever been marketed. They remain an abstract concept described 
        in a patent application. But if some day in the future they are ever produced, 
        or if other genetic use restriction technologies are developed and deployed, 
        they are likely to be an excellent, safe, and robust method of mitigating 
        potential gene flow in those rare instances where such gene flow might 
        be undesirable.Myth 10. Activists say: &quot;Broad-spectrum 
        herbicides [are] highly toxic to humans and other species. 
        Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate are used with the herbicide-tolerant 
        transgenic crops that currently account for 75% of all transgenic crops 
        worldwide. Both are systemic metabolic poisons expected to have a wide 
        range of harmful effects, and these have been confirmed.&quot;FACTS: Allegations that herbicides like glyphosate pose realistic 
        safety threats to humans and animals are simply false, as can be ascertained 
        by anybody who takes the time to consult the review documents prepared 
        by government safety regulatory agencies or the toxicological literature. 
        These compounds target cellular receptors and metabolic pathways unique 
        to plants that are absent from animals. They have received the strongest 
        findings of safety from regulatory agencies and none of the negative consequences 
        alleged by activists for human health are confirmed from their use. Even 
        the group Environmental 
        Defense, rates glyphosate as among the least hazardous of the chemicals 
        included in its extensive database (http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/).Myth 11. Activists say: &quot;Genetic engineering 
        creates super-viruses.&quot; FACTS: Recombinant DNA techniques for the first time enable researchers 
        to study viruses in detail and in ways previously unavailable. These help 
        scientists determine the functions and modes of action of virus genes 
        as a prelude to developing effective new therapies and means of disease 
        prevention. Recombination among viral strains is commonplace in nature, 
        and this is neither new nor limited to crops improved through biotechnology. 
        In order to ensure that biotechnology does not unwittingly exacerbate 
        this problem, regulators routinely follow the recommendation of experts 
        in the field and prohibit the introduction of sequences from exotic viruses 
        into crop plants being grown outside the natural ranges of those viruses. 
         Myth 12. Activists say: &quot;Transgenic 
        DNA in food [is] taken up by bacteria in [the] human gut. There 
        is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been 
        taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers. Antibiotic 
        resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic 
        bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat.&quot;FACTS: There is ZERO EVIDENCE to support concerns that functional 
        genes might be taken up from food, transgenic or otherwise, by bacteria 
        in soil or the human digestive tract. Even if the antibiotic marker genes 
        occasionally used in early biotech crops were so absorbed, they would 
        not even be detectable against the pre-existing background of antibiotic 
        resistance genes found widely in human intestinal flora. There is a strong 
        consensus among medical experts in microbial antibiotic resistance that 
        the clinical problems of antibiotic resistance stem from medical or patient 
        mishandling of antibiotics, to which the mechanics of agricultural biotechnology 
        are wholly irrelevant.Myth 13. Activists say: &quot;Transgenic 
        DNA and cancer. Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion 
        in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the 
        possibility for triggering cancer. The possibility cannot be excluded 
        that feeding GM products such as maize to animals also carries risks, 
        not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal 
        products.&quot;FACTS: This is a totally fabricated concern contradicted by vast experience 
        and for which there is absolutely no supporting data. Any link between 
        transgenes and cancer is purely fictional.Myth 14. Activists say: &quot;CaMV 35S promoter 
        increases horizontal gene transfer.&quot;FACTS: There are no data to support this fantasy. The ubiquity of 
        widespread natural mosaic viruses in cauliflower and its close relatives, 
        broccoli, cabbage, canola and others, and the demonstrated anti-cancer 
        effects of a diet rich in such vegetables, eloquently refutes this manufactured 
        concern.Myth 15. Activists say: &quot;[There's] a 
        history of misrepresentation and suppression of scientific evidence.&quot; 
        FACTS: Activist claims have been thoroughly evaluated by the community 
        of scientists and measured against replicable findings in published and 
        peer-reviewed literature. Their speculative and sometimes bizarre claims 
        routinely and repeatedly fail to survive this scrutiny. This is not because 
        evidence is suppressed, but rather because activists are consistently 
        frustrated in their search for credible evidence that might justify their 
        claims.Myth 16. Activists say: &quot;In 
        conclusion, GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and 
        are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is 
        now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence 
        of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not 
        been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to 
        raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible 
        damage to health and the environment. GM crops should be firmly rejected 
        now.&quot;FACTS: This &quot;conclusion&quot; has been shown to be false in each 
        of its several components by the preceding refutations. The facts are 
        that crops improved through biotechnology have, in advance of their use, 
        been subjected to more rigorous scrutiny, in depth and detail, than any 
        others in history. Wherever farmers have been allowed access to such crops 
        they have adopted them at unprecedented rates and inspired the highest 
        levels of farmer loyalty because they deliver value on multiple levels, 
        to the farmer, to the environment, and to consumers. In the end, if genuine 
        and systemic agricultural problems have arisen from, or ever do arise 
        from, biotech enhanced crops, then farmers will abandon them. The fact that farmers continue to embrace bioengineered crop varieties 
        provides ample evidence that they HAVE been beneficial to the farm. And 
        the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, as well as every 
        major scientific organization that has evaluated the safety of biotech 
        crops, find them to be as safe as or safer than conventional crops, provides 
        ample evidence that health and environmental issues have been adequately 
        addressed. 


              









Document Number: 2847 

Huge Potential of Genetically Improved Plants Outweighs 
          Hypothetical Risks  Financial Express (India)
        May 31, 1999
        By Dr C. S. PrakashLooking at the recent developments in India from a Centre for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research that I head in an American campus (and there are many like me 
        in biotechnology in US academia and the biotech industry), I am struck 
        by how a small group of Indian activists (with strong Western connections) 
        opposed to biotechnology have been making headlines virtually unopposed. 
        They are on the warpath against genetically improved crops. And through 
        well-orchestrated campaigns are sowing the seeds of fear in the minds 
        of the Indian public. 
      Their goal is clearly to intimidate policy makers by twisting facts about 
        biotechnology and vilifying its proponents. Fields trials of genetically 
        improved crops have been burnt without regard to the views of their farmer-owners 
        and some of the most absurd and wild rumours about the risks of biotechnology 
        have been meticulously spread with appropriate sound bites.Strangely, 
        neither the media nor intellectuals from outside the scientific community 
        have chosen to challenge thebasis of such claims. Risk is essentially 
        a function of the nature of a product, and not the process employed in 
        developing the product, according to Andre de Kathan of the University 
        of Hanover, Germany. 
      Products from biotechnology are no less safe than traditionally bred 
        crops. In fact, they may even be safer as they represent small, precise 
        alterations with the introduction of genes whose biology is well understood. 
        Often these genes are derived from other food crops. 
      Genetically improved products are subjected to intensive testing, while 
        conventional varieties have never been subjected to any such regulation 
        for food safety or environmental impact. Traditional methods of developing 
        crops involve wild crosses with weedy relatives of crop plants. Hundreds 
        of unknown genes,of whose traits we have little knowledge, are introduced 
        into these food crops through these conventional plant breeding methods. 
      Many characteristics such as disease and pest resistance have been routinely 
        introduced into cropplants from their weedy and distant relatives over 
        hundreds of years. These have posed no serious threat to the environment 
        in terms of crop invasiveness, gene flow to weeds or the biodiversity. 
        Yet, some of these fears are invoked for genetically-improved crops which 
        possess similar traits, but are developed through a rapid genetic modification 
        processes. 
      Thousands of new plants have been introduced into India since Vasco da 
        Gama, and no one now questions the invaluable impact these exotic introductions 
        have made on Indian agriculture, food habits and the economy. These include 
        chilli, wheat, potato, tomato, cabbage, groundnut, cowpea, apple, grape, 
        eucalyptus, rose and countless ornamentals. Genetically improved crops, 
        on the other hand, do not involve any such wholesale introduction of thousands 
        of new genes through new plants, only alteration of just one or two genes 
        with known traits in the already popular Indian crop varieties. 
      There is, therefore, a far greater risk to the Indian society from thenon-acceptance 
        of biotechnology when compared to the minuscule risks posed by genetically 
        improved crops. The enormous potential benefits from these crops therefore 
        far outweigh any hypothetical risks posed by their use.Genetically improved 
        plants are safe Thousands of field tests conducted so far on various genetically 
        improved crops with more than one hundred new traits, or their commercial 
        planting on 28 million hectares world-wide have failed to provide any 
        serious evidence of food safety or environmental concern. Gene altered 
        corn and soyabean products, including baby food, have now found their 
        way into nearly 4,000 food products in American supermarkets. Yet, not 
        a single issue of food safety has been reported. It should be pointed 
        out that American standards of food safety are the highest in the world. 
        The regulatory agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has one 
        of the world's strictest standards and thus enjoys considerable public 
        trust. 
      Many genes used in genetically improved crops, such including the Bt 
        gene isolated from soil bacteria, have a long history of perfect safety 
        and ecological record. Further, many genes introduced into crop plants 
        (such as those used to develop slow ripening tomato) are derived essentially 
        from the same crop but inserted in a reverse manner to silence the undesirable 
        genes, so as to slow down the ripening in tomato or prevent cyanide production 
        in cassava. 
      This is not to say that genetically improved crops will not have any 
        unforeseen effects. But the possible negative effects of each crop should 
        be scientifically evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the regulatory 
        system should evolve over time based on new knowledge. As India is the 
        centre of the origin of many crop plants with many wild relatives, we 
        should be prudent to minimise any potential gene transfer to weedy relatives. 
      Many of these concerns are technical issues that could be addressed through 
        appropriate research, and not through emotive debates or militant activism.A 
        frequent fear invokedagainst the use of genetically improved crops is 
        their possible impact on the environment. What can be more environmentally 
        friendly than a crop variety that requires little or no pesticide? How 
        can a crop variety that is three-fold productive, and thus decreases the 
        pressure to cut down forest lands for agricultural expansion, be against 
        nature? Yet, one hears that 'biotechnology is incompatible with nature' 
        and is 'not natural'. We need to remember that agriculture is inherently 
        an unnatural activity. Human beings since the dawn of civilisation have 
        been meddling with nature to provide the needed food, fibre and shelter 
        for the sustenance of humankind. None of our present day crops resemble 
        their weedy relatives. Nor would they survive in the wild as they have 
        all been altered substantially through selection by farmers over thousands 
        of years to be more adaptable and productive. 
       A similar situation exists with livestock and poultry and, for that 
        matter, even our pets like dogs and cats. Geneticallyimproved crops are 
        a logical extension of this human activity, and thus are no more unnatural 
        than what has been practiced for aeons. Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign, 
        New Delhi has rightly reminded us that we should harvest the power of 
        science and technology to improve the living conditions of our people 
        and our most ethical drive is in alleviating poverty, hunger and starvation 
        death. 
      What the experts sayNorman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate and 'Father' of Green Revolution: "The 
        world has the technology - either available or well-advanced in the research 
        pipeline - to feed a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent 
        question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use 
        this technology. Extremists in the environmental movement from rich nations 
        seem to be doing everything they can to stop scientific progress in its 
        tracks."n Jimmy Carter, ex-President of the USA: "Instead of reaping the 
        benefits of decades of discovery and research, people from Africa and 
        South-east Asia will remainprisoners of outdated technology. Their countries 
        could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial that they reject 
        the propaganda of extremist groups before it is too late."Ismail Serageldin, World Bank, CGIAR: "Biotechnology will be a crucial 
        part of expanding agricultural productivity in the 21st century. If safely 
        deployed, it could be a tremendous help in meeting the challenge of feeding 
        an additional three billion human beings, 95 percent of them in the poor 
        developing countries, on the same amount of land and water currently available."The World Bank Panel that included Prof MS Swaminathan: "Transgenic crops 
        that are developed and used wisely can be very helpful, and may prove 
        essential, to world food production and agricultural sustainability". 
        Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign, New Delhi: "Keeping pace with the growing 
        importance of biotechnology and its potential to address some of our urgent 
        food and health care needs, a spurious and somewhat bogus debate on bioethics 
        has been started inIndia. This debate with its plagiarised metaphors and 
        rhetoric borrowed from the West is not Indian in context or substance, 
        and far from relevant."G Padmanabhan, Ex-Director, Indian Institute of Science: "Transgenic 
        technology and conventional wisdom need not be considered as mutually 
        exclusive. The country needs dynamic entrepreneurship leadership in agriculture 
        and no one needs to feel exploited. There is a need for scientists, enlightened 
        administrators, progressive farmers and people's representatives to come 
        together to spread the correct message about transgenic technology."== == ==The author is professor and director of the Centre for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research at Tuskegee University, Alabama, USA. He is the founder of the 
        'Society for Biotechnology' in Bangalore, and is among the founding members 
        of an Internet-based network called PBASIO - the 'Plant Biotechnologists 
        and Agricultural Scientists of Indian Origin' which has more than 800 
        members and promotes discussion on agbiotech related issues concerning 
        India. 


              









Document Number: 7265 

Hungry for Biotech Life sciences companies say agricultural biotechnology 
        will feed the world.
        So why are they standing in the way? By C.S. Prakash 
        Technology Review (MIT Press) 
        July/August 2000  Bioengineered crops were grown on nearly 40 million hectares (100 million 
        acres) in twelve countries last year-up from less than two million hectares 
        when they were first introduced in 1996, making biotechnology the most 
        rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture. But this phenomenal 
        success has been a double-edged sword. Despite the certified safety of 
        biotechnology-derived foods, opposition by environmental activists has 
        undermined consumer confidence in the new gene technology. Food companies 
        such as McDonald's and Frito-Lay are now asking their suppliers not to 
        use bioengineered potatoes and corn. Many European countries are avoiding 
        imports of bioengineered corn and soybeans entirely. 
       Meanwhile, the industry has responded with a public relations campaign 
        of its own. The press releases and TV commercials extol potential benefits 
        of biofoods, such as better nutrition and ameliorating the problem of 
        world hunger. Although biotechnology clearly provides ammunition for improving 
        food production, the fact is that right now there is little industry research 
        on food staples of importance to the developing world. It's time for the 
        industry to put its money-actually its patents-where its mouth is. Nobody 
        should expect Monsanto to end world hunger. That's like counting on Microsoft 
        to wipe out illiteracy. The biotech industry has spent billions of dollars 
        developing a powerful technology for redesigning crops to evade pests 
        and diseases, and to improve food quality. But because investment dollars 
        need to be recovered, the target of such research is on commercial crops 
        in Western countries. 
       So where does that leave the developing world? Poor countries such as 
        Ethiopia or Bangladesh don't have the funds or scientific talent needed 
        to pursue biotech research on their own. Nevertheless, many public institutions 
        are developing food crops with improved attributes such as "golden rice" 
        rich in provitamin A, which can prevent blindness in children. In my own 
        lab at Tuskegee University, we have created high protein sweet potatoes. 
       These new crops are designed to be distributed freely to farmers in 
        the developing world. However, industry "ownership" of genes and technologies 
        used to create such varieties represents a serious obstacle. Nearly every 
        core technology used in crop biotechnology is the intellectual property 
        of companies such as Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and Novartis. So if Vietnam 
        or Liberia wants to distribute golden rice seeds to its farmers, it must 
        first negotiate with various companies for the gene transfer, gene promoter 
        and selectable marker technologies that were used in its development. 
        Most poor countries simply do not have the financial resources or the 
        scientific or legal acumen to wade through this complex patent maze. Thus, 
        agricultural biotechnology cannot make inroads into developing nations 
        without a "freedom to operate" license from the owners of these technologies-major 
        life science corporations. 
       If companies really want to combat global poverty and hunger, they must 
        make their technology available for use on select food crops such as rice, 
        cassava and millet by developing countries on a royalty-free basis. Not 
        only will this provide a tremendous boost to world food production, but 
        it also makes good business sense. Acceptance of biotech food crops in 
        the developing world would create market opportunities for commercial 
        crops such as cotton, and would also give the industry a much-needed human 
        face. Would anyone oppose such a plan? Although there's much willingness 
        among corporate scientists to share technology, their lawyers cannot see 
        beyond the issue of liability. Activists are also to blame. Their opposition 
        to using new technologies in the Third World puts industry in a "damned 
        if you do and damned if you don't" position. 
       Clearly, we need an independent middleman to take charge. Catherine 
        Ives of the Agricultural Biotechnology Sustainability Project at Michigan 
        State University believes that a new international agency should be set 
        up to act as a "technology trust" that can assume responsibility for transferring 
        biotechnology to developing countries. A central agency would not only 
        help indemnify companies from liability suits, but would also help negotiate 
        the labyrinth of patent laws and intellectual property claims. 
       The benefits of agricultural biotechnology are as real as the problems 
        we face. In my native India, every third child is underweight due to malnutrition 
        and 400 million people go to bed hungry every night. In a country where 
        70 percent of people are associated with farming, technological innovation 
        in agriculture is critical not only to produce more food but also to improve 
        living standards. It's time for the agricultural biotechnology industry 
        to show a social conscience and clear the way for the harnessing of their 
        newfound knowledge to combat global hunger and malnutrition. 
      === 
       Professor C.S. Prakash teaches plant molecular genetics at Tuskegee 
        University. He has recently received endorsements from 2,200 scientists 
        across the world for his declaration in support of biotechnology in agriculture. 
       


              









Document Number: 7690 

'The ICMR Overlooked an Extensive Scientific Knowledge Base'Prof. Nirmal Kumar Ganguly
        Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research
        V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, Ansari Nagar,
        New Delhi - 110029, India Dear Prof. Ganguly:Sub: The Importance of Evidence-Based Risk Assessments with GM Crops By C.S. Prakash [and ten other co-authors listed at the bottom of 
        the document]
        August 10, 2004After reviewing the April, 2004, report by the Indian Council of Medical 
        Research (ICMR) entitled Regulatory Regimen for Genetically Modified Foods, 
        The Way Ahead, we were disappointed that the ICMR overlooked the extensive 
        scientific knowledge base supporting the food, feed and environmental 
        safety of biotechnology-derived crops and foods, and economic and environmental 
        and benefits to farmers and consumers.The ICMR acknowledged that biotech crops are important for improving 
        Indian agricultural productivity, through improvements in stress tolerance, 
        soil nutrient utilization, nutritional enhancement, pest resistance and 
        herbicide tolerance, and that biotech crops have the potential to improve 
        food quality, nutrition and health. However, they ignored the extensive 
        safety assessments and expert analyses that have accompanied the approval 
        of the current biotech crops.Instead, ICMR stated &quot;there is limited scientific evidence regarding 
        their toxicity or health risks, the methodology used for assessing the 
        risks is not robust enough or sensitive enough, and the molecular and 
        genetic effects of the technology are unpredictable in nature.&quot; Respectfully, 
        these views are not shared by the dozens of scientific and regulatory 
        authorities all over the world that have reviewed and accepted the extensive 
        and growing base of published scientific information that established 
        or confirmed the safety and benefits of biotech crops and foods.We invite the ICMR to engage the expert community of scientists that 
        have examined and researched the potential risks referenced in their report. 
        Information is readily available through the scientific literature and 
        via consultation with local and international experts. We recognize that 
        certain opponents of biotechnology-derived crops remain skeptical and 
        continue to focus on potential risks - even though these crops have been 
        rigorously examined according to internationally accepted methods and 
        standards. These potential risks represent perceptions, not realities.An important first step toward improving the dialogue and eventual understanding 
        of the issues surrounding biotech crops is to carefully evaluate the extensive 
        scientific knowledge base that exists to address the potential risks. 
        The ICMR should do this on behalf of those concerned about biotech crop 
        safety, so that this critically important information is widely communicated 
        and readily available to all. Failure to do this reinforces perceptions 
        and fears that are not supported by the facts -- it is critical that ICMR 
        conduct an evidence-based risk assessment, based on the breath of publicly 
        available evidence.The ICMR acknowledged that biotech food, feed and environmental safety 
        assessment has been addressed by international organizations, including 
        the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Food 
        and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO) and 
        Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). Unfortunately, they did not report 
        the findings of these authorities, or the conclusions of other international 
        regulatory bodies that have examined and approved biotech crops.Here are some recent statements that relate directly to the questions 
        raised by ICMR:&quot;Current internationally agreed approaches to the safety assessment 
        of GM food crops offer a high level of safety assurance for the consumer.&quot; 
        - ENTRANSFOOD, 2004&quot;GM foods share the same types of health risks as conventional foods. 
        There is no plausible hypothesis suggesting long-term harm from GM foods&#138; 
        and that the best defense against long-term health risks from GM foods 
        is an effective pre-market safety assessment process. Experts view the 
        regimen of safety tests as adequate&quot; - U. S. GAO, 2002&quot; To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering 
        have been documented in the human population.&quot; - U.S. NAS, 2004&quot;Thus far, in those countries where transgenic crops have been grown, 
        there have been no verifiable reports of them causing any significant 
        health or environmental harm&quot; -FAO, 2004&quot;The BMA shares the view of the Royal Society that there is no robust 
        evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe. However, we endorse the call 
        for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of 
        safety and benefit.&quot; - BMA, 2003&quot;The responsible genetic modification of plants is neither new nor 
        dangerous. The addition of new or different genes into an organism by 
        recombinant DNA techniques does not inherently pose new or heightened 
        risks relative to the modification of organisms by more traditional methods, 
        and the relative safety of marketed products is further ensured by current 
        regulations intended to safeguard the food supply.&quot; - Statement by 
        25 Nobel Prize Winners and over 3,400 International Scientists, 2004 http://www.agbioworld.org&quot;With regard to health issues, tests on toxicity and allergenicity 
        have been and are being conducted. So far none has shown significant toxic 
        or allergenic harm. No peer-reviewed article on clinical trials or epidemiological 
        study reporting adverse effects on human health has yet appeared. Where 
        there have been indications of potential unacceptable effect, the present 
        mechanisms have enabled us to identify them and prevent such products 
        coming to the market.&quot; - OECD, 2000Biotechnology offers opportunities to increase the availability and variety 
        of food, increasing overall agricultural productivity while reducing seasonal 
        variations in food supplies. Through the introduction of pest-resistant 
        and stress-tolerant crops, biotechnology could lower the risk of crop 
        failure under difficult biological and climatic conditions. Furthermore, 
        biotechnology could help reduce environmental damage caused by toxic agricultural 
        chemicals.&quot; - FAO, 2004 &quot;GM crops have demonstrated the potential to reduce environmental 
        degradation and to address specific health, ecological and agricultural 
        problems which have proved less responsive to the standard tools of plant 
        breeding and organic or conventional agricultural practices. Thus, we 
        affirm the conclusion of our 1999 Report that there is an ethical obligation 
        to explore these potential benefits responsibly, in order to contribute 
        to the reduction of poverty, and to improve food security and profitable 
        agriculture in developing countries.&quot; - Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 
        2003These conclusions represent a broad consensus of international scientific 
        and regulatory experts, and are just a few examples from a comprehensive 
        database of published work focused on assessing and assuring food, feed 
        and environmental safety of biotech crops.We encourage ICMR to further explore this database of information and 
        to provide a more thorough and thoughtful analysis to the authorities 
        and public. We recommend the following reports and scientific reviews:National Academy of Sciences Report on the Safety of Biotech Foods A 
        new report from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine 
        entitled &quot;Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing 
        Unintended Health Effects&quot; focuses on identifying and assessing potential 
        unintended effects of novel foods on human health. The report discusses 
        unintended effects resulting from genetic modification, including traditional 
        breeding, genetic engineering, chemical mutagenesis and irradiation, all 
        processes that can introduce unintended compositional changes in a food 
        crop. The full report is available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html.ILSI Taskforce Paper on Nutritional Assessments of Biotech Foods A publication 
        prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute's (ILSI) Food Biotechnology 
        Committee Task Force entitled &quot;Nutritional and Safety Assessments 
        of Foods and Feeds Nutritionally Improved through Biotechnology&quot; 
        contains chapter reviews in the following topic areas: Introduction of 
        Modern Agricultural Biotechnology; Improved Nutrition through Modern Biotechnology; 
        Safety Assessment of Nutritionally Improved Foods and Feeds Developed 
        through the Application of Modern Biotechnology; Nutritional Assessment 
        Process for Nutritionally Improved Food Crops; Nutritional Assessment 
        of Animal Feeds Developed through the Application of Modern Biotechnology; 
        The Role of Analytical Techniques in Identifying Unintended Effects in 
        Crops Developed through the Application of Modern Biotechnology; and Postmarket 
        Monitoring of Foods Derived through Modern Biotechnology. The paper is 
        available at: http://www.ift.org/pdfs/crfsfs/crfsfsv3n2p0035-0104ms20040106.pdf.ISNAR / IFPRI Report on Biotech Research Programs A report &quot;To Reach 
        the Poor - Results from the ISNAR/IFPRI Next Harvest Study on Genetically 
        Modified Crops, Public Research, and Policy Implications&quot; from the 
        International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in collaboration 
        with the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) 
        reviews the public research pipelines for biotech crop development in 
        16 developing countries including China, South Africa, Indonesia, Argentina, 
        India, Philippines, Egypt, Brazil, Bulgaria, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, 
        Costa Rica, Malaysia, Kenya and Mexico. Regulations, GM crop approvals, 
        choice of transgene and policy implications are discussed as they affect 
        the research. Recommendations are also presented that would help sustain 
        and increase efficiency of publicly supported research while meeting the 
        biosafety requirements. The 63-page report (EPTD Discussion Paper No. 
        116) is available at: http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp116.pdf.IFPRI Brief on Food Safety The International Food Policy Research Institute 
        (IFPRI) has released a brief entitled &quot;Food Safety and GM Crops: 
        Implications for Developing Country Research.&quot; The report focuses 
        on essential components of capacity building for biotechnology and biosafety, 
        including agreement on reasonable standards for safety in developing countries 
        and competency to assure food safety for biotech. The brief by Joel I. 
        Cohen, Hector Quemada, and Robert Frederick is available at: http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus10/focus10_16.pdf.Report on the Impact of Biotech Crops on Biodiversity Professor Klaus 
        Ammann, Head of the Botanical Garden in Berne, Switzerland has issued 
        a report &quot;Biodiversity and Agricultural Biotechnology - A Review 
        of the Impact of Biotechnology on Biodiversity.&quot; The study is a comprehensive 
        review of the relevant literature on the impact of agricultural biotechnology 
        on biodiversity in comparison with other commonly used agricultural practices. 
        The complete report is available at: http://www.botanischergarten.ch/Biotech-Biodiv/Report-Biodiv-Biotech3.doc.International Council for Science Report on Biotech Crops The International 
        Council for Science (ICSU) has published a report &quot;Food and Agriculture: 
        Scientific Discoveries - Societal Dilemmas.&quot; The report represents 
        an analysis of a selection of approximately 50 science-based reviews published 
        by national academies of science, governments, international organizations, 
        and private agencies in years 2000-2003 covering modern genetics and its 
        applications in food, agriculture and the environment. The report addresses 
        five key questions about genetically modified food and living modified 
        organisms: Who needs them? Are they safe to eat? Will there be any effects 
        on the environment? Are the regulations adequate? Will they affect trade? 
        ICSU represents more than 100 science academies including the U. S. National 
        Academy of Science and the UK's Royal Society. The full report along with 
        additional background research from the study is available at: http://www.icsu.org.Publications on Genetically Modified Food Safety Assessment * &quot;Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified 
        foods&quot;describes an international consensus on the principles regarding 
        evaluation of the food safety of genetically modified plants. Kuiper HA, 
        Kleter GA, Noteborn HPJM, Kok EJ. 2001. Plant Journal 27 (6): 503-528. 
      * &quot;Safety assessment of genetically modified foods&quot; discusses 
        the extensive and comprehensive safety assessment process widely employed 
        for genetically modified crops with emphasis on food and feed uses. Taylor, 
        SL. 2001. Journal Of Nematology 33 (4): 178-182. * &quot;Food safety evaluation of crops produced through biotechnology&quot; 
        examines the principal food safety issues associated with genetically 
        modified crops, including 1) potential toxicity of the newly introduced 
        protein(s), 2) potential changes in allergenicity, 3) changes in nutrient 
        composition, 4) unintended effects giving rise to allergenicity or toxicity 
        and 5) the safety of antibiotic proteins included with the transgene. 
        Chassy, BN. 2002. Journal Of The American College Of Nutrition 21 (3): 
        166S-173S Suppl.Publications on Environmental Safety Assessment and Impacts of Genetically 
        Modified Crops* &quot;The release of genetically modified crops into the environment 
        - Part I. Overview of current status and regulations&quot; discusses environmental 
        risk assessment of genetically modified crops and regulatory approaches 
        in different world areas. Nap JP, Metz PLJ, Escaler M, Conner AJ. 2003. 
        Plant Journal 33 (1): 1-18.* &quot;The release of genetically modified crops into the environment 
        - Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment&quot; examines key issues 
        in the environmental assessment of genetically modified crops, including 
        the potential for invasiveness, vertical or horizontal gene flow, other 
        ecological impacts, effects on biodiversity and the impact of presence 
        of genetically modified material in other crops. Conner AJ, Glare TR, 
        Nap JP. 2003. Plant Journal 33 (1): 19-46.* &quot;Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and 
        Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops&quot; is a comprehensive scientific 
        literature review of the environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived 
        crops in relation to the current agricultural practices for crop and pest 
        management in conventionally bred crops. The impacts examined include: 
        changes in pesticide use patterns, soil management and conservation tillage, 
        crop weediness, gene flow and outcrossing, pest resistance, pest population 
        shifts, nontarget and beneficial organisms, land use efficiency/productivity 
        and human exposure. Carpenter J, Felsot A, Goode T, Hammig M, Onstad D, 
        Sankula S. 2002. http://www.talksoy.com/ComparativeStudy/default.htm* &quot;Biodiversity: the impact of biotechnology&quot; reviews the various 
        aspects of biodiversity in relation to biotechnology and includes the 
        combined contributions of scientists, industrialists, and governmental 
        and public interest organisations across Europe. This 2001 briefing paper 
        by the European Federation of Biotechnology is intended to provide balanced 
        information and advance public debate. http://www.botanischergarten.ch/EFB/Biodiversity(EFB).pdfThe Indian public places a great deal of confidence in the assessments 
        and perspectives provided by authorities, including the ICMR. We believe 
        that the public is entitled to a thorough assessment of all available, 
        scientific information. This is a substantial undertaking given the extensive 
        amount of information available. We encourage the ICMR to undertake such 
        an assessment and disseminate the information publicly. We are confident 
        that ICMR will reach the same conclusion as other leading scientists and 
        authorities around the world, namely that the currently approved biotech 
        crops have been thoroughly assessed for food, feed and the environmental 
        safety, according to well-established, internationally accepted, scientific 
        standards and guidelines, and found to be wholesome, nutritious, and as 
        safe as conventional crops and foods. These are the facts -- ICMR needs 
        to base their assessment and recommendations on evidence-based risk assessments.We thank you for this opportunity to provide you with this information. 
        We look forward to hearing from you,Signatories to the Letter:Dr. Gurdev Khush, Scientist Emeritus, International Rice Research Institute 
        
        Prof. C Kameswara Rao, Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, 
        Bangalore 
        Dr. Seetharam Annadana ASR BIOTEC &amp;, Keygene Genetics, Bangalore 
        Dr. Gurumurti Natarajan, Emirates Agriculture Technologies, Sharjah, UAE 
        
        Prof. Klaus Ammann, Director, Botanical Garden, Berne, Switzerland 
        Prof. David Tribe, University of Melbourne, Australia 
        Dr. Sivramiah Shantharam, President, Biologistics International, USA 
        Prof. Richard Roush, Director, IPM Program, University of California, 
        USA 
        Prof. K. V. Raman, Cornell University, USA 
        Prof. Bruce Chassy, Associate Dean, University of Illinois, USA 
        Prof. C. S. Prakash, President, AgBioWorld Foundation, Inc. USA 


              









Document Number: 3392 

The Irony of Illegal Bt Cotton The Hindu (India)
        By C. S. Prakash
        November 07, 2001 The issue of illegal Bt cotton making headlines in the 
        Indian media provides some valuable lessons. It shows that many of our 
        farmers would readily employ 'improved' varieties of crops when given 
        a choice, and that biotechnology clearly offers solutions to certain agricultural 
        problems. Ironically, it also exposes the consequences of regulatory foot-dragging 
        that sadly spawned this proliferation of 'unapproved' seeds. The overall safety of using Bt genes to control pests with 
        genetically-enhanced plants is not in question here as millions of acres 
        of Bt crops are being grown worldwide without any problem to health or 
        the environment. For the last six years, the Indian seed company Mahyco has 
        been testing insect-resistant Bt cotton while following the strict regulatory 
        protocols. It spent a great deal of money in research, development and 
        testing, waited patiently for six years, and endured much media and activist 
        attention. As part of the approvals process, the company has conducted 
        over 100 field trials with Bt cotton in different agro- climatic zones, 
        and has done extensive nutritional and bio-safety studies under the directives 
        issued by different regulatory authorities, and in close cooperation with 
        many national scientific institutions. Imagine its bewilderment at being usurped by a little known 
        company that, going by media reports, has been clandestinely selling unapproved 
        Bt cotton seeds to farmers in three States for the last three years. It has marketed the seeds under the guise of 'hybrid' seeds, 
        claiming that their bollworm-tolerance trait was not from the use of Bt 
        technology but through traditional plant breeding methods. Laboratory 
        tests have conclusively established that these seeds were indeed transgenic. 
      Understandably, the seeds have proved very popular among 
        cotton farmers who have been suffering the havoc caused by the bollworm 
        for almost a decade. They regard the seeds a godsend and are ready to 
        take on any Government authority that wants to torch their bountiful crop. 
        Paradoxically enough, this unforeseen development is indicative of how 
        the tide has turned in favour of biotechnology in India and debunks the 
        myths that Indian farmers are not willing to embrace this technology or 
        pay more for improved seeds. It is also illustrative of the sluggish regulatory system 
        and the lax enforcement of existing rules. This has also happened in Brazil. 
        In a world where farmers have access to the latest information via television 
        and Internet, they have shown themselves willing to adopt new technologies 
        - no matter who sells it or where it comes from - to tackle old challenges. 
        Governments have a valuable lesson to learn from this - they must reform 
        the regulatory process to eliminate unnecessary delays and trim the red 
        tape. It is inevitable that when farmers do not have access to new technologies 
        via approved routes, we risk unscrupulous firms sneaking them in Crop biotechnology is a new cutting-edge technology that 
        farmers in several countries around the world are enthusiastically adopting, 
        but under the watchful eye of scientists and regulatory authorities. Since 
        1990, more than 50 genetically-improved plants have been given approval 
        in 15 countries on six continents. In all these countries, stringent rules 
        on plant varieties are in place. It is because of such compliance with regulatory protocols 
        that confidence in the safe use of the new crops has grown rapidly round 
        the world. As a report issued last month by the European Commission, executive 
        branch of the European Union, pointed out, "Research on GM (genetically-modified) 
        plants and derived products so far developed and marketed, following usual 
        risk assessment procedures, has not shown any new risks to human health 
        or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant 
        breeding. Indeed, the use of more precise technology and greater regulatory 
        scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods&quot;. 
      The Commission went on to add that no unforeseen environmental 
        effects have yet shown up, but even if they do, "these should be rapidly 
        detected by existing monitoring systems." It is these monitoring systems, on which public confidence 
        in the safety of crop biotechnology depends, which have been undermined 
        in Gujarat. The risks are enormous for the whole of India's fledging biotechnology 
        industry, both in medicine and agriculture. This is not about patent rights or intellectual property 
        issues but it is about the appropriate use and credible monitoring of 
        this new technology, along with safeguarding the global interests of India's 
        biotechnology industry.One false step by a seed company without the scientific 
        standing needed to build public confidence in the system can set back 
        the development of this new science for decades. It can destroy the foundations 
        of the edifice of regulatory measures so painstakingly and labouriously 
        built over the years by the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee in 
        the Union Ministry of Environment, the Department of Biotechnology of 
        the Union Ministry of Science and Technology, and other leading Indian 
        scientific institutions. Biotechnology will be the locomotive of growth in coming 
        decades and the Government of India just cannot afford to take chances. 
        It must deal uncompromisingly with the offending company, regardless of 
        its political connections, under the existing provisions of the Environment 
        Protection Act of 1986. While the company must be held accountable for its acts 
        of commission and omission, the Government also has a responsibility to 
        ensure that all seeds it has released in the market, including those saved 
        by farmers from the crops of the last three years, are destroyed. The illegal Bt cotton incident has ramifications for the 
        development of biotechnology in India. It may have implications also on 
        the investment and development of a whole range of new technologies, including 
        medical biotechnologies. Lack of faith in the Indian regulatory system 
        also engenders a grave risk that exports of Indian products using these 
        new technologies could be banned and new non-tariff barriers created. 
        India needs a sound, comprehensive regulatory system, but one that is 
        also time- efficient in line with other countries. India just cannot afford 
        to let the slogan of "IT Today, BT Tomorrow" be destroyed by an irresponsible 
        act of one company.  ---The writer is Professor of Plant Molecular Genetics, Tuskegee University, 
        Alabama, U.S. He also serves on the special advisory committee of the 
        Department of Biotechnology, Government of India.  


              









Document Number: 2238 

Job Searching in Agricultural BiotechnologyISB News Report
        July, 1999 
        By Dr C. S. PrakashThe job market in agricultural biotechnology has never been better. The 
        recent increases in federal funding for research along with heightened 
        corporate activity in biotechnology has led to unprecedented career prospects 
        in not only molecular biology areas such as genomics, but also related 
        fields such as bioinformatics, public communication, regulatory affairs, 
        and patent law. Whether you are seeking a job in academia, government, 
        or industry, the Internet can be your ally. 
      On the Web, you can locate job advertisements, learn about the company 
        or the university, instantly contact the employer, and forward your resume. 
        There are websites devoted to careers in biotechnology with a searchable 
        database of jobs where you can also post your resume, subscribe to a `job 
        alert' notification, learn how to craft a winning resume, network with 
        other career seekers to share ideas and experiences, and read helpful 
        articles on career search strategies and interview skills. The Internet 
        also abounds with information for aspiring graduate students and postdocs 
        on fellowship opportunities across various institutions and details on 
        research interests of potential advisors. 
      Biotechnology job information can be found on various Internet sites 
        sponsored by scientific journals, professional societies, federal agencies, 
        companies, newsgroups, and of course, dedicated career sites. In my research, 
        I found that Science magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org) 
        and the American Society of Plant Physiology (http://aspp.org) 
        sites have the most job and assistantship listings in agricultural biotechnology. 
        Sites devoted to biotechnology careers such as Biocareer (http://www.biocareer.com) 
        or Medzilla (http://www.medzilla.com) 
        are dominated by biomedical-related jobs, but nevertheless have very helpful 
        articles on job hunting, resume tips, interactive advice columns, and 
        useful links. An insider tip to those seeking graduate assistantships 
        and postdocs: locate the list of scientists who have recently received 
        grants along with their project summary at funding agencies including 
        the USDA (http://www.reeusda.gov/nri/) 
        and NSF (http://www.nsf.gov) 
        and contact the scientists directly. You can easily obtain the email addresses 
        of funded scientists at their university home pages or through people 
        search engines such as Yahoo (http://people.yahoo.com/) 
        or Switchboard (http://www.switchboard.com). 
      Newsgroups such as Arabidopsis and Plant Tissue Culture also post 
        job announcements. See the January 1998 issue of the ISB News Report for 
        information on various newsgroups in biotechnology. 
      Below are some additional sites that are useful for job searching in 
        agricultural biotechnology: 
      Scientific Societieshttp://aspp.org http://www.ashs.orghttp://www.scisoc.orghttp://www.crops.orgAcademic Positionshttp://chronicle.com/jobshttp://www.jobtrack.comhttp://www.careermosaic.comhttp://www.academploy.comScientific Journalshttp://www.sciencemag.orghttp://www.nature.comhttp://www.newscientist.comNewsgroupshttp://www.bio.net/hypermail/EMPLOYMENThttp://www.bio.net/hypermail/EMPLOYMENT-WANTEDhttp://www.bio.net/hypermail/ARABIDOPSISCompanieshttp://www.monsanto.comhttp://www.pioneer.comhttp://www.novartis.comhttp://www.dupont.comhttp://www.mycogen.comhttp://www.astrazeneca.comBiotech Career Siteshttp://www.biospace.comhttp://www.biofind.comhttp://www.biocareer.comhttp://www.medzilla.comhttp://www.biomednet.comUSDAhttp://www.ars.usda.gov/afm/hrd/hrdhomepage/empopp.htm 


              









Document Number: 7117 

The Biotech Miracle  Indian Express - Letters to the Editor
        Nov 5, 2001 
        By C. S. Prakash  http://www.indian-express.com/ie20011105/letter.html I congratulate Sonu Jain ('Bt in Bt cotton means Blocking 
        the seed, Trashing the fact,'; IE, October 27) for the excellent expose 
        on the situation with Bt cotton in Gujarat. The incident, while deplorable, 
        shows ironically how the tide has turned in favour of biotechnology in 
        India. The dam has finally been breached. Myths about our farmers not willing to pay more for biotech 
        seeds have been exposed along with the vested interests of the pesticide 
        lobby in opposing biotech and the inept bureaucracy of the government. 
        It is said that Gujarat farmers bought the illegal Bt cotton seed for 
        much more than they would have had to pay for the traditional variety! 
      Biotechnology offers much for Indian farmers and consumers. 
        If strategically employed, it can help our farmers, protect the environment, 
        boost our food security and economic progress.  


              









Document Number: 8752 

Response to GM Food Myths  AgBioWorld
        By Roger Morton, with contributions by Rick Roush and Wayne Parrott
        14 December 2000 - Updated 13 July 2001Below you will find replies to many of the myths being 
        circulated by anti-biotech activists. 
        Thanks to Roger Morton, Rick Roush and Wayne Parrot for their rebuttal.==Myth 1: GMOs are not needed to "feed the 
        world". People are hungry because they are poor, not because there's not enough 
        food. And if they can't afford to buy conventional food, they'll hardly 
        be able to afford GM food.No. People are hungry because they cannot grow enough food to feed themselves 
        locally. This is for a variety of reasons. For example insects devastate 
        their crops and they cannot afford insecticides to protect the crops. 
      If they were to grow a GM Bt crop then they would get insecticide for 
        free and be able to produce more food. In this way can GM food help feed 
        the poor. 
      Another reason is losses during storage of the grains due to insect attack 
        or rotting of the food in storage. This is because the poor cannot afford 
        the expensive silos and treatments required to reduce losses of this nature. 
        If the crops were GM they could be made to resist insect damage and spoilage. 
        In this way GM food can help feed the poor. 
      Another reason is losses of food due to disease - poor farmers (and many 
        wealthy ones) cannot afford to spray fungicides on their crops. If crops 
        were made resistant to diseases by GM then they could produce more food 
        locally. In this way GM food can help feed the poor. 
      There may be just enough food on the planet at the moment to feed everyone 
        if it was distributed better. However, it isn't distributed better because 
        of poverty. As indicated above GM crops could help with the food distribution 
        problem by allowing the poor to produce more food. GM crops can provide 
        a method for self-help to the poor. This may be more likely to succeed 
        as a method of helping them rather than waiting until they are no longer 
        poor. 
      And even if a miracle happened tonight and the food was distributed better 
        what are we going to do to improve food production in the future when 
        the population is larger? 
      a) let the excess starve to deathb) hope that population growth will stabilise and do nothing else 
        and wait?c) work towards stabilising the population while concurrently conducting 
        research into ways to produce more food in a more sustainable fashion? 
      To me option c) is the only morally acceptable option. 
      GM is a method of crop improvement. It does not necessarily mean more 
        expensive, as we have seen from the golden rice project, where the technology 
        is about to be given away free to the poor. 
      I welcome the day when there is not poverty in the world. In the meantime 
        we must improve the food production in the world to feed the poor. GM 
        is one means to achieve this. 
      And if they can't afford to buy conventional food, they'll hardly 
        be able to afford GM food. Why do think it is a valid assumption that GM food will be more expensive? 
        GM food is food from a crop modified using certain techniques. Nothing 
        about these techniques means the food produced from such crops need be 
        more expensive. In fact, if more food can be produced using such crops, 
        the law of supply and demand will mean such food will be cheaper not more 
        expensive. 
      Myth 2: GMO use will not benefit farmers.According to the US National Academy of Sciences, genetically modified 
        herbicide-resistant soybean is less profitable than conventionally bred 
        varieties. Yields were found to be 6-10% lower for GM crops.Not all GM crops are herbicide-resistant soybean. There may be many reasons 
        why these soybeans are lower yielding. I challenge the authors to present 
        any data on any of the other countless GM crops that show a reduced yield. 
      Myth: Claims that the need for herbicides will decrease with the use 
        of herbicide-resistant crops were also found to be invalid. Instead, the 
        use of the herbicide Roundup increased considerably -- between 2-10 times 
        more.At the expense of far more environmentally damaging herbicides. 
      The Environmental Defence fund gives glyphosate (Roundup) a "Less hazardous 
        than most chemicals in 9 of 10 ranking systems." Check 
        it out your self.So if glyphosate use goes up at the expense of more damaging herbicides 
        this is a good outcome. It would be useful to know what data is being 
        quoted here, but Rick Roush, 
        informs me that these figures are "just flat wrong unless you only looked 
        at places that switched from soil-damaging tillage to minimum or no-till 
        with Roundup Ready crops". 
      Ie., Herbicide use may have increased by a large factor where the only 
        previous alternative was to use excessive cultivation. Excessive cultivation 
        leads to soil degradation and non-sustainability -- something we all can 
        agree is not good outcome. If excessive, soil-damaging, cultivation is 
        replaced by a benign and completely biodegradable herbicide then this 
        is a positive outcome for the environment. 
      It has become fashionable in some circles to claim glyphosate is a very 
        dangerous chemical. If this is so then why does the Environmental Defence 
        Fund give it a "Less 
        hazardous than most chemicals in 9 out of 10 ranking systems" rating? 
        Is the EDF suddenly a mouth-piece for Monsanto or are they just stating 
        the facts in an unbiased fashion? 
      This paper is often quoted as evidence of the dangers of glyposate: 
      A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides. 
        Lennart Hardell Mikael Eriksson, Cancer 1999;85:1353-1360 
      As pointed out by Rick Roush: 
        "the paper provides NO statistically significant links between glyphosate 
        and cancer. By "statistically significant", I mean that there is no evidence 
        that the results differ from what might occur from random chance. The 
        paper itself does NOT "clearly" make claims that glyphosate is linked 
        to cancer. For example, phenoxy herbicides and fungicides are identified 
        in the abstract as being associated with higher cancer risks (for me, 
        no new surprises there), but glyphosate is not even mentioned. Elsewhere 
        in the paper: "Furthermore, due to low numbers of exposed subjects in 
        some of the categories, definite conclusions cannot be drawn for separate 
        chemicals, such as MCPA and glyphosate, from the multivariate analysis" 
        (page 1358). And in the conclusions: "Glyphosate deserves further epidemiologic 
        studies" (page 1359). 
      Ie, the authors of this paper, by their own admission, have not shown 
        glyphosate causes cancer and have concluded that they should do more research 
        on this. Check out the abstract of this paper for yourself: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&amp;form=6&amp;uid=0010189142&amp;dopt=rMyth: In many farms, the herbicide use was 10 times larger than on 
        many farms using integrated weed management systems. The weeds had become 
        resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. Reference? As far as I know there are only a few known cases of glyphosate 
        resistant weeds and these were found in Australia. (BTW, no herbicide 
        tolerant crops have yet been grown commercially in Australia so the appearance 
        of glyphosate R weeds is unrelated to GM crops in this case). 
      Note from Rick Roush: There are also a few cases [of gylphosate resistant 
        weeds] in Malaysia and possibly California. However, ALL such cases are 
        unrelated to GM crops. 
      Myth: Scientists have speculated that the decrease in productivity 
        may be due to genetic engineering reducing the efficiency with which plants 
        use energy, as the energy usage associated with the inserted gene in GM 
        plants is not regulated according to the need of the plant. This energy misuse may be even greater in the case of GM crops incorporating 
        the Bt toxin as an in-built pesticide -- the plant is putting a lot of 
        energy into producing the Bt protein, 24 hours a day whether it is needed 
        or not.So how come no Bt crops have shown reduced yield and it is only HR soybeans 
        that show this effect? 
      Myth: The promotion of GMOs will only make farmers more dependent 
        on the giant agribusinesses. Farmers, even in the First World, work with 
        very low profit margins (the National Farmers Federation estimates it 
        at 2-3% in this country) but with very high overheads for inputs such 
        as machinery, storage, processing and fertilisers. If the farmer can get the seed for free and keep it afterwards (eg golden 
        rice) how is she more dependent on the giant multinationals? Not all GM 
        crops need follow the current marketing strategies of the multinational 
        companies. 
      Myth: GMOs will increase farmers' input costs. The use of, say, herbicide-resistant 
        GM crops will mean the farmer is charged more for the GM seed and is then 
        tied to using a particular brand of herbicide, from a particular agribusiness, 
        to control weeds. Biotech companies are even seeking to develop GM crops 
        whose seed is infertile after one or two generations, thereby requiring 
        expensive repurchasing of seed stock. It is self-evident that this cannot be true. Farmers run a business. 
        If something makes their business more expensive without a benefit then 
        they are not going to use it, are they? 
      Myth 3: The techniques involved in genetic modification 
        are not precise. Biotech companies claim that techniques involved in genetic modification 
        are MORE precise THAN CONVENTIONAL BREEDING. That is all they claim. It 
        is a fact the genes introduced by GM are more precisely understood (we 
        know what protein they make, we can test this protein in feeding trials, 
        etc) than are the genes introduced by conventional breeding (which can 
        number in the thousands, from wild relatives of crop plants that may be 
        toxic to humans.) 
      Myth: In neither case is the biologist able to direct, or even know, 
        where the introduced genetic material is placed in the DNA of the host.This is only half true. It is true that with currently used technology, 
        the biologist can not direct where the introduced genetic material is 
        placed in the DNA of the host. But the conventional breeder can not direct 
        where the new genetic material is placed either. Location of the introduced 
        gene does not matter nearly as much as the characteristics of the inserted 
        gene. If you put a toxic gene in by conventional breeding or by GM it 
        can still be toxic no matter where in the host DNA it ends up. 
      The last half of the statement - that the biologist can not "know 
        where the introduced genetic material is placed in the DNA of the host" 
        is not true. Once a new gene is introduced into a crop by genetic engineering 
        the biologist is able to sequence the DNA surrounding the introduced genetic 
        material and deterimine exactly where the introduced DNA has ended up. 
        The biologist can determine if the new gene has interupted an existing 
        gene using this technology. In contrast, the conventional breeder can 
        not deterimine where the genetic material she has introduced has landed 
        because she does not know what her genes look like. The process of recombination 
        that occurs during the sexual crossing of conventional breeding may have 
        interupted some genes in the host but we would never know this. Again 
        GE is MORE precise than conventional breeding. 
      Myth: They use antibiotic resistance genes as part of the incorporated 
        genetic material, so that the genetically modified cell can be selected 
        by treating the cell culture with antibiotic to kill off all the cells 
        that don't have the genetic material incorporated into their DNA. This, 
        however, does not mean that the cell resulting from this procedure is 
        what's required: almost anything could have happened. Almost anything? Such as putting a fish gene into a tomato and ending 
        up with a fish perhaps??? 
      Almost anything cannot happen. 
      Myth: Biotech giant Monsanto has released data showing that there 
        was extra genetic material inserted into its GM soya beans. This was not 
        reported in the original applications for release of this GM crop and 
        puts a lie to the claims of regulation authorities, such as the Australia 
        and New Zealand Food Authority, that their testing methods consist of 
        a "rigorous safety assessment process". The fact that Monsanto reported that Roundup Ready soybeans have two 
        additional bits of DNA in fact proves how precise the technology is. That 
        scientists can even tell that there are 322 base pairs of extra DNA in 
        2.4 billion base pairs of genome and that they can tell you exactly what 
        this sequence is shows how precise the technology is. Conventional breeders 
        have no chance of telling you what un-characterised sequences are in their 
        new crops. So again this just shows that GM techniques are MORE PRECISE 
        than CONVENTIONAL BREEDING. 
      The "extra DNA" in the roundup soybeans comes from fragments of the roundup 
        resistance gene that the researchers put into the soybeans. It has not 
        materialised from nowhere. Since this DNA is well characterised -- we 
        know where it came from and what it does -- it is very unlikely that having 
        un-characterised fragments of this DNA in the plant will cause any safety 
        problems. This is because fragments of genes are very unlikely to function 
        at all. It is extremely unlikely that gene fragments will produce a toxin 
        because toxins have specific structures -- it is very difficult to make 
        a non-toxic protein into a toxin by random changes. In contrast conventional 
        breeding results in the introduction of many fully functioning, but un-characterised, 
        genes into crop plants many of which could be toxins. No toxicity testing 
        of such conventionally bred plants is mandated anywhere. 
      On the other hand, a crop produced by GM techniques, which has a relatively 
        very small chance of being toxic in the first place, is subjected to toxicity 
        testing before release "just in case". So these crops are as safe or safer 
        than conventionally bred crops. 
      The following paper is interesting to consider in regards to the toxicity 
        of plant compounds: 
      Beier RC (1990) Natural pesticides and bioactive components in foods. 
        Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 113:47-137 
      Abstract: In this review, some common food plants and their toxic or 
        otherwise bioactive components and mycotoxin contaminants have been considered. 
        Crucifers contain naturally occurring components that are goitrogenic, 
        resulting from the combined action of allyl isothiocyanate, goitrin, and 
        thiocyanate. Although crucifers may provide some protection from cancer 
        when taken prior to a carcinogen, when taken after a carcinogen they act 
        as promoters of carcinogenesis. The acid-condensed mixture of indole-3-carbinol 
        (a component of crucifers) binds to the TCDD receptor and causes responses 
        similar to those of TCDD. Herbs contain many biologically active components, 
        with more than 20% of the commercially prepared human drugs coming from 
        these plants. Onion and garlic juices can help to prevent the rise of 
        serum cholesterol. Most herbs used in treatments may have many natural 
        constituents that act oppositely from their intended use. Some herbs like 
        Bishop's week seed contain carcinogens, and many contain pyrrolizidine 
        alkaloids that can cause cirrhosis of the liver. The general phytoalexin 
        response in plants (including potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, celery, 
        and sweet potatoes) induced by external stimuli can increase the concentrations 
        of toxic chemical constituents in those plants. In potatoes, two major 
        indigenous compounds are alpha-solanine and alpha-chaconine, which are 
        human plasma cholinesterase inhibitors and teratogens in animals. Because 
        of its toxicity, the potato variety Lenape was withdrawn from the market. 
        Celery, parsley, and parsnips contain the linear furanocoumarin phytoalexins 
        psoralen, bergapten, and xanthotoxin that can cause photosensitization 
        and also are photomutagenic and photocarcinogenic. Celery field workers 
        and handlers continually have photosensitization problems as a result 
        of these indigenous celery furanocoumarins. A new celery cultivar (a result 
        of plant breeding to produce a more pest-resistant variety) was responsible 
        for significant incidences of phytophotodermatitis of grocery employees. 
        Since there is no regulatory agency or body designated to oversee potential 
        toxicological issues associated with naturally occurring toxicants, photodermatitis 
        continues to occur from celery exposure. Sweet potatoes contain phytoalexins 
        that can cause lung edema and are hepatotoxic to mice. At least one of 
        these, 4-ipomeanol, can cause extensive lung clara cell necrosis and can 
        increase the severity of pneumonia in mice. Some phytoalexins in sweet 
        potatoes are hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic to mice. The common mushroom 
        Agaricus bisporus contains benzyl alcohol as its most abundant volatile, 
        and A. bisporus and Gyromitra esculenta both contain hydrazine analogues. 
        Mycotoxins are found in corn, cottonseed, fruits, grains, grain sorghums, 
        and nuts (especially peanuts); therefore, they also occur in apple juice, 
        bread, peanut butter, and other products made from contaminated starting 
        materials.
        (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS) 
      Myth 4: GMOs are not safe.No one really knows whether GMOs are safe or not -- so little work 
        has been done on this and even less has been released to the public. There 
        has, however, been a lot of opinion put out, little of it substantiated. 
        A recent letter in Science magazine reported on a survey of published 
        scientific databases suggested that there are very few published reports 
        containing experimental data. A majority of the reports were just the 
        opinion of the authors, mostly expressing their belief that GM foods are 
        safe, without any experimental data to back up this claim.Below is a (non-comprehensive) bibliography of 57 publications regarding 
        the safety of GM food crops. The first 12 are published in peer-reviewed 
        journals and I have supplied excerpts from the abstracts. These definitely 
        report experimental data to back up their results. Eight more are meeting 
        abstracts reporting data or are agricultural extension reports which also 
        appear to be reporting data. 
      The rest of the bibliography is to show that the problem of the safety 
        of GM foods has been considered by a large group of diverse organizations 
        - many of which do not have a direct financial interest in GM foods. The 
        consensus of these independent reviews of the data is that there is nothing 
        about the making of GM crops that makes them inherently more dangerous 
        than crops produced by conventional breeding. 
      The activists dismiss this list of published data with a wave of the 
        hand and say that none of this research can be trusted because it has 
        been done by company scientists or scientists funded by companies. Well 
        this is a serious accusation. The activists are essentially accusing hundreds 
        of scientists of fraud. Many of the studies below are done at independent 
        labs with funds provided by the companies. But how else do you expect 
        such research to be funded? Should the tax-payer pay to test the safety 
        of this food so that the companies can make a profit from them? No. Would 
        the activists fund the research? Would it be independent then? 
      The only practical way to test this is food is to use the model currently 
        in place -- the company developing the product must pay for testing it 
        and the data must be reviewed by an independent regulatory authority. 
        This is the only feasible way. When asked for another feasible model the 
        activists are suddenly silent. 
      Surely it is obvious that a company selling a food product will want 
        an accurate assessment of whether it is safe or not -- especially in these 
        highly litigatous times. A company's desire to be able to protect itself 
        from law-suits ensures that the data collected by these animal studies 
        is not fraudulent. 
      This food has been tested and it is a lie to suggest it has not. If the 
        activists wish to say that the food has been tested but there has been 
        a massive cover up of the negative results then let them try and sustain 
        this claim. 
      Further discussion of the "Myths" document follows the bibliography. 
      Publications relevant to the saftey of GM foods 
      1. Brake, J. and D. Vlachos. 1998. Evaluation of event 176 "Bt" 
        corn in broiler chickens. J. Poultry Sci. 77:648-653. 
      A 38-d feeding study evaluated whether standard broiler diets prepared 
        with transgenic Event 176-derived "Bt" corn (maize) grain had any adverse 
        effects on male or female broiler chickens as compared to diets prepared 
        with nontransgenic (isogenic) control corn grain. No statistically significant 
        differences in survival or BW were observed between birds reared on mash 
        or pelleted diets prepared with transgenic corn and similar diets prepared 
        using control corn. 
      2. Pusztai A, Grant G, Bardcz S, Alonso R, Chrispeels MJ, Schroeder 
        HE, Tabe LM, Higgins TJV (1999) The effect of expression of bean alpha-amylase 
        inhibitor (alpha-AI) transgene on the nutritional value of peas has been 
        evaluated by pair- feeding rats diets containing transgenic or parent 
        peas at 300 and 650 g/kg, respectively, and at 150 g protein/kg diet, 
        supplemented with essential amino acids to target requirements. 
      3. Hammond, B., J. Vicini, G. Hartnell, M.W. Naylor, C.D. Knight, 
        E. Robinson, R. L. Fuchs, and S.R. Padgetteet al. 1996. The feeding value 
        of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered 
        by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. J. Nutr. 126: 717-727. 
      Animal feeding studies were conducted with rats, broiler chickens, catfish 
        and dairy cows as part of a safety assessment program for a soybean variety 
        genetically modified to tolerate in-season application of glyphosate. 
        These studies were designed to compare the feeding value (wholesomeness) 
        of two lines of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (GTS) to the feeding value 
        of the parental cultivar from which they were derived. 
      4. Padgette, S., N. Taylor, D. Nider, et al. 1996. The composition 
        of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seed is equivalent to that of conventional 
        soybeans. J. Nutr. 126: 702-716. 
      The composition of seeds and selected processing fractions from two GTS 
        lines, designated 40-3-2 and 61-67-1, was compared with that of the parental 
        soybean cultivar, A5403. Nutrients measured in the soybean seeds included 
        macronutrients by proximate analyses (protein, fat, fiber, ash, carbohydrates), 
        amino acids and fatty acids. Antinutrients measured in either the seed 
        or toasted meal were trypsin inhibitor, lectins, isoflavones, stachyose, 
        raffinose and phytate. Proximate analyses were also performed on batches 
        of defatted toasted meal, defatted nontoasted meal, protein isolate, and 
        protein concentrate prepared from GTS and control soybean seeds. In addition, 
        refined, bleached, deodorized oil was made, along with crude soybean lecithin, 
        from GTS and control soybeans. The analytical results demonstrated the 
        GTS lines are equivalent to the parental, conventional soybean cultivar 
      5. Sidhu, R.S., B.G. Hammond, R.L. Fuchs, J.N. Mutz, L.R. Holden, 
        B. George and T. Olson. 2000. Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn: The Composition 
        and Feeding Value of Grain from Glyphosate-Tolerant Corn is Equivalent 
        to That of Conventional Corn (Zea Mays L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:2305-2312. 
      The nutritional safety of corn line GA21 was evaluated in a poultry feeding 
        study conducted with 2-day old, rapidly growing broiler chickens, at a 
        dietary concentration of 50-60% w/w. Results from the poultry feeding 
        study showed that there were no differences in growth, feed efficiency, 
        adjusted feed efficiency, and fat pad weights between chickens fed with 
        GA21 grain or with parental control grain. 
      6. Characterization of phospholipids from glyphosate-tolerant 
        soybeans List, G. R.; Orthoefer, F.; Taylor, N.; Nelsen, T.; Abidi, S. 
        L. (Food Quality and Safety Research, NCAUR, USDA, ARS, Peoria, IL, 61604, 
        USA). J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc., 76(1), 57-60 1999 
      The phospholipids from 3 control and 2 glyphosate-tolerant soyabean cultivars 
        were isolated by extraction of soya flakes with hexane and characterised 
        after separation by HPLC. Several lots of commercial fluid lecithin were 
        also analysed and the results were compared with values published in the 
        literature. Phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylinositol 
        and phosphatidic acid were identified as major components in these cultivars 
        and in the commercial lecithin samples. The results showed that glyphosate-tolerant 
        soyabeans yield lecithin comparable and equivalent to conventional soyabean 
        cultivars. 
      7. Compositional Analysis of Glyphosate -Tolerant Soybeans Treated 
        with Glyphosate Taylor, Nancy B.; Fuchs, Roy L.; MacDonald, John; Shariff, 
        Ahmed R.; Padgette, Stephen R. (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, 63198, 
        USA). J. Agric. Food Chem., 47(10), 4469-4473 1999 
      The composition of the seed from soybeans sprayed with glyphosate was 
        compared to that of a nonsprayed parental control cultivar, A5403. The 
        nutrients measured in the seed included protein, oil, ash, fiber, carbohydrates, 
        and amino acids. The concentration of isoflavones (also referred to as 
        phytoestrogens) was also measured as these compounds are derived from 
        the same biochemical pathway that was engineered for glyphosate tolerance. 
        The analytical results from these studies demonstrate that the GTS soybeans 
        treated with glyphosate were comparable to the parental soybean cultivar, 
        A5403, and other conventional soybean varieties 
      8. Harrison, L.A., M.R. Bailey, M. Naylor, J. Ream, B. Hammond, 
        D.L. Nida, B. Burnette, T.E. Nickson, T. Mitsky, M.L. Taylor, R.L. Fuchs 
        and S.R. Padgette. 1996. The Expressed Protein in Glyphosate-tolerance 
        Soybean, 5-Enolpryruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate Synthase from Agrobacterium 
        sp. Strain CP4, is Rapidly Digested in vitro and is not Toxic to Acutely 
        Gavaged Mice. J. Nutrition 126:728-740. 
      There were no deleterious effects due to the acute administration of 
        CP4 EPSPS to mice by gavage at a high dosage of 572 mg/kg body wt, which 
        exceeds 1000-fold tha anticipated consumption level of food products potentially 
        containing CP4 EPSPS protein. 
      9. Berberich S.A., J.E. Ream, T.L. Jackson, R. Wood, R. Stipanovic, 
        P. Harvey, S. Patzer, and R.L. Fuchs. 1996. Safety Assessment of Insect-Protected 
        Cotton: The Composition of the Cottonseed is Equivalent to Conventional 
        Cottonseed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41:365-371. 
      A comparison was made of the nutrient and antinutrient levels in the 
        seed both to the parental variety and to published values for other commercial 
        cotton varieties, as part of the safety and product assessment of these 
        lines. Compositional equivalence confirmed the appropriateness of these 
        cotton lines (531, 757 and 1076) for use in food and feed products. The 
        insect-protected lines and the parental control were shown to contain 
        levels of nutrients comparable to those of other commercial varieties. 
        The levels of the antinutrients gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids and 
        aflatoxin in the seed from the insect-protected lines were similar to 
        or lower than the levels present in the parental variety and reported 
        for other commercial varieties. 
      10. Nida, D.L., S. Patzer, P. Harvey, R. Stipanovic, R. Wood and 
        R.L. Fuchs. 1996. Glyphosate-tolerant Cotton: The Composition of the Cottonseed 
        is Equivalent to Conventional Cottonseed. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1967-1974. 
      The composition of the cottonseed and oil from two glyphosate-tolerant 
        lines, 1445 and 1698, was compared to that of the untransformed Coker 
        312 and to published values for other commercial cotton varieties. The 
        nutrients measured were protein, fat, fibre, carbohydrate, calories, moisture, 
        ash, amino acids, and fatty acids. The antinutrients measured included 
        gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids, and aflatoxins. In addition, the 
        fatty acid profile and alpha -tocopherol levels were measured in the refined 
        oil. These analyses demonstrated that the glyphosate-tolerant cotton lines 
        are compositionally equivalent to the parental and conventional cotton 
        varieties commercially available. 
      11. Reed, A.J., K.A. Kretzmer, M.W. Naylor, R.F. Finn, K.M. Magin, 
        B.G. Hammond, R.M. Leimgruber, S.G. Rogers and R.L. Fuchs. 1996. A Safety 
        Assessment of 1-Aminocyclopropane-1-Carboxylic Acid Deaminase (ACCd) Protein 
        Expressed in Delayed Ripening Tomatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:388-394. 
      Tomato plants with delayed fruit ripening have been produced by stable 
        insertion of the gene encoding the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid 
        deaminase (ACCd) protein into the tomato chromosome. Two approaches were 
        used to assess the safety of the ACCd protein for human consumption. Purified 
        Escherichia coli-produced ACCd protein, which is chemically and functionally 
        equivalent to the ACCd protein produced in delayed ripening tomato fruit, 
        was used in these studies. First, the ACCd protein was readily degraded 
        under simulated mammalian digestive conditions. Second, the ACCd protein 
        did not have any deleterious effects when administered to mice by acute 
        gavage at a dosage of up to 602 mg/kg of bodyweight. This dosage correlates 
        to greater than a 5000-fold safety factor relative to the average daily 
        consumption of tomatoes, assuming that all tomatoes consumed contain the 
        ACCd protein. These results in conjunction with previously published data, 
        established that ingestion of tomato fruit expressing the ACCd protein 
        does not pose any safety concerns 
      12. Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN 
        rats and B10A mice. Teshima, R.; Akiyama, H.; Okunuki, H.; Sakushima, 
        J.; Goda, Y.; Onodera, H.; Sawada, J.; Toyoda, M. (2000). Shokuhin Eiseigaku 
        Zasshi. Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan vol. 41 (3) p.188-193 
      13. Ewen SW, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically 
        modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. 
        Lancet 354:1353-1316 
      Diets containing genetically modified (GM) potatoes expressing the lectin 
        Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) had variable effects on different parts 
        of the rat gastrointestinal tract. Some effects, such as the proliferation 
        of the gastric mucosa, were mainly due to the expression of the GNA transgene. 
        However, other parts of the construct or the genetic transformation (or 
        both) could also have contributed to the overall biologic effects of the 
        GNA-GM potatoes, particularly on the small intestine and caecum. 
      Accompanying commentary to this paper from the editor of The Lancet, 
        Richard Horton: 
      "The research letter by Ewen and Pusztai was received by the journal 
        towards the end of 1998. Since then, it has been peer reviews by six specialist 
        advisers - a nutritionist, a human pathologist, a veterinary pathologist, 
        and agricultural geneticists, a plant molecular biologist and a statistician 
        - who had several requests for clarification about the design of the study, 
        the laboratory methods used, and the statistical tests applied. Some advised 
        rejection; others encouraged us to go ahead and publish. The authors revised 
        their letter three times to try to meet our reviewers' criticisms. The 
        Royal Society's own internal review of the Pusztai data had led to the 
        damming verdict that the study "is flawed in many aspects of design, execution, 
        and analysis and that no conclusion should be drawn from it". 
      So why publish the paper? The answer lies partly in a February 1999, 
        statement from the UK's chief scientific adviser, Robert May. While criticising 
        the researchers' "sweeping conclusions about the unpredictability and 
        safety of GM foods", he point to the frustration that had dogged this 
        entire debate: "Pusztai's work has never been submitted for peer review, 
        much less published, and so the usual evaluation of confusing claim and 
        counter-claim effectively cannot be made". This problem was underlined 
        by our reviewers, one of whom, while arguing that the data were "flawed" 
        also noted that, "I would like to see [this work] published in the public 
        domain so that fellow scientists can judge for themselves &hellip; if the paper 
        is not published it will be claimed that there is a conspiracy to suppress 
        information". 
      Publication of Ewen and Pusztai's findings is not, as some newspapers 
        have reported, a "vindication" of Pusztai's earlier claims. On the contrary, 
        publication of a paper after substantial review and revision provides 
        a report that deservers further scientific attention." 
      14. Faust, M. 1998. Determining feeding related characteristics 
        for Bt corn. 1998 Dairy Report. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 
      15. Faust, M. and L. Miller. 1997. Study finds no Bt in milk. 
        IC-478. Fall Special Livestock Edition. pp 6-7. Iowa State University 
        Extension, Ames, Iowa. 
      16. Faust, M. 1999. Research update on Bt corn silage. Four State 
        Applied Nutrition and Management Conference. MWPS-4SD5. 158-164. 
      17. Folmer, J.D., G.E. Erickson, C.T. Milton, T.J. Klopfenstein 
        and J.F. Beck. 2000. Utilization of Bt corn residue and corn silage for 
        growing beef steers. Abstract 271 presented at the Midwestern Section 
        ASAS and Midwest Branch ADSA 2000 Meeting, Des Moines, IA. 
      18. Folmer, J.D., R.J. Grant, C.T. Milton and J.F. Beck. 2000. 
        Effect of Bt corn silage on short-term lactational performance and ruminal 
        fermentation in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 83 (5):1182 Abstract 272. 
      19. Russell, J. and T. Peterson. 1999. Bt corn and non-Bt corn 
        crop residues equal in grazing value. Extension News, June 30, 1999. Iowa 
        State University Extension, Ames. 
      20. Russell, J.R., M.J. Hersom, A. Pugh, K. Barrett and D. Farnham. 
        2000. Effects of grazingcrop residues from bt-corn hybrids on the performance 
        of gestating beef cows. Abstract244 presented at the Midwestern Section 
        ASAS and Midwest Branch ADSA 2000 Meeting, Des Moines, IA. 
      21. Russell, J.R., D. Farnham, R.K. Berryman, M.J. Hersom, A. 
        Pugh and K. Barrett. 2000. Nutritive value of the crop residues from bt-corn 
        hybrids and their effects on performance of grazing beef cows. 2000 Beef 
        Research Report -Iowa State University. p 56-61. 
      22. Assessment of the endogenous allergens in glyphosate -tolerant 
        and commercial soybean varieties Burks, A. W.; Fuchs, R. L.. Arkansas 
        Children's Hospital, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little 
        Rock, AR 72202, USA.. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (1995) 
        Vol. 96, No. 6, 1, pp. 1008-1010 
      23. Biotechnology and the soybean. Rogers, Stephen G. (Monsanto, 
        Brussels, Belg.). Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 68(6, Suppl.), 1330S-1332S 1998. 
      24. Daenicke, R., D. Gadeken and K. Aulrich. 1999. Einsatz von 
        Silomais herkF6mmlicher Sorten und der gentechnisch verE4nderten Bt Hybriden 
        in der Rinderfhtterung - Mastrinder -. 12, Maiskolloquium. 40-42. 
      25. Aulrich, K., I. Halle and G. Flachowsky. 1998. Inhaltsstoffe 
        und Verdaulichkeit von MaiskF6rnen der Sorte Cesar und der gentechnisch 
        verE4nderten Bt-hybride bei Legenhennen. Proc Einfluss von Erzeugung und 
        Verarbeitung auf die QualitE4t laudwirtschaftlicher Produkte. 465-468. 
      26. Halle, I., K. Aulrich and G. Flachowsky. 1998. Einsatz von 
        MaiskF6rnen der Sorte Cesar und des gentechnisch verE4nderten Bt-Hybriden 
        in der Broiler mast. Proc. 5. Tagung, Schweine- und GeflhgelernE4hrung, 
        01,-03.12.1998, Wittenberg p 265-267. 
      27. Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from 
        genetically engineered plants: glyphosate tolerant soybean as a case study 
        Fuchs, R. L.; Eisenbrand, G. [EDITOR]; Aulepp, H. [EDITOR]; Dayan, A. 
        D. [EDITOR]; Elias, P. S. [EDITOR]; Grinow, W. [EDITOR]; Ring, J. [EDITOR]; 
        Schlatter, J. [EDITOR]. Ceregen (Monsanto Co.), 700 Chesterfield Parkway 
        North, St. Louis, MO 63198, USA.. Meeting info.: Food allergies and intolerances: 
        symposium. Food allergies and intolerances: symposium (1996 ) pp. 212-221. 
        38 ref Publisher: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Weinheim. ISBN: 3-527-27409-X 
      28. Safety evaluation of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans Fuchs, R. 
        L.; Re, D. B.; Rogers, S. G.; Hammond, B. G.; Padgette, S. R.. The Agricultural 
        Group, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63198, USA. Meeting info.: Food 
        safety evaluation. Proceedings of an OECD-sponsored workshop held on 12-15 
        September 1994, Oxford, UK. Food safety evaluation. Proceedings of an 
        OECD-sponsored workshop held on 12-15 September 1994, Oxford, UK ( 1996 
        ) pp. 61-70. 32 ref Publisher: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and 
        Development (OECD). Paris. ISBN: 92-64-14867-1 
      29. Herbicide tolerant soybeans: Why growers are adopting Roundup 
        Ready varieties. Carpenter, J., Gianessi, L. AgBioForum 2(2), Spring, 
        1999. 
      30. ACNFP (Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes). 1991. 
        Department of Health Report on Health and Social Subjects, No. 38. Guidelines 
        on the Assessment of Novel Foods and Processes. London (HMSO). 
      31. ADA. 1993. Position of the American Dietetic Association Biotechnology 
        and the Future of Food. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 
        Vol. 93 (2) pp 189. 
      32. ASEAN, 1998. Primary Production Company (ed) Regulations for 
        Agricultural Products Derived from Biotechnology. Proceedings of the ASEAN 
        Workshop, April 1-2, 1998, Singapore. 
      33. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association 
        1991. Biotechnology and the American agricultural industry. J Amer Med 
        Assoc 266(3):363-263. 
      34. FAO/WHO, 1991. Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods 
        Produced by Biotechnology. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation. World 
        Health Organization, Geneva. 
      35. FAO/WHO. 1996. Biotechnology and food safety. Report of a 
        Joint JAO/WHO Consultation. FAO, Food and Nutrition Paper 61, Rome Italy. 
        Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1992. Statement of Policy: Foods Derived 
        from New Plant Varieties. Notice, Federal Register 57:104; 22984-23005. 
      36. Health Council of the Netherlands. 1992. Safety of Food Produced 
        by New Biotechnology. Publication No. 92.03E. The Hague. 
      37. Health Protection Branch. 1994. Guidelines for the Safety 
        Assessment of Novel Foods. Vol. I and II. Health Canada, Ottawa. James, 
        C. 1998. Global Review of Commericalized Transgenic Crops: 1998. ISAAA 
        Briefs No. 8. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. 
      38. Japan Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW). Guidelines for 
        Foods and Food Additives Produced by the Recombinant DNA Techniques, 1996. 
        (Japan) 
      39. Lavrik, P.B., Bartnicki, D.E., Feldman, J., Hammond, B.G., 
        Keck, P.J., Love, S.L., Naylor, M.W., Rogan, G.J., Sims, S.R. and R.L. 
        Fuchs. 1995. Safety Assessment of Potatoes Resistant to Colorado Potato 
        Beetle. In Genetically Modified Foods, Safety Issues. K.H. Engel, G.R. 
        Takeoka and R. Teranishi, eds. ACS, Washington, DC, pp 148-158. 
      40. Nordic Working Group on Food Toxicology and Risk Evaluation. 
        1991. Food and New Biotechnology - Novelty, Safety and Control Aspects 
        of Foods Made by New Biotechnology. Nordic Council, Copenhagen, Nord 1991: 
      41. Nutritional Center for Nutrition and Dietetics (NCND) 1996. 
        Food Biotechnology: safe, nutritious, healthful, abundant, and tasty food. 
        Nutrition fact sheet. Chicago, Illinois USA. 
      42. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 
        1993. Safety Evaluation of Foods Produced by Modem Biotechnology: Concepts 
        and Principles. OECD, Paris. 
      43. OECD. 1996. OECD Documents: Food Safety Evaluation. OECD, 
        Paris. Official Journal of the European Communities. January 27, 1997. 
        Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of The European Parliament and of the Council. 
        No L43-1 p 7. 
      44. Sanders, P.R., T.C. Lee, M.E. Groth, J.D. Astwood and R.L. 
        Fuchs. 1998. Safety Assessment of the Insect-Protected Corn. In Biotechnology 
        and Safety Assessment, 2nd edition (Thomas, J.A., editor) 
      45. Taylor and Francis, pp 241-256. WHO. 1995. Application of 
        the Principles of Substantial Equivalence to the Safety Evaluation of 
        Foods and Food Components from Plants Derived by Modern Biotechnology. 
        Report of a WHO Workshop. World Health Organization, Geneva. WHO/FNU/FOS/95. 
        1 
      46. Thomas R. DeGregori, Genetically Modified Nonsense (comprehensive 
        report on biotech food safety) Institute for Economic Affairs, University 
        of Houston http://www.iea.org.uk/env/gmo.htm47. Kessler, D.A. The safety of foods developed by biotechnology, 
        Science 1992 256: 1747. 
      48. Taylor, Michael R. ; Maryanski, James H. ; Flamm, Eric L. 
        ; Kahl, Linda Nutrition Today June, 1991 Vol. 26 ; No. 3 ; Pg. 15; ISSN: 
        0029-666X20 Food safety and technology; how engineered food additives 
        might affect food industry and production to reduce toxins found in food. 
      49. FDA Consumer magazine January-February 2000 Are Bioengineered 
        Foods Safe?; by Larry Thompson OECD Reports October 1999 The Concept of 
        Substantial Equivalence in the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods (http://www.oecd.org) 
      50. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC 1996 ACS Symposium 
        Series 605 Genetically Modified Food: Safety Issues by Engel, Takeoko, 
        Teranishi From symposium sponsored by the Division of Agriculture and 
        Food Chemistry at the 208th National Meeting of the American Chemical 
        Society, Washington, DC Aug 21-25, 1994. http://www.acs.orghttp://www.acs.org/government/publications/eip_biotechnology.html51. Biotechnology and food safety FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 
        61 Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Consultation Rome, Italy, 20 September - 
        4 October 1996 http://www.fao.orghttp://www.fao.org/es/esn/biotech/introduc.htmm 
      52. R&amp;D Magazine November 1999 Beachy Speaks About the Safety 
        of Transgenic Foods; http://www.rdmag.com/53. Royal Society (UK) 1999 Review of data on possible toxicity 
        of GM potatoes Source: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/statements/statementDetails.cfm?StatementID=2954. Nutraceuticals International November 1, 1999 NFPA affirms 
        biotech food safety to Senate US STATE DEPARTMENT ISSUES AN ELECTRONIC 
        JOURNAL ON "BIOTECHNOLOGY: FOOD SECURITY AND SAFETY" November 2, 1999 
        Biotechnology: Food Security And Safety Focus, Economic Perspectives, 
        October 1999 
      55. CHEMTECH. Safety consideration for food ingredients January 
        1998/ CHEMTECH 1998, 28(1), 40-46. 
      56. Canadian Newswire Oct 25, 199920 Genetically Enhanced Foods 
        are Thoroughly Tested for Safety 
      57. Monsanto Company June 1998 Patricia R. Sanders, Thomas C. 
        Lee, Mark E. Groth, Jim D. Astwood, and Roy L. Fuchs Safety-Assessment 
        Of Insect-Protected Corn 
      Myth: One of the few published reports with experimental data tells 
        of GM potatoes, modified to contain a lectin, which were found to have 
        toxic effects on rats' organs, including the brain and the immune system. 
        Similar tests on rats using non-modified potatoes turned up no such results. 
        Wrong Wrong Wrong: 
      The report referred to is reference # 13 above. No mention of an effect 
        on the brain or the immune system is given in this report. 
      The facts: This paper looks at the structure of the gut linings of rats 
        fed genetically modified (GM) potatoes expressing the snowdrop lectin 
        protein (GNA) and compares this to the guts of rats fed the parent line 
        of potatoes or the parent line spiked with the GNA protein. 
      The essence of data in this paper is that crypt length in the jejunum 
        of rats fed GNA-GM potatoes was significantly greater than those in the 
        parent line or the parent-line spiked with GNA. This difference was only 
        seen with raw potatoes. In contrast looking at the caecal crypt lengths 
        they found that the GNA-GM potatoes caused smaller crypt lengths than 
        did the parent line or the parent-line spiked with GNA. But this difference 
        was only found with boiled potatoes. 
      So the claim from the authors is that the transformation event or the 
        gene construct produces one compound that is heat stable and that makes 
        the jejunum proliferate but has no effect on the caecum. And at the same 
        time the transformation event or the construct produces another compound 
        that is heat activated that has an anti-proliferation effect on the caecum 
        but no effect on the jejunum. To me this sounds a pretty extraordinary 
        hypothesis. 
      Ockam's razor would suggest that all other simpler explanations should 
        be eliminated first before accepting this complex hypothesis. Ie the principles 
        of the scientific method would suggest that such results be repeated before 
        any conclusions be drawn. The British Royal Society panel of scientists 
        agree with this assessment concluding that the work "is flawed in many 
        aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should 
        be drawn from it." 
      http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/statements/statementDetails.cfm?StatementID=29It may well be that the particular potato that Pusztai studied would 
        turn out to be definitely toxic to rats if it was studied further. However, 
        these potatoes were in no way near commercial release to the farmer or 
        the public. Claims that there were commercial agreements in place between 
        certain parties may be true. However, as is the case with pretty much 
        all research these days, commercial agreements to develop a technology 
        are usually signed very early on in the development of a project. But 
        the existence of such an agreement does not mean these potatoes were about 
        to be commercially released into the food chain. 
      These GM potatoes have not been continued with. All this data shows is 
        that testing GM foods works. You can spot possible problems using animal 
        tests. Even Pusztai himself admits GM-foods should be subjected to case-by-case 
        animal testing and he does not believe all GM food is dangerous as can 
        be seen by his statements in publication #2 above "transgenic peas expressing 
        bean alpha-AI gene could be used in rat diets at 300 g/kg level without 
        major harmful effects on their growth, metabolism and health". 
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;list_uids=10419997&amp;dopt=AbstractMyth: The researcher, Dr Arpad Pusztai, lost his job after he mentioned 
        the experiment during a television interview. His critics claim his work 
        was never peer-reviewed -- yet the survey reported in Science also found 
        that none of the articles published by biotechnology companies were peer-reviewed 
        either. Just about everything in this statement is wrong: 
      First, it is not correct that the Science survey found "that none of 
        the articles published by biotechnology companies were peer-reviewed either". 
        The survey in Science referred to, is by Domingo and he found 7 papers 
        on GM food in peer-reviewed literature. I have a (probably non-exhaustive 
        list) of 13 peer reviewed GM-food articles. 
      Some of the other publications in the above bibliography are abstracts 
        presented to meetings -- which acts as a form of peer review. 
      Second, the lack of publication in a peer reviewed journal does not mean 
        that testing has not been done. As many people will know, publishing results 
        of experiments where there is no difference between the treatments is 
        very difficult - mainly because there is not a Journal of Boring Results. 
        Thus, many of the studies become fodder for meeting abstracts and never 
        get published in peer reviewed journals. All of the boring reports are 
        however submitted to regulatory authorities. Thus, while they are not 
        reviewed by journal editors or reviewers they are peer reviewed by the 
        people in the respective regulatory organisations. 
      Thirdly, the fact is that the potato work of Puzstai HAS been peer reviewed 
        and it was found wanting -- but it was published anyway. As the note from 
        the Lancet editor that accompanied the publication stated: "[one of the 
        reviewers] while arguing that the data were "flawed" also noted that, 
        "I would like to see [this work] published in the public domain so that 
        fellow scientists can judge for themselves &hellip; if the paper is not published 
        it will be claimed that there is a conspiracy to suppress information". 
        The editor also noted "Publication of Ewen and Pustai's findings is not, 
        as some newspapers have reported, a "vindication" of Pusztai's earlier 
        claims". 
      Myth 5: It is claimed that genetic engineering poses 
        little or no chance of gene transfer to unrelated organisms. Wrong. 
      What is claimed is that GE crops pose no more danger of gene transfer 
        to unrelated organisms than do conventionally produced crop varieties. 
        What is also claimed is that the frequency of such gene transfer (from 
        GE or non-GE crops) is very very low. 
      Myth: Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from Institute for Bee Research 
        at the University of Jena experimented for three years on the effects 
        of GM rapeseed (canola) on honey bees -- and found gene transfer to the 
        bacteria and fungi in the bees' gut. Pollen collected from bees flying freely around the GM crop was fed 
        to young honey bees in the laboratory. The contents of the young bees' 
        intestines were then cultured and the micro-organisms analysed -- the 
        GM gene that had been inserted into the rapeseed crop was found in these 
        micro-organisms.I don't know where the author of this document got the details from this 
        experiment because this has never been published anywhere as far as I 
        know. One also should note that the herbicide resistance gene in the GM 
        rapeseed crop is actually a bacterial gene. It is a gene found in the 
        bacterium Streptomyces hygroscopicus which is a common soil bacterium. 
        I do not know how common this bacteria is in the guts of insects. However, 
        a literature search tells me that Streptomyces species are found 
        in termites and a mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus. So they are 
        found in some insects at least. 
      As I understand the work of Dr. Kaatz, the PCR technique was used to 
        amplify the Bar gene. In light of the fact that this gene exists quite 
        commonly in natural populations of bacteria and these bacteria are found 
        in some insects it would be very important to determine the source of 
        the bar gene in the bees. Was it from transgenic plants or from natural 
        bacterium? This would require a careful study with good controls. So we 
        will have to wait and see what Dr Kaatz publishes before we can make up 
        our minds about this. 
      Here is a release from the Friedrich Schiller University Media Service 
        where Dr Kaatz works: 
      Indications of Gene Transfer Between Genetically Modified Plants and 
          Micro-organismsJena, 23 May 1999. First indications of horizontal gene transfer between 
          genetically modified plants and micro-organisms have been discovered 
          by scientists at the University of Jena and the Hans Knll Institute 
          for Natural Substance Research in Jena. In a four-year project subsidised 
          by the Science Ministries of the German Federation and the Bundesland 
          Thuringia, Dr.Hans-Hinrich Kaatz and Dr. Stefan Wlfl investigated the 
          effects of transgenic plants on the honeybee under laboratory conditions. 
          They found that the transgenic nature of new maize and oilseed rape 
          varieties had no adverse effects on the bees even under extreme conditions. 
          Kaatz and Wlfl specifically criticised the misleading reports from 
          environmental organisations and in the media. "We can more or less completely 
          rule out any risk to bees," said Kaatz, "but this will remain an issue 
          of concern for our project." Kaatz and Wlfl also stated that effects 
          on human beings appeared to be very unlikely. "Investigations are being 
          carried out into this, but not by us."In their experiments, however, they certainly did find genetic material 
          from the modified plant genome in intestinal microbes of honeybees. 
          "We have suspected for a long time that these micro-organisms are able 
          in principle to take up foreign genetic information," said Stefan Wlfl, 
          "though this occurs only in very rare cases." The two scientists are 
          still unable to say definitely how long the foreign genetic information 
          would continue to exist in the micro-organisms or whether it could be 
          effectively activated. They summed up the situation by saying: "Our 
          results are certainly significant from a scientific point of view, but 
          on the basis of knowledge currently available there is no reason for 
          any anxiety about human and animal health". Myth: Because GMOs are created by the insertion of a foreign gene 
        into the plants' genome, rather than incorporation such as would take 
        place through breeding, it is more likely that this foreign gene will 
        be released into the environment due to the DNA repair and self-correcting 
        mechanisms of cells. This a baseless assertion. It sounds like an idea that Mae-Wan Ho from 
        ISIS tries to promulgate. Dr Ho makes the claim that "chimeric" DNA molecules 
        (DNA molecules made by joining two bits of DNA from different sources 
        together) are inherently unstable. Ho claims instability of chimeric molecules 
        is the subject of text books. The text book she refers to is Principles 
        of Genetic Manipulation: R.W. Old and S.B. Primrose 5th edition (1994), 
        chapter 8, page 164 - Structural Instability. I have actually taken the 
        time to look at this text. 
      This text book actually refers to data about non-chimeric molecules being 
        unstable because of repetitive sequences and has zero relevance to Ho's 
        assertion that chimeric molecules are inherently unstable. What Old and 
        Primrose do say is: "A common feature of these deletions is the involvement 
        of homologous recombination between short direct repeats". 
      Ie, DNAs are unstable if they have repeat regions. Molecules like this 
        are subject to recombination whether they are naturally occurring (such 
        as in the "junk DNA" of eukaryotes - witness the variation in the length 
        of tandem repeats of repetitive DNA used as markers for gene mapping in 
        eukaryotes) or whether they are chimeric molecules. It is dependent on 
        the repetition of DNA sequences not on the chimeric nature of the molecule. 
      Old and Primrose also talk about other situations where plasmid molecules 
        are subject to deletions. It references Michel and Ehrlich 1986 which 
        reports deletions in NON-CHIMERIC E.coli chromosomes. It also refers to 
        instability due to the NATURALLY occurring transposable elements - nothing 
        to do with chimeric molecules. 
      Another situation where deletions form is when attempts are made to express 
        proteins at high levels in E.coli from chimeric plasmids. If the protein 
        is toxic to the cell then there is high selection pressure to form mutants 
        of the plasmid which have deletions of the chimeric plasmid. This occurs 
        only in specific situations depending on the nature of the protein that 
        is being expressed. It is possible because of the nature of bacterial 
        cultures there are large numbers of cells to select from and thus rare 
        mutants can quickly dominate a culture. It is due to the toxic nature 
        of the gene product not to the "chimeric nature" of the DNA molecule. 
        This has zero relevance to the situation in transgenic plants. Chimeric 
        molecules producing non-toxic proteins are completely stable (Witness 
        the ability of scientists to exchange plasmids with each other. Witness 
        the ability of different sequencing labs to sequence shared clones and 
        get 100% matches). 
      MW Ho's ability to back up her claims is limited so far to misquoting 
        from a text book. 
      Myth 6: The promotion of genetic engineering is due 
        to the greed and self-interest of particular transnational corporations.The production of Golden (vitaminA) rice proves that this is not a myth. 
        GM crops can be developed without the influence of the greed and self-interest 
        of transnational corporations. Transnational corporations don't have a 
        monopoly on good ideas. 
      The activists have tried to shift the debate over golden rice to cover 
        whether or not the rice will actually help people with vitamin A deficiency 
        in the developing world. But this is actually irrelevant to the claim 
        that GM food is solely the domain of greedy transnational corporations. 
        The fact that someone tried to produce a new plant variety that has no 
        commercial benefits to the transnational corporations and the fact that 
        agreements have been drawn up to distribute this plant for free proves 
        that this technology has the potential to work for the poor. This particular 
        application may or may not succeed but it proves the point that the technology 
        is not solely in the domain of the rich multi-national corporations. 
      "Golden Rice" fulfils all the wishes the GMO opposition had earlier expressed 
        in their criticism of the use of the technology, and it thus nullifies 
        all the arguments against genetic engineering with plants in this specific 
        example: 
      Golden Rice has not been developed by and for industry. 
        It fulfils an urgent need by complementing traditional interventions. 
        It presents a sustainable, cost-free solution, not requiring other 
          resources. 
        It avoids the unfortunate negative side effects of the Green Revolution. 
        Industry does not benefit from it. 
        Those who benefit are the poor and disadvantaged. 
        It is given free of charge and restrictions to subsistence farmers. 
        It does not create any new dependencies. 
        It will be grown without any additional inputs. 
        It does not create advantages to rich landowners. 
        It can be resown every year from the saved harvest. 
        It does not reduce agricultural biodiversity. 
        It does not affect natural biodiversity. 
        There is, so far, no conceptual negative effect on the environment. 
        There is, so far, no conceivable risk to consumer health. 
        It was not possible to develop the trait with traditional methods, 
          etc. Myth: No matter what the regulation authorities think (or tell the public), 
      the transnational corporations involved in GMOs will find ways to circumvent 
      any restriction placed on them.If this really is true, then what makes you think you can stop them by 
        protesting? 
      Roger Mortonttguy@netspeed.com.auOpinions expressed in this article are the authors and should not be 
        construed as being official opinions of my employer. 
       


              









Document Number: 4846 

Bio Illogical: Plant Breeds No 
        Threat to Third World  The Statesman (Calcutta, India)July 5, 1999
        By Dr C. S. PrakashWhile biodiversity is the buzzword invoked by environmental activists 
        these days, agricultural biotechnology and plant breeding enterprises 
        have always been firmly rooted in biodiversity. The existence of genetic 
        variation in crop plants is the platform on which all crop improvement 
        activity is built. Crop scientists have long recognised the value of biodiversity. 
        They also understand that its benefit can only be realised by utilising 
        existing genetic variations to develop useful crop varieties - and not 
        by the invention of reactive rheto-ric such as "biopiracy", "biosurveillance" 
        and "bioplunder" that one often reads in the writings of armchair pundits 
        or activists. Crop and forest biodiversity is under far more threat today 
        from other human activities necessitated by population pressures such 
        as increasing urbanisation and clearing of forests, than from improved 
        crop varieties, be they conventional or from the use of biotechnology 
        techniques. PaternalisticThe preservation of biodiversity will be critical to the sustained success 
        of agriculture. Increasing economic growth spurred by genetically improved 
        crops will provide much-needed resources in the efforts to conserve biodiversity. 
        Genetically improved crops are no more a threat to biodiversity than conventionally 
        bred crops and, in fact, are even better as they exert less pressure to 
        expand the area under agriculture because of their high productivity. 
        Further, improved tools such as cryopreservation developed by biotechnologists 
        will help in the ex-situ preservation of biodiversity, while creative 
        techniques such as gene shuffling will create more biodiversity and perhaps 
        even recreate extinct crop traits. Finally, molecular biology techniques 
        such as the use of DNA markers and genomics are providing valuable insights 
        into the dynamics of biodiversity in crop plants and thus helping our 
        efforts to understand crop evolution and relatedness between different 
        varieties, thus enabling the intelligent use of the available biodiversity. 
        Why should Indian farmers be forced to grow less productive varieties 
        in the name of biodiversity ("museum keepers of obsolete varieties") as 
        David Wood of England asked recently in the journal Nature when technological 
        advances can provide more choices not only to advance their farm productivity 
        but also foster the valuable diversity of crop plants? As many of the 
        genetically improved crops likely to be introduced into India involve 
        partnerships with multinational and private seed companies, a frequent 
        criticism one hears is that these companies will try to dominate Indian 
        agriculture. This is a paternalistic and patronising argument. It is also 
        insulting to the 100 million Indian farmers to suggest that somehow multinational 
        and private seen companies will enslave them with their seeds. It is also 
        insulting to one strong biotechnology regulatory system developed by the 
        department of biotechnology of the Government of India to spread rumours 
        that new, untested technologies are being introduced clandestinely into 
        the country. RegulationFurther, no company (Indian or otherwise) can afford to run its business 
        in a manner that is inconsistent with the welfare and success of the society 
        in which it operates. Infusion of global talent, capital and technology 
        can only help Indian agriculture. It can also energise the sector with 
        more competition and promote better products and prices for the consumer. 
        High technology ventures can also help slow down "brain drain" or reverse 
        it, as is happening in the computer industry. It is interesting to note 
        that some of the companies singled out for attack in India have attracted 
        dozens of expatriate Indians settled abroad and are using their talent 
        and training to advance agriculture for the benefit of the world. The 
        Government of India's department of biotechnology and other scientific 
        agencies have done admirable work to deal with safety issues of genetically 
        improved crops by developing a strong, reliable and trustworthy regulatory 
        mechanism. The existing biosafety framework now requires that all genetically 
        modified organisms must undergo a rigorous review and safety assessment 
        prior to their import, field-testing or release. The Indian public has 
        a right to be concerned about the possible impact of genetically improved 
        crops on the environment and human health. The government should also 
        enhance its legal system by instituting penalties for those who do not 
        follow the regulations, strengthen and enforce its anti-trust laws to 
        prevent monopolies and impose product-liability laws to force corporate 
        responsibility. Scientists and companies involved in genetically improved 
        crop development, on their part, have an obligation to be transparent 
        about their affairs and make efforts to communicate with farmers and the 
        public about the nature of their products and any inherent risks they 
        pose.Multinationals Multinational companies have vast resources with a huge edge in their 
        knowledge base, and can play a constructive role in India's progress. 
        Few Indian companies have such resources or a willingness to invest in 
        long-term projects with little hope of immediate revenues, in the face 
        of political and economic uncertainty. The multinational biotech companies, 
        on their part, should soften their position on intellectual property by 
        providing "royalty-free" licensing of their core technologies for use 
        by public institutions such as ICAR on non-commercial and orphan crops 
        of importance to Indian farmers and consumers such as bajra, thur dal, 
        horsegram and ragi. Further, these companies should consider voluntarily 
        establishing a trust fund from the profits generated by genetically improved 
        crops to promote biodiversity conservation and public awareness of biotechnology. 
        There is also a need to foster research into the social, ethical, economic 
        and environmental impact of emerging technologies in agriculture as this 
        will not only help predict any negative ramifications of such interventions, 
        but also evolve strategies to deal with them.== == == The author is Professor of Biotechnology, Tuskegee University. 


              









Document Number: 2317 

Farmers: The Original EnvironmentalistsAgBioView
        By C.S. PrakashApril 22, 2003 On this Earth Day, we must to commit to the challenge of supporting 
        a growing global population while preserving precious soil, air and water 
        resources. As President Gerald Ford said during his proclamation of the 
        first Earth Day, &quot;The earth will continue to regenerate its life 
        sources only as long as we and all the peoples of the world do our part 
        to conserve its natural resources.&quot; 
      Recent United Nations reports give a snapshot of the challenges confronting 
        us in 2003:  The U.N. Food &amp; Agriculture Organization (FAO) expects the world's 
          population to grow to more than eight billion in 2030. The FAO report, World Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, projects that 
          global food production must increase by 60 percent to accommodate the 
          estimated population growth, close nutrition gaps, and allow for dietary 
          changes over the next three decades. A U.N. World Water Development report released this year shows that 
          reserves of clean, fresh water are quickly diminishing, and that as 
          many as seven billion people in 60 countries could face a water shortage 
          by 2050.How can we confront these challenges? One way is by placing the best 
        possible resource management tools in the hands of farmers around the 
        world. Farmers, after all, are stewards of millions of acres of precious 
        land. The decisions they make with regard to agricultural production influence 
        surface and ground water, air quality, and soil health. Unfortunately, 
        farmers are often caught in a web of political and ecological controversies 
        that fail to recognize the crucial role they play in preserving air, water 
        and soil while still providing safe and abundant food.Rather than penalizing and blaming farmers, we should take the opportunity 
        this Earth Day to acknowledge the fine conservation work done on tens 
        of millions of acres worldwide and enable these farmers to acquire the 
        technologies and tools they need to make best use of their land.Agricultural biotechnology is one such tool. Currently, wealthier countries 
        such as the United States and Argentina make greatest use of seeds enhanced 
        to resist pests and herbicides. Contrary to some reports about potential 
        environmental hazards associated with the use of biotech seeds, farmers 
        planting these crops have actually witnessed profound environmental improvements 
        on their land and surrounding habitat.A report published by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
        (CAST) in 2002, found that biotechnology-derived crops promote the adoption 
        of conservation tillage practices, resulting in substantial environmental 
        gains: 37 million tons of topsoil preserved 85 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from farm operations 
        70 percent reduction in herbicide run-off 90 percent decrease in soil erosion 4-7 gallons of fuel per acre savedThe CAST literature review, conducted by a team of top researchers and 
        scientists, revealed that, through biotechnology, there has been a steady 
        increase in the use of no-till farming practices, which help reduce soil 
        erosion, improve soil health and reduce impacts on surface and ground 
        water. Such benefits are essential to the renewal of arable lands; a necessary 
        step in resolving an impending global food crisis.These environmental benefits also mean economic benefits, not just for 
        large farming operations, but for the smaller farmer too, both in the 
        West and in developing countries. The National Center for Food and Agricultural 
        Policy found that biotechnology-derived plants-soybeans, corn, cotton, 
        papaya, squash and canola-increased U.S. food production by four billion 
        pounds, saved $1.2 billion in production costs, and decreased pesticide 
        use by about 46 million pounds in 2001.While biotechnology provides one answer, additional actions are necessary 
        as well. As the water and land needed to produce food become more and 
        more limited, it is essential to examine all the opportunities that will 
        renew the resources that keep our earth strong, thriving and plentiful. 
        This Earth Day, we should all commit to making personal changes that can 
        help the environment, and also thank farmers for the work they do. 


              









Document Number: 8300 

GM: Past, Present and Future by Channapatna S Prakash
        Sp!ked
        August 16, 2001 http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D1F5.htmMankind has been modifying crops for thousands of years 
          - so why is there such hostility to genetically modified food?There is no unequivocal evidence that genetically modified crops 
                harm our health or the environment - yet there is an intense debate 
                about their value and safety.Such concerns about the risks of GM technology must be balanced 
                against its enormous benefits - far from causing any new food 
                safety problems, biotechnology has already demonstrated its potential 
                in enhancing the nutritional quality of our food and in reducing 
                harmful toxic compounds that exist in our food.Understanding agricultural history is a good starting 
              point in alleviating people's unease about GM foods - humans have 
              been modifying crops for thousands of years, and without human care 
              many of today's crops would cease to exist. We should recognise the positive impact that GM technology can 
                have on the environment - and that if problems arise, we can deal 
                with them. Most problems raised by science can be solved by science 
                itself. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'Whoever could make two ears of corn, or two blades 
              of grass grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before would 
              deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his 
              country, than the whole race of politicians put together.' - 
              The King of Brobdingnag in Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift, 1727 
              'I believe that we have now reached a moral and 
              ethical watershed beyond which we venture into realms that belong 
              to God, and to God alone. Apart from certain medical applications, 
              what actual right do we have to experiment, Frankenstein-like, with 
              the very stuff of life?' - Prince Charles, 1998Throughout history, there have been those who embraced change and 
            those who clung to the old ways because they felt at least the risks 
            were known. And since feeding ourselves was the primary occupation 
            of mankind for most of our history, changes in food production have 
            been accepted slowly. So we shouldn't be surprised that history is 
            being replayed as we enter the era of biotechnology. As the fates 
            of human society and crops have been inextricably intertwined since 
            the dawn of civilisation, an understanding of our agricultural past 
            may guide us in addressing today's concerns about new scientific pursuits.Farmers have embraced the new biotechnology because it makes them 
            more efficient - protecting or increasing yields and reducing their 
            reliance on chemicals that, other things being equal, they would rather 
            not use. Crops enhanced by biotechnology are being grown on nearly 
            110million acres in 13 countries. Food ingredients produced from biotech 
            crops are found in thousands of food products consumed worldwide. 
            And while there is no unequivocal evidence that these crops harm our 
            health or the environment, there is an intense debate questioning 
            their value and safety.Societal anxiety over genetically modified (GM) food is understandable, 
            fuelled by a variety of causes - consumer unfamiliarity; lack of reliable 
            information on the current safeguards in place; a steady stream of 
            negative opinion in the media; opposition by activist groups; growing 
            mistrust of industry; and a general lack of awareness of how our food 
            is produced. The scientific community has not adequately addressed 
            public concerns about GM foods, nor has it effectively communicated 
            the value of the new technology. But it must - as societal acceptance 
            is essential to the continued development and application of biotechnology 
            in food and agriculture.Two decades ago, many agricultural scientists rightfully saw the 
            emerging recombinant DNA technology as a potent tool for enhancing 
            crop productivity and food quality while promoting sustainable agriculture. 
            Alongside much of this early excitement, there were breakthroughs 
            in scientific research on plant gene transfer methods, identification 
            of valuable genes, and the eventual performance of transgenic crops.For plant breeders, the new technology was an additional means of 
            crop improvement that could complement existing methods. For the first 
            time, plant breeding was subjected to rigorous testing, and a regulatory 
            framework was developed to oversee the commercialisation of GM crops 
            on a case-by-case basis.Since then, the scientific community has supported the development 
            of biotechnology. Accumulated experience and knowledge of crop improvement 
            - combined with expert judgement, science-based reasoning and empirical 
            research - has made scientists confident that GM crops may pose no 
            new or heightened risks that could not be identified or mitigated, 
            and that any unforeseen hazard will be negligible, manageable, or 
            preventable.So risks from GM crops should be monitored and measured - but concerns 
            about these risks must also be balanced against the enormous benefits 
            from this technology and weighed against alternative options. The 
            strong trust that the US public has in its regulatory food and drug 
            agencies has helped to gain wider public acceptance of GM food in 
            the USA than in European nations.MUTANT FOOD AND MONARCH BUTTERFLIESDespite the promised benefits, global negative reaction to GM crops 
            ranges from mild unease to strong opposition. These are some typical 
            questions asked about GM crops:Is it ethical for scientists to modify living organisms around us? 
            Is it morally right to tamper with our food supply? Is the genetic 
            modification of crops inherently hazardous? Despite the built-in safeguards, 
            could we unwittingly be making our foods unsafe? What about the long-term 
            consequences of consuming such foods? Do GM crops affect the environment 
            or the wild ecosystem, reducing crop biodiversity, beneficial insects, 
            or the revered monarch butterfly? Could these crops lead to the development 
            of noxious 'superweeds'? Are we introducing these crops into our environment 
            without fully understanding the consequences of such action? What 
            about genetic pollution? Can these genes be transferred to other organisms 
            including humans and animals? Just about every crop in North America has its origins elsewhere
            How can scientists allay public concerns considering the complexities 
            of the issues involved? Creating an awareness of agricultural history 
            may provide a good beginning for our efforts to help alleviate consumer 
            unease about GM foods. It may also educate scientists about the relevance 
            of the societal context to our research - most risk issues related 
            to current GM crops are not unique in the context of how agriculture 
            was developed through crop domestication over hundreds of years and 
            how we have bred modern crop varieties in the past century.As Frary and Tanksley put it, 'The issue is not whether we should 
            modify the genetics of crop plants. We embarked on that road thousands 
            of years ago when plants were first domesticated. Instead of simply 
            judging the vehicle through which we make genetic changes, we need 
            to weigh the potential consequences that such modifications hold for 
            society and the environment' (1).CROP EVOLUTION AND HUMAN CIVILISATIONAgriculture evolved independently in many places on Earth, but the 
            earliest evidence of farming dates back 10,000 years and is found 
            in present-day Iraq (2). For much of the 200,000 or so years prior 
            to agriculture, humans lived as nomadic hunters, gatherers and scavengers 
            - surviving solely on wild plants and animals. Subsequent domestication 
            of these wild plants and animals from their natural habitats launched 
            agriculture, and in the process radically transformed human societies.This development occurred initially in the Fertile Crescent, the 
            Andean region in South America, Mexico, and parts of Asia, but diffused 
            throughout much of the globe. A change from the nomadic lifestyle 
            to farming led us to become community dwellers, eventually spawning 
            the development of languages, literature, science and technology, 
            as people were freed from the continuous daily task of finding food. 
            Some regions caught on much faster than others, often by margins of 
            thousands of years (3).Plants have also evolved - or, more accurately, they have been changed 
            rapidly by human intervention (4). Every crop plant grown today is 
            related to a wild species occurring naturally in its centre of origin, 
            and progenitors of many of our crops are still found in the wild. 
            Early humans must have tried eating thousands of feral plant species 
            from a pool of a quarter of a million flowering plants before settling 
            on fewer than one thousand such species, which were subsequently tamed 
            and adapted to farming. A little over 100 crop species are now grown 
            intensively around the world, with only a handful of them supplying 
            us with most of what we now eat.Through a process of gradual selection, our ancestors chose a very 
            tiny section of the wild plant community and transformed it into cultivated 
            crops. Some profound alterations in the plant phenotype occurred during 
            such selection - including determinate growth habit; elimination of 
            grain shattering; synchronous ripening; shorter maturity; reduction 
            of bitterness and harmful toxins; reduced seed dispersal, sprouting 
            and dormancy; greater productivity (including bigger seed or fruit 
            size); and even an elimination of seeds, such as in banana. These 
            changes reduced the survivability of crops in the wild - and as a 
            result, a feature that transcends all of our crops is the reduction 
            of weedy traits from wild plants.So present crops are totally dependent upon human care for their 
            survival - and according to one commentator, modern crop varieties 
            would persist in the wild 'no longer than a Chihuahua would last in 
            the company of wolves' (5).Most crops that supply our food were therefore obtained at the end 
            of the Stone Age, often from a relatively narrow pool of extant wild 
            genetic diversity. Additional diversity arose within such cultivated 
            crops through new mutations and natural hybridisation, and through 
            judicious selection and perpetuation by farmers who maintained them 
            as land races. Varied uses and preferences brought forth further diversification 
            such as in corn (popcorn, sweetcorn, dent corn, broom corn, and flour 
            corn for tortilla and corn bread) or the derivatives of ancestral 
            cabbage (kale, kohlrabi, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, and 
            broccoli).With the advent of transoceanic navigation and the discovery of the 
            New World, crops were moved around the world rapidly, often achieving 
            prominence in adopted homes far beyond their natural centres of origin. 
            So today the United States is the world's leading producer of corn 
            and soybean - yet these crops are native to Mexico and China, respectively. 
            The world's largest traded commodity, coffee, had a humble origin 
            in Ethiopia - but today much of it is produced in Latin America and 
            Asia. Florida oranges have their roots in India, while sugarcane arose 
            in Papua New Guinea. Food crops that are now so integral to the culture 
            or diet in the Old World - such as the potato in Europe, chilli pepper 
            in India, cassava in Africa, and sweet potato in Japan - were all 
            introduced from South America.In fact, every crop in North America other than the blueberry, Jerusalem 
            artichoke, sunflower and squash has its origins elsewhere.A few sources of our food are also recent domesticates. Chinese gooseberry 
            occurs in the wild in China and is not edible. But careful breeding 
            made it palatable, and it was rechristened Kiwi fruit in New Zealand 
            after its introduction there in the early twentieth century. The modern 
            strawberry is a product of the accidental crossing of two wild species 
            from Virginia in the USA and Chile in France in the mid-eighteenth 
            century.Rapeseed, grown in India for centuries, was altered recently through 
            classical breeding to eliminate the toxic erucic acid and smelly glucosinolates 
            to result in canola - Canadian oil. Triticale, a completely new crop, 
            was artificially synthesised a few decades ago by combining the genomes 
            of wheat and rye (two distinct genera that do not interbreed in nature). 
            Now it is grown on over three million acres worldwide. Modern bread 
            wheat itself is also a fairly recent crop in the evolutionary timescale, 
            having arisen only about 4000 years ago through hybridisation of tetraploid 
            (pasta or durum) wheat with inedible goat grass.FROM MESOPOTAMIA TO MENDELWhile humans have always molded the evolution of crop plants, such 
            changes imposed by farmers occurred over thousands of years, leading 
            to rich crop diversity - especially in traits related to their planting 
            or consumption. At the same time, global population grew very slowly 
            until the mid-nineteenth century. It took 1800 years for the global 
            population to climb from an estimated 300million around the time when 
            Christianity began, to reach its first billion. But it took only 12 
            years to add the last billion - rising from five billion people in 
            1987 to six billion two years ago. Crops have been continually altered over time - and without human 
            care many would cease to exist
            Fortunately, parallel scientific developments in agriculture ensured 
            that food production kept pace with the population explosion of the 
            past century (6). Beginning with Mendel's study of peas, knowledge 
            of genetics helped usher in scientific crop development, resulting 
            in high-yielding varieties. Food production increased in every part 
            of the world in the past few decades, including Africa. Per capita 
            food consumption has also increased steadily everywhere except in 
            parts of sub-Saharan Africa.In the USA and Canada, where such scientific developments and their 
            applications were most intense, one average farmer now produces enough 
            to feed nearly 150 people. In crops subject to intensive scientific 
            attention - corn, wheat, and rice - the productivity levels increased 
            severalfold. For example, US corn growers averaged 26 bushels of corn 
            per acre in 1928 and 134 bushels per acre in 1998 (7).Such a prodigious increase in agricultural production was underpinned 
            by scientific crop improvement methods along with other developments 
            - including the use of irrigation, improved soil fertility management, 
            mechanisation, and control of diseases and pests (8). To develop better 
            crop varieties, scientists have used an array of tools. Artificial 
            crossing, or hybridisation, helped us assimilate desirable traits 
            from several varieties into elite cultivars. When desired characteristics 
            were unavailable in the cultivated plants, genes were liberally borrowed 
            from wild relatives and introduced into crop plants.When a crop variety refused to mate with the wild species, various 
            tricks were employed to force them to intermingle, such as the use 
            of the carcinogenic chemical colchicine or by rescuing the hybrid 
            embryos with tissue culture methods. Hybrid vigour was exploited in 
            crops such as corn and cotton to boost productivity. When existing 
            genetic variation within the cultivated germplasm was not adequate, 
            breeders created new variants using ionising irradiation (gamma ray, 
            x-ray, neutron), mutagenic chemicals (ethyl methane sulfate, mustard 
            gas), or through somaclonal variation (cell culture).Most people who are concerned about modern biotechnology have little 
            or no knowledge of the processes that have been used to transform 
            crops in the past. Nor are they likely to be aware that crops have 
            been continually altered over time or that, without human care, they 
            would cease to exist. Using a variety of tools over the past few decades, 
            plant breeders have radically transformed our crop plants by altering 
            their architecture (such as the development of dwarf wheat and rice), 
            shortening growing seasons, developing greater resistance to diseases 
            and pests (all crops), and developing bigger seeds and fruits.These crops are also more responsive to management and better adapted 
            to diverse ecological conditions. Improved food quality also resulted 
            through fewer toxins (canola), better digestibility (beans), increased 
            nutrition (high-protein corn), better taste, longer shelf-life (thus 
            withstanding long transportation and storage), and enhanced freshness 
            in many vegetables and fruits. A 1000-fold increase in the marble-sized 
            wild Lycopersicon resulted in the modern tomato that can now weigh 
            as much as a kilogram (9).Modern farming has steadily increased the supply of relatively safe, 
            affordable and abundant food not only in the developed world, but 
            also in most developing countries. An average American family now 
            spends only 11 percent of its income on food and yet has access to 
            better food choices with more variety and nutrition than ever before. 
            Without scientific developments in agriculture, we would be farming 
            on every square inch of arable land to produce the same amount of 
            food.So using gene transfer techniques to develop GM crops can be seen 
            as a logical extension of the devices we have used to amend our crop 
            plants for thousands of years. When compared to the gross genetic 
            alterations using wide-species hybridisation or the use of mutagenic 
            irradiation, direct introduction of one or a few genes into crops 
            results in subtle and less disruptive changes that are relatively 
            specific and predictable.The process is also clearly more expeditious, as the development 
            of new cultivars by classical breeding typically takes from 10 to 
            15 years. The primary attraction of the gene transfer methods to the 
            plant breeder, however, is the opportunity to tap into a wide gene 
            pool to borrow traits, obviating the constraints of cross-compatible 
            crop species.ADDRESSING PUBLIC CONCERNSWhile direct gene transfer is still a relatively new approach, many 
            concerns arising from its use may be addressed with the 'benchmark' 
            of conventionally bred varieties, as we have more than a century's 
            accumulated experience and knowledge of the latter. While it seems 
            logical to express a concern such as 'I don't know what I am eating 
            with GM foods!', it must be remembered that we really never had that 
            information before with classically bred crops.With GM crops, at least we know what new genetic material is being 
            introduced - so we can test for predictable, and even many unpredictable, 
            effects.Consider how conventional plant breeders would develop a disease-resistant 
            tomato. They would introduce chromosome fragments from its wild relative 
            to add a gene for disease resistance. In the process, hundreds of 
            unknown and unwanted genes would also be introduced, with the risk 
            that some of them could encode toxins or allergens, armaments that 
            wild plants deploy to survive. Yet we never routinely tested most 
            conventionally bred varieties for food safety or environmental risk 
            factors, and they were not subject to any regulatory oversight. We 
            have always lived with food risks - but in recent decades we have 
            become increasingly more adept at asking questions. 'Every substance is a poison - but it is the dosage that makes it 
            poisonous'
            To address the concern about long-term health consequences of GM foods, 
            it is instructive to recognise that we worried little about such impacts 
            when massive amounts of new proteins (and unfamiliar chemicals) were 
            introduced into our foods from wild species, or when unknown changes 
            were created through mutation breeding. When new foods from exotic 
            crops are introduced, we often assimilate them easily into our diets.What's more, we rarely, if ever, before asked the same questions 
            that we now pose about GM crops. Many so-called functional foods, 
            health foods, and nutraceuticals have been entering into the mainstream 
            US diet lately, with little or no regulation or testing.GM foods currently on the market have been tested extensively and 
            judged to be substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, 
            with just one or two additional proteins present in miniscule amounts 
            (introduced into a background of thousands of proteins). And, those 
            proteins are broken down either during processing or digestion, with 
            little long-term consequence. In food products such as oil, starch, 
            and sugar, such proteins are not even found.A nagging potential problem with a new protein in food is that it 
            could be a potential allergen. As most food allergens are now well 
            studied, we know that they are found in few defined sources (peanut 
            and other grain legumes, shellfish, tree nuts, and a handful of other 
            foods) and share many similar structural features. And more to the 
            point, they must be present in huge proportions in our food, and we 
            must be sensitised to them over time for them to cause any adverse 
            effects. So it is highly unlikely for new allergens to be introduced 
            into our food supply from GM plants.HISTORICAL ABSENCE OF ZERO RISKThere is no such thing as safe food - and there never has been. That 
            is not to suggest that all of our foods are dangerous, only an acknowledgement 
            that trace levels of such contaminants as toxins and carcinogens are 
            present in everything we eat.But a primary rule of toxicology, articulated over 400 years ago 
            by Paracelsus, refers to the importance of dosage: 'Every substance 
            is a poison, but it is the dosage that makes it poisonous' (10).While not alarming, our daily food naturally contains thousands of 
            chemicals, and many of them are shown to be carcinogenic or hazardous 
            in lab animal studies with huge doses. We consume roughly 5000 to 
            10,000 natural toxins daily, as plants have evolved to produce an 
            array of chemicals to protect themselves against pests, diseases, 
            and herbivores (11).So roasted coffee has over 1000 chemicals, of which 27 have been 
            tested and 19 of them found to be rodent carcinogens (12). The fat-soluble 
            neurotoxins solanine and chaconine are present in potatoes and can 
            be detected in the bloodstream of all potato eaters (13). Naturally 
            then, when crops are bred for resistance to pests by transferring 
            genes through conventional methods, the resistance is often accompanied 
            by an increase in such toxic compounds.So it is not true that we never had problems with conventionally 
            bred varieties. Any crop variety found to pose a real health risk 
            was promptly removed from the market - but those varieties (in contrast 
            to GM crops) were never routinely tested. One pest-resistant celery 
            variety produced rashes in agricultural workers and subsequently was 
            found to contain 6200ppb of carcinogenic psoralens compared to 800ppb 
            in the control celery (14). This celery was removed from cultivation 
            - also the case with the potato variety Lenape, which contained very 
            high levels of toxic solanine.We have always learned from trial and error with all innovations. 
            Similarly, crop improvement practices evolved over time with continued 
            refinement. It is common, though, for human nature to generate an 
            exaggerated fear of new innovations while perceiving older or 'natural' 
            products as always more benign. Huber (15) (1983) discusses this double 
            standard in the larger context of risk regulation. We have always 
            been lenient toward existing known and greater hazards, even as we 
            create 'gatekeepers' to minimise new risks. So we fail to recognise 
            and 'exorcise' much larger older risks. While most food hazards arise 
            from pathogens such as Escherichia coli 0:157, Listeria monocytogenes, 
            and Salmonella enterica, along with mycotoxins produced by fungi (and 
            thus a function of food storage and handling), certain foods containing 
            toxic compounds are known to produce adverse health consequences over 
            time.Cassava, eaten by a large population in Africa, contains cyanogenic 
            glucosides, which cause limb paralysis if consumed before extensive 
            processing. Solanin in tomato and potato is known to cause spina bifida. 
            Vetch pea, a common legume known for its hardiness - and thus popular 
            in India among poor farmers - contains highly dangerous neurotoxins 
            that cause untold misery. Phyto-hemagglutinin, found in undercooked 
            kidney beans, is toxic. And peach seeds are extremely rich in cyanogenic 
            glucosides.But none of these were subject to any mandatory testing before they 
            were introduced into the food chain, nor are they subject to any regulation 
            now. But if the current regulatory standards imposed on GM crops were 
            to be invoked for traditional crops, most of them would fail to meet 
            their requirements. If current regulatory standards imposed on GM crops were invoked 
            for traditional crops, 
            most would fail to meet their requirements
            Humans have built-in natural defences that protect us against normal 
            exposure to toxins. But, according to Ames and Gold (16) we have not 
            evolved to achieve 'toxic harmony' with everything we eat, because 
            natural selection occurs much too slowly and because much of what 
            is in our diet today was not eaten at all when we were hunter-gatherers.A balanced mixture of foods normally provides adequate nutrition. 
            However, none of the crops grown today was selected with our nutritional 
            requirements in mind. Instead, they were chosen intuitively, by our 
            ancestors, from among the edibles that could be found around them. 
            As a result, the most important food crop in the developing world 
            - rice - has no provitamin A and little iron in its endosperm. This 
            has led to horrific problems, such as blindness among millions of 
            children due to vitamin A deficiency, and iron-deficiency anemia in 
            nearly one billion women dependent on a rice diet.Biotechnology research, far from causing any new food safety problems, 
            has already demonstrated its potential to enhance the nutritional 
            quality of our food - and is also being employed to reduce harmful 
            toxic compounds that exist in our food.WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?All of us have to eat to live, and organised food production is the 
            most ecologically demanding endeavour we have pursued. Agricultural 
            expansion over the millennia has destroyed millions of acres of forestland 
            around the world. Alien plant species have been introduced into non-native 
            environments to provide food, feed, fibre and timber, and as a result 
            have disrupted local fauna and flora. Certain aspects of modern farming 
            have had a negative impact on the biodiversity of crop plants and 
            on air, soil and water quality - but nevertheless, it sustains and 
            nurtures most of the world's six billion people with adequate nutrition 
            and affordable food.How can we address the potential environmental concerns of GM crops 
            in the context of our experience with traditional crop variety deployment? 
            We have continuously introduced genes for disease and pest resistance 
            through conventional breeding into all of our crops. Traits, such 
            as stress tolerance and herbicide resistance, have also been introduced 
            in some crops, and the growth habits of every crop have been altered.The risk of crop gene flow to weedy relatives has always existed, 
            and such 'gene flow' occurs where possible. So it is comforting to 
            recognise that no major 'superweeds' have developed since the advent 
            of modern plant breeding, although there have been a few instances 
            of crops becoming weedy or of weeds becoming more invasive due to 
            gene transfer from crops. Most noxious weeds, such as kudzu, water 
            hyacinth and parthenium, resulted from the introduction of semi-domesticated 
            wild plants into non-native environments without the checks and balances 
            of their native pests. Yet there are probably no dwarf plants among 
            the wild Oryza spp and Triticum spp populations in the Middle East 
            or Asia - despite the fact that we now have been growing diminutive 
            rice and wheat varieties for decades.The risk of gene transfer to wild plants is exacerbated when crops 
            are planted in an area with compatible weedy relatives (as often seen 
            in their centres of origin), when such species are promiscuous out-crossers 
            (canola), or, most importantly, when the introduced genes enhance 
            the reproductive fitness of the recipient weeds (although most genes 
            introduced into crop plants, conventional or biotech, have little 
            value in the wild).The risk of gene transfer to weeds is similar with both conventional 
            and GM crops and is not contingent on how we introduced these genes 
            into plants. We must be vigilant to ensure that weeds do not become 
            noxious as a result of any new crop variety. The current case-by-case 
            testing and monitoring approach with biotech crops is a good regimen 
            for the future, while the past experience with conventional crops 
            provides assurance that such risks will be minimal and manageable.Crop biodiversity is another issue of concern. The popularity of 
            high-yielding varieties has already narrowed the genetic variation 
            found in major crops. Biotechnology, if employed strategically, can 
            reverse this through the recovery of older varieties that were discarded 
            for lack of certain features (such as resistance to new disease strains), 
            because modern gene transfer can restore such traits. Biotechnology 
            research is also enabling the development of better methods for ex-situ 
            preservation of germplasm, such as cryopreservation, whereby valuable 
            germplasm is being stored and, as a result, saved from extinction.The introduction of corn with a single transferred Bt gene has led 
            to some concern about its ecological impact. While this concern should 
            not be dismissed, it should be balanced with our hindsight and experience 
            of corn itself - an introduced alien species now grown on 75million 
            acres in the USA, where none existed about 1000 years ago. A crop 
            introduced into a new environment entails the wholesale introduction 
            of thousands of new genes.When grown on massive amounts of land, it exerts considerable ecological 
            impact on the native fauna and flora. In contrast, the introduction 
            of one or two genes into this background of 50,000 genes present in 
            corn will have relatively less effect on the environment. While the 
            initial fear about the reported damage to monarch butterflies from 
            Bt corn has not held up in additional studies, one also needs to consider 
            the negative impact of alternate practices (such as pesticide sprays) 
            and recognise the potential for positive impacts on beneficial insects 
            by the GM crop due to the specificity of the insect target(s).For that matter, any concern about 'gene pollution' pales in comparison 
            to the massive 'risk' of alien crop introduction, as 95 percent of 
            the crop area in the USA now consists of such introduced crops. Concern 
            about horizontal transfer of genes from GM crops to other organisms, 
            such as bacteria, has also been expressed. But it appears highly unlikely 
            that the risk is dependent upon the method of gene introduction. Most problems raised by science can be solved by additional science 
            itself
            An inherent feature of biotechnology is that it lends itself easily 
            to molecular detection of introduced genes, but a true measure of 
            risk can only come in comparisons with classically bred crops where 
            little or no such studies have been performed. Concerns such as random 
            gene insertion, gene instability, and genomic disruption due to gene 
            transfer have been expressed - but they are unlikely to be unique 
            to GM crops or of any significance considering our current knowledge 
            of genomic flux in plants.Worries about mixing genes from unrelated species ignore the history 
            of plant breeding and the existing overwhelming sequence similarity 
            of genes across kingdoms. Nevertheless, scientific research aimed 
            at risk analysis, prediction and prevention, combined with adequate 
            monitoring and stewardship, must continue so that negative ecological 
            impact from GM crops will be kept to a minimum. Most problems raised 
            by science can be solved by additional science itself. For example, 
            appropriate promoters may ensure that pollen will not express genes 
            toxic to beneficial insects, while gene expression strategies, such 
            as sterile pollen, could reduce the risk of gene flow.One also has to recognise the potential positive impact of GM crops 
            on the environment, such as: decreasing agricultural expansion to 
            preserve wild ecosystems; improving air, soil, and water quality by 
            promoting reduced tillage; reducing chemical and fuel use; improving 
            biodiversity through resuscitation of older varieties and promotion 
            of beneficial insects; and cleaning up contaminated soil and air through 
            phytoremediation.As we chart ahead with more exciting developments in biotechnology, 
            such as genomics, and grapple with issues arising from consumer acceptance 
            of innovations, historical knowledge on societal adoption of technological 
            innovations may provide some valuable perspectives to scientists. 
            Many innovations that would be good candidates for generating consumer 
            apprehension and concern today were introduced in the past without 
            concern because the public was less informed about innovation.The precautionary principle was never invoked to ensure the scientific 
            certainty that crop varieties developed using nuclear irradiation 
            or chemical mutagens were safe. And food labelling was never demanded 
            for bread wheat improved with the addition of hundreds of unknown 
            goat grass genes. Many other innovations that are now commonplace 
            in our lives were met with scepticism and opposition when first introduced. 
            Such fear of technology was especially more pronounced in food-related 
            innovations (for example, pasteurisation, canning, freezing, the microwave 
            oven, and so on).But once consumers recognised that new innovations can enhance their 
            quality of life - and once they understood that risks are either minimal 
            or manageable - such technology eventually could enjoy public acceptance. 
            This includes even those 'disruptive' technologies that replace older 
            ones (cars v horse buggies, compact disc v cassette tape, etc).Yet there are historical instances of useful innovations that have 
            not been readily accepted due to a variety of reasons, such as recalcitrance 
            to adapt (Dvorak v QWERTY keyboard); entrenched economic interests 
            opposing change (the metric system in the USA; Beta v VHS videotape); 
            ideological opposition (plant breeding during Stalin-era Soviet Union 
            by Lysenko); exaggerated notions of risk (food irradiation); ill-timed 
            product introductions; and serious conflicts with societal values 
            and beliefs.Humans and crops will always be mutually dependent on each other's 
            survival, and the guided evolution of crops will continue but will 
            increasingly be more knowledge-based and responsible. An appreciation 
            of the history of agricultural development may provide us with a useful 
            roadmap for devising appropriate strategies to inform and rationalise 
            societal responses to crop improvement.Paraphrasing the American philosopher George Santayana, ignoring 
            history may condemn us to repeat it - but an understanding of the 
            past may lead us to an enlightened future.Complete article at : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D1F5.htm 


              









Document Number: 7817 

Plant Biotechnolgy: Neeed to Foster Responsible 
        Debate and Dialogue The Hindu (Bangalore, India)
        May 6, 1999 
        By Dr C. S. PrakashThe recent well-orchestrated campaign in Europe and in India against 
        genetically-improved crops indicates a critical need to develop a credible 
        forum or network to debate new scientific developments and their impact 
        on society. 
      The tone of the debates in Europe and India indicate the need to correctly 
        inform the media, the public and farmers about the diversity issues arising 
        from new technologies. Scientists, thinkers, ethicists, sociologists, 
        economists, journalists, environmentalists and citizens need to come together 
        to debate emerging issues in a civilised and responsible manner, and to 
        foster creative ideas to enable the progress of the humankind. This would 
        also ensure that collective of voices of reason will prevail in the face 
        of paranoid outbursts and prevent destructive anti-science sentiments 
        from spreading amongst the public. Such an informed debate is particularly 
        important in India which, unlike Europe, can ill afford to miss the biotech 
        revolution in agriculture. We cannot forget that India was in dire straits 
        on the food front in the '60s. It was only the application of science 
        to agriculture that quickly provided the country with food security, despite 
        the concerns raised then about high-yielding varieties and hybrids. India 
        just cannot afford to listen today to 'science-bashing' activists with 
        pseudo-scientific rhetoric. 
      India was once a great scientific powerhouse and made enormous scientific 
        contribution to the world. Albert Einstein once said: "We owe a lot to 
        Indians who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific 
        discovery could have been made." Beyond the modern number system, India 
        has contributed richly to world science, including astronomy, ayurvedic 
        medicine, meditation and wireless communication. The world's first university 
        was established in Takshila in 700 BC However, modern India is far from 
        being a science power and its intellectual resources are not being harnessed 
        to its full extent. Yet, a small group of Indians overseas have made a 
        formidable mark on global science and technology enterprises. Expatriate 
        Indians working in a more nurturing environment have developed tetracycline, 
        invented gene synthesis, discovered white dwarfs in the universe, created 
        Pentium chips, and have dominated the IT industry. The best and brightest 
        individuals are, however, still in India. Think of what they can do if 
        they had the right environment! 
      India should rightfully exploit Intellectually Property Rights (IPR) 
        mechanisms world-wide to enable Indian society to benefit from scientific 
        knowledge and innovation. While we all feel proud of the accomplishments 
        of our ancestors and our heritage, xenophobic and paranoid outbursts such 
        as the recent ones involving turmeric and neem patents, or the burning 
        of experimental cotton plants under scientific supervision in southern 
        India, indicate our preoccupation with missing the wood for the trees. 
        In today's technological world, India will progress only by fostering 
        a creative and scientific environment that nurtures talent, supports enterprising 
        individuals and encourages looking critically and dispassionately at controversial 
        issues. Many of yesterday's controversies are today's success stories, 
        heart transplants and in vitro fertilization (test tube babies) being 
        two of them. Modern Indian heroes are not naysayers and opportunistic 
        sceptics, but individuals of the likes of M.S. Swaminathan, Verghese Kurien, 
        Sam Pitroda, Abdul Kalam, Vikram Sarabhai, Raja Ramanna, B.R. Barwale, 
        Ratan Tata, Narayana Murthy, Amartya Sen and CV Raman, Bose, Hargobind 
        Khorana, Subramanya Chandrashekar and countless others who have made a 
        difference in India and the world. A Bold Vision for Indian Science and Technology Rizwan Salim wrote in The Hindu (May 1, 1997) that "The Indian ruling 
        elite must feel a 'burning desire" to enter the 21st century in the company 
        of the industrially advanced nations. Once such fervour has properly taken 
        hold, a bold, visionary, far-reaching policy must be developed to make 
        full use of the country's latent intellectual capability, science talent 
        and creativity. India cannot march ahead without a strong science and 
        technology base that is indispensable to shape our future. 
      We need a major national initiative to reorient India's policies in building 
        its scientific infrastructure. Such a massive overhaul in our strategy 
        should, in addition to allocation of vast resources for science, include 
        a change in our mindset to create an enabling environment for empowering 
        creative people who can advance our society. We should provide greater 
        reward and recognition to creative and productive scientists, unshackle 
        the bureaucracy in our scientific system which has stifled the genius 
        and enterprise of our scientists, facilitate transfer of technology, encourage 
        participation of the commercial sector in the discovery process through 
        tax incentives and through links with academia, promote intellectual property 
        rights (IPR) to reward and foster innovation, and demand more accountability 
        from scientists and public research institutions. World Bank's prediction 
        that India will be third largest economic power by the year 2020 after 
        China, USA and Japan will not come true without such a mammoth reengineering 
        of our scientific enterprise. 
       


              









Document Number: 7481 

The Possibilities of Biotechnology Biotechnology can help improve agriculture and the economy 
        of both Karnataka and IndiaDeccan Herald
        By CS Prakash
        December 13, 2004Agriculture forms the backbone of Karnataka&#146;s economy, employing 
        much of its population. Modern scientific approaches to improve agriculture 
        can help revitalise farming in our state by enhancing crop productivity; 
        cut down the use of chemical inputs on the farm; empower our crop plants 
        to be more tolerant to stress such as drought and salinity; develop new 
        value-added products; improve the nutritive value of food; enhance the 
        profitability of farming; and thus overall, improve the quality of life 
        for both farmers and consumers in this state. Biotechnology is clearly 
        the most revolutionary tool to impact agricultural research since the 
        discovery of genetics by Mendel.Many of the important crops in Karnataka have diseases and pests that 
        are taking away much of the harvest. Examples include: dieback disease 
        of the pepper, leaf curl virus on tomato, blast of rice and ragi; bunchy 
        top of banana and borers on avare.Little ammunitionConventional plant breeding has little ammunition to deal with these 
        problems in an expedient and effective manner. These problems can be significantly 
        minimised in an ecologically-friendly manner with the development of genetically 
        reprogrammed seeds designed to resist these disease attacks, while minimising 
        or even eliminating costly and hazardous pesticide sprays.With no more arable land available for agricultural expansion in Karnataka, 
        enhancing stress tolerance in crop plants will permit productive farming 
        on currently unproductive lands. Abiotic factors such as drought, heat, 
        cold, soil salinity and acidity cripple our crops seriously constraining 
        their growth and yield. One could extend the growing season of crops and 
        minimise losses due to environmental factors. The shelf life of fruits 
        and vegetables can be prolonged to minimise losses due to food spoilage, 
        expand the market opportunities for farmers and also improve food quality.There has been much human misery caused by hazardous substances in many 
        of our food crops &#151; such as the presence of toxins in sorghum, cyanide 
        in tapioca, aflatoxins in groundnut and antimetabolites in chickpea, horsegram 
        and sweet potato. Biotechnology has the capability to &#145;silence&#146; 
        these undesirable traits and thus improve the quality of these &#145;humble&#146; 
        food crops so critical to the nutrition of disadvantaged and resource-poor 
        consumers.Prolonged &#145;vase life&#146; of cut-flowers will help broaden the 
        market for horticulturists, while reducing losses and minimising their 
        dependency on expensive cold storage. Human and livestock health can be 
        improved through crops with enhanced nutritional quality traits such as 
        iron-rich rice and vitamin A-rich groundnut oil, and through the production 
        of edible vaccines and other pharmaceutical proteins. Crops with industrial 
        applications such as those producing enzymes, &#145;designer&#146; starch 
        and oils, biodegradable plastics and industrial chemicals can also be 
        developed to reinvigorate the Karnataka economy and create jobs. Crop 
        plants that can clean up soil, water and air through &#145;phytoremediation&#146; 
        can be developed and planted in critical areas. Trees that grow faster 
        with fewer disease and pest problems can be developed with positive impacts 
        both on the rural economy and the environment.Not futuristicMany of these developments in agricultural biotechnology sound like &#145;science 
        fiction&#146; but they are not futuristic! They are already a commercial 
        reality or in the developmental phase in the West. They have great relevance 
        in improving the quality of life in Karnataka and India. The strategic 
        integration of biotechnology tools into our agricultural research can 
        revolutionise our farming. Compared to the &#147;green revolution&#148;, 
        the &#147;gene revolution&#148; is relatively scale neutral, benefiting 
        big and small farmers alike. It is also environment friendly.Thus, it can be of great help to the smallest farmer with limited resources, 
        in increasing farm productivity through the availability of improved but 
        powerful seed. It is, however, critical that public institutions such 
        as UAS (both Bangalore and Dharwad), IISc, Seribiotech, IIHR and Bangalore 
        University be strengthened in biotechnology research as much of the targeted 
        research on food crops can come from public sector research.While most scientists and policy-makers recognise that biotechnology 
        is not a panacea for all agricultural problems in India, it is the single 
        most powerful tool India has right now to address this problem that can 
        work in synergy with other agricultural approaches. Dozens of scientific 
        societies including the Indian National Science Academy have declared 
        that biotechnology is a safe means of improving food production. India 
        has an excellent regulatory system to ensure that biotechnology-derived 
        products are safe for human use and for the environment. Thus, it is important 
        that Karnataka moves ahead in integrating biotechnology briskly into its 
        agricultural research programme and to make use of this science to advance 
        the quality of life of its people. 


              









Document Number: 1778 

Red Herring - Letter to the EditorBy C.S. PrakashStephan Herrera's article on Monsanto and its charismatic 
        CEO, Bob Shapiro, ("Reversal of Fortune," March) provided a balanced perspective 
        on this company in these troubled times when consumers appear to be questioning 
        the value of genetically modified foods. This consumer backlash is being incited by environmental 
        activists and the organic produce industry through fear tactics and scaremongering 
        that have nothing to do with food safety or environmental concerns. While 
        Monsanto may have erred in reading the European consumer scene, the genetically 
        modified foods, which are subjected to enormous safety tests, are as safe 
        as conventionally produced foods. Genetic modification of crops represents 
        a major tool in improving agricultural productivity around the world, 
        especially in developing countries. We need to remember that, while Western countries can afford 
        to indulge in the luxury of attacking agricultural biotechnology and its 
        companies, this could eventually do the most harm to the poor in the developing 
        world.  


              









Document Number: 8980 

Gene Revolution and Food Security Observer of Business and Politics
        March 2, 2000 
        By C. S. PrakashA revitalised Indian agriculture can be the engine of growth and biotechnology 
        can provide the needed fuel, says C S Prakash.India's greatest achievement in the past century has been its ability 
        to increase its food production and thus keeping the Malthusian fears 
        at bay. Nevertheless, we still face daunting challenge of hunger, poverty 
        and malnutrition that will only get worse as the population increases 
        in absolute numbers. Recent advances in crop science, however, provide 
        us with a new window of opportunity to deal with the issue of food security. 
        Genetic engineering is clearly the most revolutionary tool to impact agricultural 
        research since the discovery of genetics by Mendel. Sensible integration 
        of biotechnology in research can accelerate the pace of agricultural improvement 
        and is of considerable relevance to an agrarian country like India. 
      Transforming India's agriculture is critical not only to deal with the 
        issue of hunger and poverty but also to strengthen the sector that is 
        so fundamental to India's existence. The 'green revolution' is showing 
        signs of fatigue and farm productivity increases are now flattening. There 
        are serious constraints to productivity in Indian agriculture because 
        of small holdings, the subsistence nature of farming, vagaries of the 
        weather, limited water, poor land condition and stress factors such as 
        drought, heat and saline soil conditions. Much of the crop yield is lost 
        due to disease, pests, and weeds while a considerable proportion of harvested 
        fruits and vegetables are spoilt during transportion and storage. 
      There is thus an urgent need to reinvigorate agricultural research to 
        address crop productivity issues by redesigning crop plants to benefit 
        the farmer and the consumer, and also to develop innovative 'value-added' 
        agricultural products to enhance the revenue base of farming. Profitable 
        farming not only enhances the quality of life in rural India but will 
        also help limit the urban sprawl due to migration and its attendant environmental 
        problems. Beyond crop productivity, there is also a need to address the 
        larger food and environmental issues. 
      A revitalised Indian agriculture can be the engine of growth for the 
        21st century, and biotechnology can provide the needed fuel. When deployed 
        in a sensible and responsible manner, modern biotechnological tools such 
        as genetic improvement of crops can advance India's agriculture to address 
        'head-on' the challenge of feeding its increasing population with its 
        limited economic, land and water resources. India cannot afford to lag 
        behind in critically examining these new technologies and making them 
        available to its farmers under suitable safeguards. 
      Most experts say that the greatest promise of biotechnology is in its 
        application in developing countries like India and China because of their 
        high reliance on agriculture, large farming areas, low crop yield and 
        the urgency for food increase and economic revitalisation. Developing 
        countries such as Mexico, Argentina, China and Chile have already made 
        considerable economic advances by integrating biotechnology into their 
        agricultural programmes. Others such as Cuba, Egypt and South Africa are 
        also following close behind and clearly see biotechnology as a means of 
        advancing their economies in an accelerated manner. India can, therefore, 
        ignore biotechnology only at its own peril. 
      Biotechnology can be a boon to Indian agriculture in may ways. Crop damage 
        can be minimised through disease- and pest-resistant varieties while reducing 
        the use of chemicals. Conventional plant breeding has little ammunition 
        to deal with these problems in an expedient and effective manner. India 
        also has serious problems of blast in rice, rust in wheat, leaf rust in 
        coffee, viruses in tomato and chillies and leaf spot in groundnut across 
        the country. These problems can be significantly minimised in an ecologically-friendly 
        manner with the development of genetically reprogrammed seeds designed 
        to resist these disease attacks, while minimising or even eliminating 
        costly and hazardous pesticide sprays. 
      Genetic modification can also address the problems of shoot borers in 
        brinjal and okra, caterpillars in pappadi (Dolichos) beans, and of course, 
        the boll wormin cotton which resulted in the tragic suicides of hundreds 
        of cotton farmers. India is the third largest producer of cotton in the 
        world (after China and the US). Although cotton occupies only 5 per cent 
        of the country's land, nearly 50 per cent of all pesticide used in india 
        is bought by cotton farmers alone at a staggering cost of Rs 16 billion 
        annually and with incalculable impact on the environment and human health. 
      Development of cotton varieties with resistance to pests thus can enhance 
        the welfare of Indian farmers, while helping both the India economy and 
        its environment. New genome technologies along with bioinformatics will 
        further propel Indian agriculture into a new era where complex traits 
        such as photosynthetic efficiency and crop yield can be enhanced. Geneomic 
        tools with esoteric names such as 'DNA Chips', 'Gene Shuffling' and 'Director 
        Evolution' are already making an impact on biomedical research enabling 
        the discovery of new drugs and rapid disease diagnostics, and will surely 
        impact agricultural research. 
      With no more arable land available for agricultural expansion in India, 
        enhancing stress tolerance in crop plants will permit productive farming 
        on currently unproductive lands. Abiotic factors such as drought, heat, 
        cold, soil salinity and acidity cripple Indian crops seriously constraining 
        their growth and yield. One could extend the growing season of crops and 
        minimise losses due to environmental factors. The shelf life of fruits 
        and vegetables can be prolonged to reduce losses to food spoilage, expand 
        the market vista and improve food quality. 
      There has been much human misery caused by hazardous substances in many 
        Indian food crops such as the presence of neurotoxin in kesar dal, cyanide 
        in tapioca, aflatoxins in groundnut and antimetabolites in chickpea, horsegram 
        and sweet potato. Biotechnology has the capability to 'silence' these 
        undesirable traits and thus improve the quality of these 'humble' food 
        crops so critical to the nutrition of disadvantaged and resource-poor 
        consumers. 
      Prolonged 'vase life' of cut-flowers will help broaden the market for 
        horticulturists, while reducing losses and minimising their dependency 
        on expensive cold storage. Human and livestock health can be improved 
        through crops with enhanced nutritional quality traits such as iron-rice 
        and vitamin A-rich rapeseed oil, and through the production of edible 
        vaccines and other pharmaceutical proteins. 
      Crops with industrial applications such as those producing enzymes, 'designer' 
        starch and oils, biodegradable plastics and industrial chemicals can also 
        be developed to reinvigorate the Indian economy and create jobs. Crop 
        plants that can clean up soil, water and air through 'phytoremediation' 
        can be developed and planted in critical areas. Trees that grow faster 
        with fewer disease and pest problems can be developed with positive impact 
        both on the rural economy and the environment. 
      The strategic integration of biotechnology tools into Indian agricultural 
        systems can revolutionise Indian farming and usher in a new era in the 
        countryside. Compared to the 'green revolution', the 'gene revolution' 
        is relatively scale-neutral, benefiting big and small farmers alike. It 
        is also environment friendly. Thus, it can be of great help to the smallest 
        farmer with limited resources, in increasing farm productivity through 
        the availability of improved but powerful seed. It can also reduce his 
        dependency on chemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers. India 
        unequivocally needs the help of such technologies to march into the next 
        century with a vision for economic upliftment and prosperity for its two-thirds 
        of populace dependent on farming. 
       


              









Document Number: 9242 

Gene Revolution-II: Potential Benefits, 
        Hypothetical Risks  Observer of Business and Politics
        March 3, 2000 
        By C. S. PrakashWhile most scientists and policy-makers recognise that biotechnology 
        is not a solution for all food production problems in India, it is the 
        single most powerful tool India has right now to address this problem. 
        There are risks inherent in any technological intervention. Human beings 
        down the centuries have learnt to weigh the perceived and real risks against 
        the benefits of emerging technologies, and have responsibly integrated 
        these to foster progress. For instance, the use of electricity, automobiles, 
        air travel and even immunisation all involve some risks, but this has 
        not prevented humankind from benefiting from them. 
      But public acceptance is driven by perception of the risk rather than 
        the physical reality. What we need is a sensible and responsible approach 
        to integrating biotechnology in Indian agricultural research while ensuring 
        that any risk posed by this technology is kept to a minimum through rigorous 
        scientific approach. We do not need militant and violent paths in keeping 
        the biotechnology away from Indians as this will only ensure continued 
        backwardness of our Indian agriculture. 
      Genetically improved products are subjected to intensive testing, while 
        conventional varieties have never been subjected to any such regulation 
        for food safety or environmental impact. Traditional methods of developing 
        crops involve wild crosses with weedy relatives of crop plants. Hundreds 
        of unknown genes, of whose traits we have little knowledge, are introduced 
        into these food crops through these conventional plant breeding methods. 
        Many characteristics such as disease and pest resistance have been routinely 
        introduced into crop plants from their weedy and distant relatives over 
        hundreds of years. These have posed no serious threat to the environment 
        in terms of crop invasiveness, gene flow to weeds or the biodiversity. 
        Yet, some of these fears are invoked for genetically- improved crops which 
        possess similar traits, but are developed through a rapid genetic modification 
        processes. 
      Thousands of new plants have been introduced into India since Vasco da 
        Gama, and no one now questions the invaluable impact these exotic introductions 
        have made on Indian agriculture, food habits and the economy. These include 
        chilli, wheat, potato, tomato, cabbage, groundnut, cowpea, apple, grape, 
        eucalyptus, rose and countless ornamentals. Genetically improved crops, 
        on the other hand, do not involve any such wholesale introduction of thousands 
        of new genes through new plants, only alteration of just one or two genes 
        with known traits in the already popular Indian crop varieties. There 
        is, therefore, a far greater risk to the Indian society from the non-acceptance 
        of biotechnology when compared to the miniscule risks posed by genetically 
        improved crops. The enormous potential benefits from these crops, therefore, 
        far outweigh any hypothetical risks posed their use. 
      Thousands of field tests conducted so far on various genetically improved 
        crops with more than one hundred new traits, or their commercial planting 
        on 28 million hectares worldwide have failed to provide any serious evidence 
        of food safety or environmental concern. Gene altered corn and soyabean 
        products; including baby food, have now found their way into nearly 4,000 
        food products in American supermarkets. Yet, not a single issue of food 
        safety has been reported. It should be pointed out that American standards 
        of food safety are the highest in the world. The regulatory agency, the 
        Food and Drug Administration, has one of the world's strictest standards 
        and thus enjoys considerable public trust. 
      Many genes used in genetically improved crops, such including the Bt 
        gene isolated from soil bacteria, have a long history of perfect safety 
        and ecological record. Further, many genes introduced into crop plant 
        (such as those used to develop slow ripening tomato) are derived essentially 
        from the same crop but inserted in a reverse manner to silence the undesirable 
        genes, so as to slow down the ripening in tomato or prevent cyanide production 
        in cassava. 
      This is not to say that genetically improved crops will not have any 
        unforeseen effects. But the possible negative effects of each crop should 
        be scientifically evaluated on a case-by- case basis, and the regulatory 
        system should evolve over time based on new knowledge. As India is the 
        centre of the origin of many crop plants with many wild relatives, we 
        should be prudent to minimise any potential gene transfer to weedy relatives. 
        Many of these concerns are technical issues that could be addressed through 
        appropriate research, and not through emotive debates or militant activism. 
      The preservation of biodiversity will be critical to the sustained success 
        of agriculture. Increasing economic growth spurred by genetically improved 
        crops will provide much-needed resources in the efforts to conserve biodiversity. 
        Genetically improved crops are no more a threat to biodiversity than conventionally 
        bred crops and, in fact, are even better as they exert less pressure to 
        expand the area under agriculture because of their high productivity. 
        Further, improved tools such as cryopreservation developed by biotechnologists 
        will help in the ex-situ preservation of biodiversity, while creative 
        techniques such as gene shuffling will help create more biodiversity and 
        perhaps even recreate extinct crop traits. Molecular biology techniques 
        such as the use of DNA markers and genomics are providing valuable insights 
        into the dynamics of biodiversity in crop plants and thus helping our 
        efforts to understand crop evolution and relatedness between different 
        varieties, thus enabling the intelligent use of the available biodiversity. 
       The Government of India's department of biotechnology and other scientific 
        agencies have done admirable work to deal with safety issues of genetically 
        improved crops by developing a strong, reliable and trustworthy regulatory 
        mechanism. The existing biosafety framework now requires that all genetically 
        modified organisms must undergo a rigorous review and safety assessment 
        prior to their import, field testing or release. The Indian public has 
        a right to be concerned about the possible impact of genetically improved 
        crops on the environment and human health. The government should also 
        enhance its legal system by instituting penalties for those who do not 
        follow the regulations, strengthen and enforce its anti-trust laws to 
        prevent monopolies and impose product-liability laws to force corporate 
        responsibility. 
      Scientists and companies involved in genetically improved crop development, 
        on their part, have an obligation to be transparent about their affairs 
        and make efforts to communicate with farmers and the public about the 
        nature of their products and any inherent risks they pose. Multinational 
        companies have vast resources with a huge edge in their knowledge base, 
        and can play a constructive role in India's progress. Few Indian companies 
        have such resources or a willingness to invest in long-term projects with 
        little hope of immediate revenues, in the face of political and economic 
        uncertainty. 
      The multinational biotech companies, on their part, should soften their 
        position on intellectual property by providing 'royalty free' licensing 
        of their core technologies for use by public institutions such as ICAR 
        on non-commercial and orphan crops of importance to Indian farmers and 
        consumers such as bajra, thur dal, horsegram and ragi. Further, these 
        companies should consider voluntarily establishing a trust fund from the 
        profits generated by genetically improved crops to promote biodiversity 
        conservation and public awareness of biotechnology. There is also a need 
        to foster research into the social, ethical, economic and environmental 
        impact of emerging technologies in agriculture as this will not only help 
        predict any negative ramifications of such interventions, but also evolve 
        strategies to deal with them. 
      == == == 
      Prof Prakash is Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research, Tuskegee University (the US). 


              









Document Number: 6656 

The Promise of SacramentoTechCentral Station
          By Andrew Apel and C. S. Prakash, 
          June 23,2003 Seldom does an international conference hold out as much promise for 
        progress in agriculture as the upcoming Ministerial Conference and Expo 
        on Agricultural Science and Technology in Sacramento, Calif. This is because 
        we are now on a cusp; we have reached a point where new agricultural technologies 
        have matured to the point where they can be used by developing nations 
        for their own betterment, rather than remaining in the hands of the most 
        developed nations, with strong and well-funded research programs. 
      Putting well-developed technology in the hands of those who seek development 
        is called technology transfer, and that is the focus of this conference. 
        Several years ago, an identical conference could not have accomplished 
        much; now, it could be a turning point. And that is because we have only 
        recently seen that technology transfer -- especially when it comes to 
        biotechnology -- works.In fact, biotechnology has proven more beneficial in developing nations 
        than in agriculture-intensive North America. To be sure, genetically enhanced 
        corn, soybeans, cotton and canola have spared farmers the expense of millions 
        of pounds of crop protection chemicals, and have relieved the environment 
        of the burden of those chemicals. This increases profits and food quality 
        in a highly responsible manner.In developing nations, the picture is quite different.Insect attacks on cotton in India are far more damaging than in the U.S., 
        often destroying more than half the crop each year. Where cotton engineered 
        to resist these pests helps U.S. farmers somewhat, the benefit of that 
        technology in India is so great that in recent tests in increased cotton 
        production by as much as 87 percent. No American farmer has ever seen 
        benefits as great as that. The technology has proven so successful that 
        Indian farmers are defying their government and breeding their own versions 
        of engineered cotton. Many Chinese, Mexican and South African farmers 
        have also enthusiastically embraced the insect-resistant cotton.The story is much the same with corn engineered to resist insect pests. 
        In the Philippines, corn borers destroy roughly 30 percent of the corn 
        crop each year -- an amount equal to the corn that country must import 
        to fulfill its needs. The government of the Philippines has approved the 
        cultivation of corn modified to protect itself against insects and tests 
        have shown that the corn, which combines gene splicing and the most modern 
        breeding methods, increases yield by as much as fifty percent. No American 
        farmer has seen such an incredible yield increase over earlier products.These stories are only parts of a much larger pattern that is emerging. 
        Nearly 6 million farmers in 16 countries chose to plant biotech crops 
        in 2002, up from 5 million farmers in 13 countries in 2001. More than 
        three-quarters of these farmers were resource-poor farmers in developing 
        countries.Bio-engineered corn, soybeans, cotton and canola were developed primarily 
        for use in North America, and while they have proven more beneficial to 
        farmers elsewhere, there are developments far more promising. Few Americans 
        have eaten cassava, but in parts of Africa it is the primary food crop. 
        Unfortunately, if cassava is not properly prepared before eating, it can 
        deliver a potentially deadly dose of cyanide. Scientists have achieved 
        a breakthrough in engineering cassava plants that are safe to eat. In 
        other parts of Africa, the sweet potato is the primary food crop, and 
        one that is yearly under attack by diseases farmers cannot defend against. 
        Engineered sweet potatoes resist these diseases, all on their own.There are other technologies being developed, such as a tomato developed 
        by UC Davis scientists that can thrive in soil that contains high levels 
        of salt or a corn developed by Mexican scientists that can tolerate aluminum, 
        a mineral toxic to tropical crops.Farming in developing countries is often a daily struggle against diseases, 
        pests, drought and toxic soil elements -- all of which greatly reduce 
        crop yields, so the enhanced ability to resist them could make substantial 
        contributions to much needed food security. Similarly, food with improved 
        nutritive qualities such as the 'Golden Rice' fortified with beta-carotene 
        offer so much hope in battling the malnutrition.All this takes is technology transfer, from those who have the technology, 
        to those who need it. Now that we can actually see technology transfer 
        works, we have a ministerial conference that can make it a process to 
        fulfill the vision of a world where every child everywhere will be born 
        with the assurance of the most basic necessity of life -- food.Andrew Apel is the editor of AgBiotech Reporter; C.S. Prakash is a 
        professor at Tuskegee University and president of the Agbioworld Foundation. 


              









Document Number: 4356 

Agricultural Technology Conference in Sacramento Listen to sound science on agricultural technology San Francisco Chronicle
        June 20, 2003
        C. S. Prakash and Martina Newell-McGloughlin Beginning Monday, government ministers from more than 
        100 countries will join U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman in Sacramento 
        for the Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology. 
      These international leaders are meeting to discuss the critical role 
        science and technology can play in improving agricultural productivity 
        in developing countries. Ultimately, the goal is to alleviate world hunger 
        and poverty in an environmentally sustainable way. However, hundreds of misguided people also will likely travel to Sacramento 
        to protest a variety of issues, including the use of biotechnology in 
        agriculture. The theme of their gathering will be to promulgate fear based 
        on unsubstantiated and misleading information. On behalf of the poor and starving in the developing world, we urge the 
        conference attendees to focus on the science and on each other. All too 
        often, the voices of protest drown out sound science and experience. Anti-biotechnology groups have a history of lobbing emotionally charged 
        allegations, but the reality is that none of these groups has actually 
        provided any credible scientific evidence that would call into question 
        the safety of foods derived from biotech crops on the market or the demonstrated 
        benefits to the environment. Instead, anti-biotechnology groups use their rhetoric and allegations 
        to advance their agenda, not to provide factual, informed perspectives. 
        Unfortunately, sometimes they prevail to the detriment of the environment 
        and the poorest and hungriest in the world, denying the benefits of less 
        pesticides, higher yields and greater sustainability. The reality is that crops developed through plant biotechnology are among 
        the most well-tested, well-characterized and well-regulated food and fiber 
        products ever developed. This is the overwhelming consensus of the international 
        scientific community, including the British Royal Society, the U. S. National 
        Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture 
        Organization of the United Nations, the European Commission, the French 
        Academy of Medicine and the American Medical Association. Scientific and regulatory authorities all over the world have endorsed 
        the extensive and growing base of published scientific information that 
        upholds the safety and benefits of biotech crops and foods. Spreading 
        false and misleading information in an effort to polarize opinion is irresponsible 
        and does not serve the public good. The public has a right to know that biotech crops and foods: -- have been thoroughly assessed for food, feed and environmental safety 
          and found to be wholesome, nutritious and as safe as conventional crops 
          and foods by scientific and regulatory authorities throughout the world 
          (examples include insect-tolerant corn and cotton and herbicide-tolerant 
          soybean); and -- have economic and environmental benefits that are significant and 
          have met the expectations of small and large farmers in both industrialized 
          and developing countries. A study conducted by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy 
        in Washington found that biotechnology-derived soybeans, corn, cotton, 
        papaya, squash and canola increased the U.S. food production by 4 billion 
        pounds, saved $1.2 billion in production costs and decreased the usage 
        of pesticide by a whopping 46 million pounds in the year 2001 alone. Biotech 
        crops are now grown on 58 million hectares in 16 countries, and more than 
        three-quarters of the 5.5 million growers who benefited from these crops 
        were resource-poor farmers in the developing world. For instance, South 
        African farmers are already growing transgenic pest-resistant maize, and 
        this year began planting transgenic soy. South African, Mexican and Chinese 
        farmers have been growing transgenic insect-resistant cotton for several 
        years, and the Indian government approved it for commercial cultivation 
        in spring 2002. Governments should thus resist the temptation to be distracted, and instead 
        focus on the real work that's needed in order to take advantage of these 
        benefits. On hand to advise the ministerial delegates in Sacramento will be many 
        scientific experts with direct experience in applying science and technology 
        to food agriculture. And 40 of the countries represented are already so 
        convinced of the safety and benefits of biotechnology that they approved 
        field testing, import or commercial production of crops. This is an important 
        opportunity for the governments of the world to exchange data and experiences 
        with each other, and to resolve jointly to let sound science prevail. 
      Biotech crops complement conventional agricultural production systems 
        and together can help to provide cost-effective and sustainable productivity 
        gains necessary to help meet the growing food, feed and fiber demands 
        of the 21st century. C.S. Prakash is a professor of plant molecular genetics at Tuskegee 
        University and director of its Center for Plant Biotechnology Research. 
        Martina Newell-McGloughlin is director of the University of California 
        Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program at UC Davis.  


              









Document Number: 4788 

'Genetically Modified Food is Safer than Water' An American scientist on a visit to Sweden. 
        Dagens Nyheter (Stockholm, Sweden) 
        C.S. Prakash and Andrew Apel
        September 11, 2001http://www.dn.se (Translated from Swedish "Genmat sakrare an vatten") 'More than two billion people have eaten genetically modified 
        food in the past five years without becoming ill. Genetically modified 
        food is less dangerous than stairs, bicycles or medicine. It's even safer 
        than water. This is the assertion of the American experts C. S. Prakash, 
        Professor at Tuskegee University, and Andrew Apel, editor for Agbiotech 
        reporter. Prakash will be visiting Stockholm this week for various meetings, 
        including with experts at the Ministry of Agriculture. The two experts 
        are of the opinion that biotechnology allows for the environmentally friendly 
        plants that provide rich and nutritious harvests in the developing world' As the home of the Nobel Prize, Sweden is justly proud 
        of its heritage and its commitment to scientific progress. For this reason, 
        Sweden's place in the debate over agricultural biotechnology can be influential 
        and inspiring for those who want to understand the value of this science. 
        It can perhaps best be understood in the spirit of what Alfred Bernhard 
        Nobel expressed clearly in his will, saying that the prize he established 
        should go to those who "have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind." 
      Do genetically enhanced crops confer benefits to mankind? 
        Some consider this question debatable. We know that crops benefit mankind, 
        since they feed us. This has been known for 10,000 years, so for the same 
        period, we have sought to improve the food value of crops-which are merely 
        plants that used to be weeds in the wild. Through every trick mankind 
        has been able to devise, from cross-pollination to mutating chemicals 
        and the random effects of radiation, we have worked with nature to vastly 
        speed evolution in a new direction. While weeds exist only to serve their 
        own purposes, mankind has made them into crops that serve human purposes. This has been difficult, but even with crude traditional 
        methods there has been much success. The tomato, originally no larger 
        than a grape, is now as large as an apple. Wheat, originally little more 
        than a type of grass, feeds billions. Conventional breeding uses techniques that are hundreds 
        of years old and rely on the accidental mixing of genes to improve what 
        originally were merely tasty weeds. Scientists now understand that DNA, 
        a molecule containing genes that instruct a plant how to grow, can be 
        read like magnetic tape. With that discovery, scientists have been able 
        to add in new instructions that allow the plants to protect themselves 
        from pests, chemical herbicides or difficult growing conditions. New research 
        will allow these plants to be more nutritious, as success with 'Golden 
        Rice' - fortified with a pro-vitamin A nutrient - has already shown. Is this science beneficial? Yes, because it can often accomplish 
        what the old, imprecise methods cannot. The classical methods can only 
        mix genes that are already in the plant. Consider the potato, which wise 
        parents boil before feeding to their children. Even though the potato 
        has been bred to be more productive, the potato naturally contains genes 
        that produce a harmful toxin which is mostly destroyed by boiling. There 
        are still toxins in potatoes, and allergens in peanuts and wheat, because 
        they inherited them from ancient weeds. Scientists will soon solve these 
        problems as well, and instruct these plants to behave more like crops 
        than ever before. The scientists will do this not by mixing genes accidentally, 
        but by inserting specific known genes into the plant. This would help 
        us to develop crops that produce more abundant and nutritious food with 
        less impact on the environment. In the developing world, this science 
        used in conjunction with traditional methods provides a major opportunity 
        to foster food security for the burgeoning population. Some worry about whether plants improved in this way are 
        safe to eat. First of all, genes are already present in the cells of all 
        plants. The genetic code in one plant cell is about two meters long, which 
        means that when you eat one cabbage leaf, you are also eating thousands 
        of kilometers of genes! Yet this is perfectly safe, and no human or animal 
        has ever become ill from eating genes, because they can't. There is a very large consensus in the scientific community 
        that genetic modification is a safe method to improve our food production. 
        Seven national academies of science have endorsed this approach, and sixteen 
        Nobel laureates along with 3200 scientists have supported this position 
        at www.agbioworld.org . The important thing about genetic technology, like any technology, 
        is the final product. In genetic modification the final product is the 
        plant, and scientists make sure they know what a gene does before they 
        insert it into a plant that is grown for food. Because of this, more than 
        two billion people have eaten foods made from genetically modified plants 
        over the last five years - and not one person has been shown to become 
        sick. This makes them safer than stairways, bicycles and pharmaceuticals, 
        even safer than water. Changes made in our food using genetic modification, 
        while significant in some ways, are simply more precise than the traditional 
        methods. Some worry about whether genetically modified plants are 
        safe for the environment. Unfortunately, nothing is safe for the environment. 
        Everything mankind does changes the environment. The question we must 
        answer is whether genetic engineering is safer for the environment than 
        other ways of growing food. Already, genetically enhanced plants have 
        saved the environment from millions of kilograms of pesticides and millions 
        of liters of the petrol burned to power farm tractors. This is because 
        scientists have the same goal as organic farmers-to produce more food, 
        more safely, and more inexpensively than ever before. In the developing 
        world, biotechnology provides a valuable tool to help produce more food 
        and fiber without cutting down valuable forests to make room for more 
        farms, while reducing the use of chemicals. Finally, some worry if there are "unknown risks" of genetic 
        modification. Many things are unknown, and may never be known, and some 
        of them will be risks. Still, everything we know shows that genetically 
        modified plants are safer for the environment, and produce wholesome, 
        nutritious food. Would Alfred Nobel approve of genetically modified plants? 
        Very likely, as sixteen recipients of his prize do. ---
        C.S. Prakash is a professor at Tuskegee University and President of Agbioworld 
        Foundation, http://www.agbioworld.org. 
        Andrew Apel is the editor of AgBiotech Reporter, http://www.bioreporter.com. 
       


              









Document Number: 1159 

Technology That Will Save Billions From Starvation  The American Enterprise
        By C.S. Prakash and Gregory Conko
        March 01, 2004Today, most people around the world have access to a greater variety 
        of nutritious and affordable foods than ever before, thanks mainly to 
        developments in agricultural science and technology. The average human 
        life span--arguably the most important indicator of quality of life--has 
        increased steadily in the past century in almost every country. Even in 
        many less developed countries, life spans have doubled over the past few 
        decades. Despite massive population growth, from 3 billion to more than 
        6 billion people since 1950, the global malnutrition rate decreased in 
        that period from 38 percent to 18 percent. India and China, two of the 
        world's most populous and rapidly industrializing countries, have quadrupled 
        their grain production.The record of agricultural progress during the past century speaks for 
        itself. Countries that embraced superior agricultural technologies have 
        brought unprecedented prosperity to their people, made food vastly more 
        affordable and abundant, helped stabilize farm yields, and reduced the 
        destruction of wild lands. The productivity gains from G.M. crops, as 
        well as improved use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, allowed 
        the world's farmers to double global food output during the last 50 years, 
        on roughly the same amount of land, at a time when global population rose 
        more than 80 percent. Without these improvements in plant and animal genetics 
        and other scientific developments, known as the Green Revolution, we would 
        today be farming on every square inch of arable land to produce the same 
        amount of food, destroying hundreds of millions of acres of pristine wilderness 
        in the process.Many less developed countries in Latin America and Asia benefited tremendously 
        from the Green Revolution. But due to a variety of reasons, both natural 
        and human, agricultural technologies were not spread equally across the 
        globe. Many people in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia continue 
        to suffer from abject rural poverty driven by poor farm productivity. 
        Some 740 million people go to bed daily on an empty stomach, and nearly 
        40,000 people--half of them children--die every day of starvation or malnutrition. 
        Unless trends change soon, the number of undernourished could well surpass 
        1 billion by 2020.The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) expects the world's 
        population to grow to more than 8 billion by 2030. The FAO projects that 
        global food production must increase by 60 percent to accommodate the 
        estimated population growth, close nutrition gaps, and allow for dietary 
        changes over the next three decades. Food charity alone simply cannot 
        eradicate hunger. Increased supply--with the help of tools like bioengineering 
        --is crucial.Although better farm machinery and development of fertilizers, fertilizers, 
        insecticides, and herbicides have been extremely useful, an improved understanding 
        of genetic principles has been the most important factor in improving 
        food production. Every crop is a product of repeated genetic editing by 
        humans over the past few millennia. Our ancestors chose a few once-wild 
        plants and gradually modified them simply by selecting those with the 
        largest, tastiest, or most robust offspring for propagation. Organisms 
        have been altered over the millennia so greatly that traits present in 
        existing populations of cultivated rice, wheat, corn, soy, potatoes, tomatoes 
        and many others, have very little in common with their ancestors. Wild 
        tomatoes and potatoes contain very potent toxins, for example. Today's 
        cultivated varieties have been modified to produce healthy and nutritious 
        food.Hybridization, the mating of different plants of the same species, has 
        helped us assimilate desirable traits from several varieties into elite 
        specimens. And when desired characteristics were unavailable in cultivated 
        plants, genes were liberally borrowed from wild relatives and introduced 
        into crop varieties, often of different but related species. Wheat, rye, 
        and barley are regularly mated with wild grass species to introduce new 
        traits. Commercial tomato plants are commonly bred with wild tomatoes 
        to introduce improved resistance to pathogens, nematodes, and fungi. Successive 
        generations then have to be carefully backcrossed into the commercial 
        cultivars to eliminate any unwanted traits accidentally transferred from 
        the wild plants, such as toxins common in the wild species.Even when crop and wild varieties refuse to mate, various tricks can 
        be used to produce &quot;wide crosses&quot; between two plants that are 
        otherwise sexually incompatible. Often, though, the embryos created by 
        wide crosses die before they mature, so they must be &quot;rescued&quot; 
        and cultured in a laboratory. Even then, the rescued embryos typically 
        produce sterile offspring. They can only be made fertile again by using 
        chemicals that cause the plants to mutate and produce a duplicate set 
        of chromosomes. The plant triticale, an artificial hybrid of wheat and 
        rye, is one such example of a wide-cross hybrid made possible solely by 
        the existence of embryo rescue and chromosome doubling techniques. Triticale 
        is now grown on over 3 million acres worldwide, and dozens of other products 
        of wide-cross hybridization are common.When a desired trait cannot be found within the existing gene pool, breeders 
        can create new variants by intentionally mutating plants with radiation, 
        with chemicals, or simply by culturing clumps of cells in a Petri dish 
        and leaving them to mutate spontaneously during cell division. Mutation 
        breeding has been in common use since the 1950s, and more than 2,250 known 
        mutant varieties have been bred in at least 50 countries, including France, 
        Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A relatively 
        new mutant wheat variety, made to be resistant to a commercial herbicide, 
        was put on the market in the U.S. as recently as July 2003.Recombinant DNA (rDNA) methods are a recent extension of the myriad techniques 
        that have been employed to modify and improve crops. The primary difference 
        is that modern bioengineered crops involve a precise transfer of one or 
        two known genes into plant DNA--a surgical alteration of a tiny part of 
        the crop's genome compared to the traditional sledgehammer approaches, 
        which bring about gross genetic changes, many of which are unknown and 
        unpredictable.Leading scientists around the world have attested to the health and environmental 
        safety of agricultural biotechnology, and they have called for bioengineered 
        crops to be extended to those who need them most--hungry people in the 
        developing world. Dozens of scientific and health associations, including 
        the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, 
        the U.K.'s Royal Society, and the United Nations Development Programme, 
        have endorsed the technology. Nearly 3,500 eminent scientists from all 
        around the world, including 24 Nobel laureates, have signed a declaration 
        supporting the use of agricultural biotechnology. And a review of 81 separate 
        research projects conducted over 15 years--all funded by the European 
        Union--found that bioengineered crops and foods are at least as safe for 
        the environment and for human consumption as conventional crops, and in 
        some cases even safer.Crops enhanced through modern biotechnology are now grown on nearly 143 
        million acres in 16 countries. More important, more than three quarters 
        of the 5.5 million growers who benefit from bioengineered crops are resource-poor 
        farmers in the developing world. Unremarkably, most commercially available 
        biotech plants were designed for farmers in the industrialized world. 
        They include varieties of corn, soybean, potato, and cotton modified to 
        resist insect pests, plant diseases, and to make weed control easier. 
        However, the increasing adoption of bioengineered varieties by farmers 
        in developing countries over the past few years has shown that they can 
        benefit at least as much as, if not more than, their industrialized counterparts. 
        The productivity of farmers everywhere is limited by crop pests and diseases 
        --and these are often far worse in tropical and subtropical regions than 
        the temperate zones.About 20 percent of plant productivity in the industrialized world, and 
        up to 40 percent in Africa and Asia, is lost to insects and pathogens, 
        despite the ongoing use of copious amounts of pesticides. The European 
        corn borer destroys approximately 7 percent, or 40 million tons, of the 
        world's corn crop each year-- equivalent to the annual food supply for 
        60 million people. So it comes as no surprise that, when they are permitted 
        to grow bioengineered varieties, poor farmers in less developed nations 
        have eagerly snapped them up. According to the International Service for 
        the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, farmers in less developed 
        countries now grow nearly one quarter of the world's bioengineered crops 
        on more than 26 million acres.Bioengineered plants have also had other important benefits for farmers 
        in less developed countries. In China, where pesticides are typically 
        sprayed on crops by hand, some 400 to 500 cotton farmers die every year 
        from acute pesticide poisoning. Researchers at Rutgers University and 
        the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that using bioengineered cotton 
        in China has lowered the amount of pesticides by more than 75 percent 
        and reduced the number of pesticide poisonings by an equivalent amount. 
        Another study by economists at the University of Reading in Britain found 
        that South African cotton farmers have seen similar benefits.The reduction in pesticide spraying also means that fewer natural resources 
        are consumed to manufacture and transport the chemicals. In 2000 alone, 
        U.S. farmers growing bioengineered cotton used 2.4 million fewer gallons 
        of fuel and 93 million fewer gallons of water, and were spared some 41,000 
        ten hour days needed to apply pesticide. Soon, many bioengineered varieties that have been created specifically 
        for use in underdeveloped countries will be ready for commercialization. 
        Examples include insect resistant rice for Asia, virus-resistant sweet 
        potato for Africa, and virus-resistant papaya for Caribbean nations. The 
        next generation of bioengineered crops now in research labs around the 
        world is poised to bring even further improvements for the poor soils 
        and harsh climates that are characteristic of impoverished regions. Scientists 
        have already identified genes resistant to environmental stresses common 
        in tropical nations, including tolerance to soils with high salinity and 
        to those that are particularly acidic or alkaline.The primary reason why Africa never benefited from the Green Revolution 
        is that plant breeders focused on improving crops such as rice, wheat, 
        and corn, which are not widely grown in Africa. Also, much of the African 
        dry lands have little rainfall and no potential for irrigation, both of 
        which played essential roles in the success stories for crops such as 
        Asian rice. Furthermore, the remoteness of many African villages and the 
        poor transportation infrastructure in landlocked African countries make 
        it difficult for African farmers to obtain agricultural chemical inputs 
        such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides--even if they could 
        be donated by charities, or if they had the money to purchase them. But, 
        by packaging technological inputs within seeds, biotechnology can provide 
        the same, or better, productivity advantage as chemical or mechanical 
        inputs, and in a much more user-friendly manner. Farmers would be able 
        to control insects, viral or bacterial pathogens, extremes of heat or 
        drought, and poor soil quality, just by planting these crops.Still, anti-biotechnology activists like Vandana Shiva of the New Delhi-based 
        Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and Miguel Altieri 
        of the University of California at Berkeley, argue that poor farmers in 
        less developed nations will never benefit from biotechnology because it 
        is controlled by multinational corporations. According to Altieri, &quot;Most 
        innovations in agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather 
        than need-driven. The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry 
        is not to make Third World agriculture more productive, but rather to 
        generate profits.&quot;That sentiment is not shared by the thousands of academic and public 
        sector researchers actually working on biotech applications in those countries. 
        Cyrus Ndiritu, former director of the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, 
        argues, &quot;It is not the multinationals that have a stranglehold on 
        Africa. It is hunger, poverty and deprivation. And if Africa is going 
        to get out of that, it has got to embrace&quot; biotechnology.Biotechnology also offers hope of improving the nutritional benefits 
        of many foods. The next generation of bioengineered products now in development 
        is poised to bring direct health benefits to consumers through enhanced 
        nutritive qualities that include more and higher-quality protein, lower 
        levels of saturated fat, increased vitamins and minerals, and many others. 
        Bioengineering can also reduce the level of natural toxins (such as in 
        cassava and kidney beans) and eliminate certain allergens from foods like 
        peanuts, wheat, and milk. Many of these products are being developed primarily 
        or even exclusively for subsistence farmers and consumers in poor countries.Among the most well known is Golden Rice--genetically enhanced with added 
        beta carotene, which is converted to Vitamin A in the human body. Another 
        variety developed by the same research team has elevated levels of digestible 
        iron. The diet of more than 3 billion people worldwide includes inadequate 
        levels of essential vitamins and minerals, such as Vitamin A and iron. 
        Deficiency in just these two micronutrients can result in severe anemia, 
        impaired intellectual development, blindness, and even death. Even though 
        charities and aid agencies such as the United Nations Children's Fund 
        and the World Health Organization have made important strides in reducing 
        Vitamin A and iron deficiency, success has been fleeting. No permanent 
        effective strategy has yet been devised, but Golden Rice may finally provide 
        one.The Golden Rice project is a prime example of the value of extensive 
        public sector and charitable research. The rice's development was funded 
        mainly by the New York-based Rockefeller Foundation, which has promised 
        to make the rice available to poor farmers at little or no cost. Scientists 
        at public universities in Switzerland and Germany created it with assistance 
        from the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute and from 
        several multinational corporations. Scientists at publicly funded, charitable, 
        and corporate research centers are developing many other similar crops. 
        Indian scientists, for example, have recently announced that they would 
        soon make a new high-protein potato variety available for commercial cultivation.Research is already under way on fruits and vegetables that could one 
        day deliver life-saving vaccines--such as a banana with the vaccine for 
        Hepatitis B, and a potato that provides immunization against diarrheal 
        diseases.It is true that certain aspects of modern farming have had a negative 
        impact on biodiversity and on air, soil, and water quality. But biotechnology 
        has proven safer for the environment than anything since the invention 
        of the plow. The risk of cross-pollination from crops to wild relatives 
        has always existed, and such &quot;gene flow&quot; occurs whenever crops 
        grow in close proximity to sexually compatible wild relatives. Yet, breeders 
        have continuously introduced genes for disease and pest resistance through 
        conventional breeding into all of our crops. Traits, such as stress tolerance 
        and herbicide resistance, have also been introduced in some crops with 
        conventional techniques, and the growth habits of every crop have been 
        altered. Thus, not only is gene modification a common phenomenon, but 
        so are many of the specific kinds of changes made with rDNA techniques.Naturally, with both conventional and rDNA-enhanced breeding, we must 
        be vigilant to ensure that newly introduced plants do not become invasive 
        and that weeds do not become noxious because of genetic modification. 
        Similarly, we must ensure that target genes are safe for human and animal 
        consumption before they are transferred. But, while modern genetic modification 
        expands the range of new traits that can be added to crop plants, it also 
        ensures that more will be known about those traits and that the behavior 
        of the modified plants will be, in many ways, easier to predict. The biggest threats that hungry populations currently face are restrictive 
        policies stemming from unwarranted public fears. Although most Americans 
        tend to support agricultural biotechnology, many Europeans and Asians 
        have been far more cautious. Anti-biotechnology campaigners in both industrialized 
        and less developed nations are feeding this ambivalence with scare stories 
        that have led to the adoption of restrictive policies. Those fears are 
        simply not supported by the scores of peer reviewed scientific reports 
        or the data from tens of thousands of individual field trials.In the end, over-cautious rules result in hyper-inflated research and 
        development costs and make it harder for poorer countries to share in 
        the benefits of biotechnology. No one argues that we should not proceed 
        with caution, but needless restrictions on agricultural biotechnology 
        could dramatically slow the pace of progress and keep important advances 
        out of the hands of people who need them. This is the tragic side effect 
        of unwarranted concern.In 2002, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa rejected some 23,000 metric 
        tons of food aid in the midst of a two-year-long drought that threatened 
        the lives of over 2 million Zambians. President Mwanawasa's public explanation 
        was that the bioengineered corn from the United States was &quot;poisonous.&quot; 
        Other Zambian government officials conceded that the bigger concern was 
        for future corn exports to the European Union, which observes a moratorium 
        on new G.M. foods.Zambia is not unique. European biotechnology restrictions have had other, 
        similar consequences throughout the developing world. Thai government 
        officials have been reluctant to authorize any bioengineered rice varieties, 
        even though it has spent heavily on biotechnology research. Uganda has 
        stopped research on bioengineered bananas and postponed their introduction 
        indefinitely. Argentina has limited its approvals to the two bioengineered 
        crop varieties that are already permitted in European markets.Even China, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding advanced 
        biotechnology research, has refused to authorize any new bioengineered 
        food crops since the European Union's moratorium on bioengineered crop 
        approvals began in 1998. More recently, the International Rice Research 
        Institute, which has been assigned the task of field-testing Golden Rice, 
        has indefinitely postponed its plans for environmental release in the 
        Philippines, fearing backlash from European-funded NGO protestors. Still, 
        the E.U. moratorium continues to persist after five long years, despite 
        copious evidence, including from the E.U.'s own researchers, that biotech 
        modification does not pose any risks that aren't also present in other 
        crop-breeding methods.Of course, hunger and malnutrition are not solely caused by a shortage 
        of food. The primary causes of hunger in some countries have been political 
        unrest and corrupt governments, poor transportation and infrastructure 
        and, of course, poverty. All of these problems must be addressed if we 
        are to ensure real, worldwide food security.But during the next 50 years, the global population is expected to rise 
        by 50 percent--to 9 billion people, almost entirely in the poorest regions 
        of the world. And producing enough to feed these people will require the 
        use of the invaluable gift of biotechnology.---C. S. Prakash is professor of plant biotechnology at Tuskegee University, 
        Alabama and president of the AgBioWorld Foundation. Gregory Conko is director 
        of Food Safety Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, 
        D.C. and vice president of the AgBioWorld Foundation.  


              









Document Number: 9871 

Saving Land and Lives with BiotechnologyBioScience News and Advocate (guest editorial)
        December 15, 2003
        By C.S. Prakash and Gregory Conko The use of bioengineering technology for the development of new plant 
        varieties has been endorsed by dozens of scientific bodies, has increased 
        crop yields and food production and reduced the use of synthetic chemical 
        pesticides in both industrialized and less developed countries. 
      These advances are critical in a world where natural resources are finite 
        and where hundreds of millions of people suffer from hunger and malnutrition.Critics dismiss such claims as nothing more than corporate public relations 
        puffery. However, while it is true that most commercially available bioengineered 
        plants were designed for farmers in the industrialized world, the increasing 
        adoption of transgenic varieties by under-developed countries over the 
        past few years demonstrates their broader applicability.Globally, transgenic varieties are now grown on more than 58.7 million 
        hectares (145 million acres) in such countries as Argentina, Australia, 
        Brazil, Canada, China, India, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, and 
        the United States. Nearly one-quarter of that hectarage is farmed by over 
        5 million resource-poor farmers in less developed countries.Why? Because they see many of the same benefits that farmers in industrialized 
        nations do.The first generation of transgenic crops - approximately 50 different 
        varieties of maize, cotton, potato, squash, soybean, rapeseed, and others 
        - were designed to aid in protecting crops from insect pests, weeds, and 
        plant diseases.As much as 40 percent of crop productivity in Africa and Asia and about 
        20 percent in the industrialized countries of North America and Europe 
        is lost to these biotic stresses, despite the use of large amounts of 
        insecticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals.Poor tropical farmers may face different pest species than their industrial 
        country counterparts, but both must do constant battle against these threats 
        to their productivity.That's why South African and Filipino farmers are so eager to grow transgenic 
        corn resistant to insect pests, and why South African and Chinese farmers 
        like transgenic insect-resistant cotton so much. Indian cotton farmers and Brazilian and Paraguayan soya growers didn't 
        even wait for their governments to approve transgenic varieties before 
        they began growing them. It was discovered in 2001 that Indian farmers 
        were planting seed obtained illegally from field trials of a transgenic 
        cotton variety then still under governmental review.Farmers in Brazil and Paraguay looked across the border and saw how well 
        their Argentine neighbours were doing with transgenic soybean varieties 
        and smuggling of bioengineered seed became rampant.Recent studies in India have shown that transgenic cotton reduced pesticide 
        spraying by half or more, delivering a 30-40 percent profit increase. 
        Another report showed that the farm area under Bt cotton in India tripled 
        in just one year to 216,000 hectares from 72,682 hectares last year.In Brazil, it is estimated that about three million hectares of biotech 
        soybean were being grown illegally until now when the government has just 
        made it legal.As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There 
        are few greater testaments to the benefits of biotechnology than the fact 
        that thousands of poor farmers are willing to acknowledge having committed 
        a crime just to gain access to the improved varieties. Where transgenic varieties become available (legally or not), farmers 
        themselves are eager to adopt them.There is even evidence that transgenic varieties have literally saved 
        human lives. In less developed nations, pesticides are typically sprayed 
        on crops by hand, exposing farm workers to severe health risks. Some 400 
        to 500 Chinese cotton farmers die every year from acute pesticide poisoning 
        because, until recently, the only alternative was risking near total crop 
        loss from voracious insects. A Rutgers University study found that transgenic cotton in China has 
        lowered the amount of pesticides used by more than 75 percent and reduced 
        the number of pesticide poisonings by an equivalent amount.The productivity gains generated by transgenic crops provide yet another 
        important benefit: They could save millions of acres of sensitive wildlife 
        habitat from being converted into farmland. The loss and fragmentation 
        of wildlife habitats caused by agricultural development in regions experiencing 
        the greatest population growth are widely recognised as among the most 
        serious threats to biodiversity. Thus, increasing agricultural productivity is an essential environmental 
        goal, and one that would be much easier in a world where bioengineering 
        technology is in widespread use.Channapatna S. Prakash is a professor of plant biotechnology at Tuskegee 
        University in Alabama and the president of AgBioWorld Foundation based 
        in Auburn, Alabama. Gregory Conko is director of food safety policy at 
        the Competitive Enterprise 
        Institute in Washington and vice-president of AgBioWorld Foundation. 


              









Document Number: 1141 

Sound Science, Not Silence An Open Letter to World Leaders, Scientists, Media and 
        other Stakeholders AgBioWorld
        May 9, 2003Please send an email to soundscience@agbioworld.orgwith your name and affiliation
        if you agree to be a signatory to the following statements.Scientists fully engaged in research and examination of the potential 
        impacts of biotechnology-derived crops have concluded that commercial 
        biotechnology-derived crops and foodstuffs are as safe as conventional 
        crops and foodstuffs, and deliver important economic and environmental 
        benefits to farmers and society at large. Facing constant allegations 
        that biotech crops are unsafe, anti-biotechnology groups are counting 
        on those in the scientific community with experience and knowledge of 
        'genetically modified' or 'bioengineered' crops to be silent. Sound science 
        not silence must prevail.Dozens of scientific and regulatory authorities all over the world have 
        reviewed and accepted the extensive and growing base of published scientific 
        information that upholds the safety and benefits of biotech crops and 
        foods. Despite this, agenda driven scientists and anti-biotechnology organizations 
        continue to spread unsubstantiated and misleading information in an effort 
        to further their cause.Anti-biotechnology groups have a history of lobbing emotionally charged 
        allegations, but the reality is that none of these groups has actually 
        provided any credible scientific evidence that would question the safety 
        of foods derived from biotech crops or the demonstrated benefits to the 
        environment. Instead, anti-biotechnology groups use their rhetoric and 
        allegations to advance their agenda, not to provide factual, informed 
        perspectives.The reality is that crops developed through plant biotechnology are among 
        the most well-tested, well-characterized, and well-regulated food and 
        fiber products ever developed. This is the overwhelming consensus of the 
        international scientific community, including the Royal Society (1), National 
        Academy of Sciences (2), the World Health Organization (3), the Food and 
        Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (4), the European Commission 
        (5), the French Academy of Medicine (6), and the American Medical Association 
        (7).Allegations made by anti-biotechnology groups and scientists calling 
        for a moratorium on the release of biotech crops are unfounded and completely 
        unsupported by the facts. These groups piece together arguments based 
        on incomplete information or results isolated from the full context. The 
        arguments contribute to public anxiety and fears but do not present reality.Consider the facts that underlie the concerns raised by these groups:Allegation: Bt corn adversely effects natural enemies and creates 
        new pests. Fact: Numerous research studies have documented that commercial 
        Bt corn varieties do not threaten Monarch butterflies, other butterfly 
        species, or other non-target species (8, 9, 10). Research conducted in 
        China has demonstrated that Bt cotton does not adversely effect natural 
        enemies or create new pests but helps to preserve beneficial natural enemy 
        populations, reduce applicator and environmental exposure to insecticides, 
        and increase farmer productivity (11, 12, 13, 14).Allegation: Bt proteins accumulate in the soil and can potentially 
        have large impacts on soil ecology and fertility. Fact: There is no evidence that Bt proteins accumulate, nor harm 
        soil ecology and fertility. In fact, numerous published studies demonstrate 
        Bt proteins from Bt crops are rapidly degraded in the soil environment 
        (15,16,17,18,19) and do not negatively impact soil organisms (20, 21, 
        22).Allegation: Pests have evolved resistance to Bt crops and are 
        more serious pests than before. Fact: There are no documented cases of insect pests developing 
        resistance to Bt crops in field (23). Management practices, including 
        refuges for development of pests outside of Bt crops, were instituted 
        with the introduction of Bt crops to sustain the performance of Bt crops 
        and to delay pest adaptation. In eight years of use on more than 100 million 
        acres, there have been no confirmed cases of resistance to Bt crops. The 
        only cases of field resistance to Bt proteins have occurred with the extensive 
        and unregulated use of Bt microbial sprays in organic production systems.Allegation: Bt genes could spread from Bt crops to create weeds. 
        Fact: Regulatory authorities carefully examine the potential for 
        spread of genes from Bt crops to weeds before Bt crops are authorized 
        for commercial use (24). Often cited examples of increased seed production 
        in Bt sunflower or expression of Bt protein in Bt canola fail to acknowledge 
        that these university research projects do not involve commercial Bt crops. 
        Moreover, these studies only point to a potential hazard; they do not 
        establish that there is a significant risk in an agricultural system.Allegation: Bt proteins pose a risk to human health and the 
        environment. Fact: Bt proteins expressed in Bt crops have a history of safe 
        use, are specific for the targeted crop pests, and pose little or no threat 
        to other related insects, pest species, animals, or humans. In eight years 
        of commercial planting on hundreds of millions of acres worldwide, where 
        biotech crops and foods have been consumed ubiquitously, there have been 
        no documented adverse effects. Confidence in food and environmental safety 
        is achieved through rigorous and comprehensive testing programs. The Bt 
        proteins employed in Bt crops undergo extensive analysis and testing, 
        including safety to non-target species and food allergy and protein safety 
        assessment, before Bt crops are authorized for commercial use (25, 26, 
        27). Studies alleging potential impacts to humans or threats from bio-terrorism 
        are based on laboratory experimental systems that do not represent the 
        expression of Bt proteins in commercial crops. Allegation: Bt corn and other Bt crops do not reduce insecticide 
        use or provide economic benefits to farmers.Fact: Bt crops provide protection from targeted insect pests and 
        do not typically require additional insecticide treatments for targeted 
        pests. As a result, farmers aware of the health of environmental benefits 
        are increasingly substituting Bt crops for conventional crops to reduce 
        unnecessary applicator and environmental exposure to insecticides (28). 
        In the U.S. in 2001, the use of Bt corn and Bt cotton reduced insecticide 
        use by 4.6 million pounds, increased farmer profitability by $228 million 
        U.S. dollars, and increased yield by 3.725 billion pounds (29). Globally, 
        Bt crops are grown by millions of farmers in 14 countries on over 30 million 
        acres annually. The rapid adoption of Bt crops is convincing evidence 
        of the real benefits realized by farmers (30).Allegation: Bt crops and biotech crops in general have not 
        been adequately assessed for food, feed, and environmental safety.Fact: Commercial biotechnology-derived crops have been rigorously 
        assessed according to well-established, internationally accepted, scientific 
        standards and guidelines (31). This rigorous safety testing has been underscored 
        by regulatory review and numerous biotech crop approvals throughout the 
        world. The consensus of leading scientific bodies with interest in health 
        and environmental safety is that crops produced through biotechnology 
        offer many benefits and pose no more risk than crops produced through 
        traditional crop breeding methods.The public has a right to know the facts about biotech crops and foods: 
      1. Biotech crops and foods have been thoroughly assessed for food, 
          feed, and environmental safety and found to be wholesome, nutritious, 
          and as safe as conventional crops and foods by scientific and regulatory 
          authorities throughout the world; and 2. The economic and environmental benefits of biotech crops are significant 
          and have met the expectations of small and large farmers in both industrialized 
          and developing countries. The continued spread of false and misleading information in an effort 
        to polarize public opinion is irresponsible and does not serve the public 
        good. Allegations of health and environmental impacts that are not supported 
        by available published scientific information must be held to the same 
        standards of scientific review as information provided to support the 
        safety of biotech crops. Biotech crops complement conventional agricultural productions systems 
        and together can help to provide cost-effective and sustainable productivity 
        gains necessary to help meet the growing food, feed, and fiber demands 
        of the 21st century. If you agree, please add your name as a co-signatory to this letter and 
        acknowledge your support for AgBioWorld's call for responsible, science-based 
        assessment and factual reporting of information regarding safety of biotechnology-derived 
        crops. Please send an email to soundscience@agbioworld.org 
        with your name and affiliation. We will forward this statement with all 
        the names of signatories to various global leaders, science organizations, 
        media and other stakeholders.We thank you for your cooperation.Sincerely,C. S. Prakash and Greg Conko
        AgBioWorld FoundationReference: 1. &quot;Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation,&quot; 
        NRC press release, May 2000, http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf. 
        
        2. &quot;Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation,&quot; 
        NRC press release, May 2000, www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf.
        3. Safety Aspects Of Genetically Modified Foods Of Plant Origin. Report 
        of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology: 
        World Health Organization, Headquarters Geneva, Switzerland 29 May - 2 
        June 2000 :1 - 37.
        4. Ibid.
        5. &quot;GMOs: Are there any risks?&quot; http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/pr0810en.html. 
        
        6. &quot;Summary Statement.&quot; http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/rapports/pdf/RST13 
        summary.pdf. 
        7. http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&amp;doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-480.985.HTM. 
        
        8. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/. 
        9. &quot;Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and 
        Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops.http://www.cast-science.org/cast/biotech/pubs/biotechcropsbenefit.pdf.
        10. &quot;Transgenic Insecticidal Corn - The Agronomic and Ecological 
        Rationale for its Use.&quot; BioScience. 51(11): 900-906. (2001).
        11. &quot;Smallholders, Transgenic Varieties, And Production Efficiency. 
        The Case Of Cotton Farmers In China&quot;. Department Of Agricultural 
        And Resource Economics. University Of California Davis. 2002. 30 Pages.
        12. &quot;Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue.&quot; 
        The Plant Journal 31: 423-430. (2002).
        13. &quot;Seasonal abundance of the mirids, Lygus lucorum and Adelphocoris 
        spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Bt cotton in northern China.&quot; Crop Protection 
        (in press).
        14. &quot;Influences of Bt cotton planting on population dynamics of cotton 
        aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover, in northern China.&quot; Environ. Entomol.( 
        accepted).
        15. &quot;No Detection of Cry1Ac Protein in Soil After Multiple Years 
        of Transgenic Bt Cotton (Bollgard) Use.&quot; Environ. Entomol. 31(1): 
        30-36 (2002).
        16. In planta distribution and environmental fate of insect resistant 
        proteins. Plant Physiol. Suppl. 99:80. (1992).
        17. &quot;Insect bioassay for determining soil degradation of Bacillus 
        thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki [CryIAb)] protein in corn tissues.&quot; 
        Environ. Entomol. 25:659-664. (1996).
        18. &quot;Quantitation in soil of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 
        delta-endotoxin from transgenic plants.&quot; Mol. Ecol. 3:145-151. (1994).
        19. &quot;Persistence in soil of transgenic plant produced Bacillus thuringiensis 
        var. kurstaki delta-endotoxin.&quot; Can. J. Microbiol. 42:1258-1262. 
        (1996).
        20. &quot;Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin released from root exudates 
        and biomass of Bt corn has no apparent effect on earthworms, nematodes, 
        protozoa, bacteria, and fungi in soil.&quot; Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry. 
        33: 1225-1230. (2001).
        21. &quot;Oviposition of European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) 
        and impact of natural enemy populations in transgenic versus isogenic 
        corn.&quot; J. Econ. Entomol. 90:905-909. (1997).
        22. &quot;Preimaginal development, survival and field abundance of insect 
        predators on transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn.&quot; Environ. Entomol. 
        26:446-454. (1997).23. &quot;Economic, Ecological, Food Safety, and Social Consequences 
        of the Deployment of Bt Transgenic Plants.&quot; Annual Rev Entomology. 
        47: 845-881. (2002).
        24. &quot;Evaluation of the US Regulatory Process for Crops Developed 
        Through Biotechnology.&quot; Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 
        (19): 1-14. (2001).
        25. &quot;Food Safety Evaluation of Crops Produced through Biotechnology,&quot; 
        Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 21, No. 3, 166S-173S, 
        (2002).
        26. &quot;Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods,&quot; Journal 
        of Nematology. 33(4): 178-182. (2001).27. &quot;The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. 
        Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment.&quot; The Plant Journal 
        33: 19-36. (2002).
        28. &quot;Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and 
        Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops.http://www.cast-science.org/cast/biotech/pubs/biotechcropsbenefit.pdf. 
        
        29. &quot;Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving 
        Pest Management in US Agriculture, An Analysis of 40 Case Studies.&quot; 
        http://www.ncfap.org/pubs.htm#Biotechnology. 
        30. &quot;2002 Global GM Crop Area Continues to Grow for the Sixth Consecutive 
        Year at a Sustained Rate of More than 10%.&quot; http://www.isaaa.org. 
        
        31. &quot;The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. 
        Part 1. Overview of the current status and regulations.&quot; The Plant 
        Journal 33: 1-18. (2002).The AgBioWorld Foundation (http://www.agbioworld.org ) is 
            a non-profit organization based in Auburn, Alabama, that provides 
            information to teachers, journalists, policymakers, and the general 
            public about developments in plant science, biotechnology, and sustainable 
            agriculture.   AgBioWorld Foundation
            P. Box 85
            Tuskegee Institute, AL 36087-0085, USA
            Phone 334 663 1511; Fax 334 727 8067; 
            prakash@agbiworld.org
            www.agbioworld.orgAgBioWorld Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization 


              









Document Number: 1437 

Sound Science and Foods from Biotechnology By C.S. Prakash and Christine Bruhn
        San Diego Union Tribune 
        June 14, 2000Sound science. It has been the safety determinant and underlying consumer 
        protection for our country's food supply for more than a century. In fact, 
        it's a legacy that dates back to 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln 
        initially understood its importance by establishing the first science-based 
        labeling initiative to protect our nation's consumers from misleading 
        marketing campaigns, food safety scares and snake oil salesmen who preyed 
        on the unwitting. 
       The sound-science legacy is alive and well. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 
        recent announcement reaffirming the safety of foods derived from biotechnology, 
        while adding requirements for mandatory notification of new products and 
        allowing for voluntary labeling of these products, is one to be applauded. 
        Rather than bowing to the pressure tactics of the anti-biotech crowd, 
        the FDA has reaffirmed the current science-based approval process. This 
        decision continues a long tradition of ensuring that Americans have the 
        safest food supply in the world and provides consumers with the means 
        to make informed choices in food purchases. 
       The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that the FDA's actions 
        are the kind of responsible oversight consumers should expect. The biotechnology 
        products approved through the current process have a record of safe consumption, 
        and this enhanced, more effective process will only strengthen the benefits 
        America's consumers enjoy and deserve. 
       Through biotechnology, farmers and consumers benefit from crops with 
        traits that nature has developed in other organisms -- disease resistance, 
        for example, or improved nutritional performance or even better flavor. 
        Biotechnology-improved crops are a simple, but more precise, extension 
        of traditional breeding and other improvements farmers have been making 
        to crops for centuries. 
       Years of independently reviewed research and testing have shown that 
        commercially available foods developed through biotechnology are substantially 
        equivalent to foods developed through traditional plant breeding and are 
        safe. The term "substantially equivalent" is used by scientists and regulatory 
        agencies to indicate that the composition of these foods is basically 
        the same as conventional foods and that the nutritional content is the 
        same. Should a product be developed that is not equivalent, labels and 
        further testing are required under the FDA's rule to protect consumers. 
       Foods produced using biotechnology have been available since 1990. To 
        name just a few, consumers have been able to benefit from tomatoes with 
        delayed ripening traits that remain fresh longer and withstand transport 
        better than traditional tomatoes. Also, soybeans, canola, corn, cotton 
        and potatoes have been enhanced to be resistant to insects, herbicides 
        or both. Squash has been improved to be resistant to a virus that destroys 
        the vegetable, and papaya resistant to ring spot virus that otherwise 
        would destroy the papaya industry in Hawaii and prevent consumers from 
        enjoying this delicious, nutritious fruit. 
       As we consider the many advantages of agricultural biotechnology, we 
        must understand that this approach improves life for all living things. 
        Higher crop yields due to the planting of improved seed have contributed 
        appreciably to saving more than 15 million square miles of wildlife habitat 
        from being plowed for low-yield traditional farming. That's equal to the 
        total land area of the United States, Europe and South America. 
       And the development of crops that naturally resist insects allows less 
        pesticide use, while maintaining high quality and production efficiency. 
        During the first three years of its use, growers planting biotech cotton 
        reduced their use of chemical insecticides by more than 1 million gallons 
        in the United States alone. 
       Consider also that every night, 800 million people in the developing 
        world go to bed hungry. Almost 200 million pre-school children are undernourished. 
        An estimated 5 million children die annually from nutrition-related illnesses. 
        Biotechnology crops offer an important tool to help alleviate these problems 
        and help end world hunger. According to the 1997 World Bank and Consultative 
        Group on International Agricultural Research, biotechnology can help increase 
        food production in the developing world by 25 percent. 
       The advantages of agricultural biotechnology are many, and the FDA's 
        recent decision on mandatory notification and voluntary labeling allows 
        consumers to safely enjoy the advances brought by this process and have 
        the facts necessary to make informed choices. President Lincoln understood 
        the importance of protecting consumers through education and sound regulatory 
        science. The scientific community does as well. That's why we believe 
        strongly that FDA's actions are in the best interests of everyone. 
      === 
       Prakash is director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at 
        Tuskegee University. Bruhn is a consumer marketing specialist at the Center 
        for Consumer Research at UC Davis. 
       


              









Document Number: 853 

Some Tough Questions for Biotech Opponents Telegram and Gazette
        March 24, 2000
        By Dr C. S. PrakashThe Biotechnology Industry Organization convention beginning in Boston 
        today is bringing together companies, institutions and researchers who 
        seek ways to use genetics to solve medical problems and improve food production 
        on a global basis. 
      These events are of special interest to Central Massachusetts because 
        of the growing number of people and companies involved in biotechnology 
        in the region. 
      The event also is attracting the anti-technology activists who have made 
        careers out of opposing the work of these scientists. Active organizations 
        from around the world are sending their paid executives to Boston. 
      'Street Theater'Some of the same people who sprayed urine and bleach on Seattle police 
        officers will likely be among them. The antis are planning a public rally, 
        parade and "street theater" to counter the exchange of scientific ideas 
        that will go on inside the convention. 
      If you happen to see any of these people - they will be the ones dressed 
        as butterflies, Frankenstein monsters of ears of corn - here are some 
        questions you might please consider asking them: 
       Why do you people build opposition on simple laboratory studies, 
          but pay no attention to extensive field studies that disprove the laboratory 
          study?
          For example, a laboratory study showed that pollen from genetically 
          modified corn could harm Monarch butterfly larvae if the larvae ate 
          enough pollen. But actual field studies conducted last summer by about 
          20 researchers from several universities showed that Monarch larvae 
          are rarely exposed to the pollen, and when it does fall on their favorite 
          food, milkwood, it occurs at concentrations too low to cause harm. This 
          confirms the assumption the Environmental Protection Agency made in 
          approving the corn for commercial use. Why do activist organizations, which paid for expensive full-page 
          ads in The New York Times, never fund any research of your own? The 
          answer is obvious. Legitimate scientific research would produce results 
          you don't want to hear. There is much more job security in criticizing 
          the research of others.Before there was biotechnology to bash, you folks used to be opposed 
          to pesticides. Why do you now oppose a technology that can greatly reduce 
          the use of pesticides?Eliminate PesticidesImproved corn plants that resist two major pests - corn borer and corn 
        rootworm - can potentially eliminate 90 percent of the insecticides used 
        in corn production. During the first three years that insect-protected 
        cotton was on the market, as estimated 5.3 million applications of chemical 
        insecticides were eliminated. 
       The development of herbicide tolerant soybeans brought about an overall 
        reduction in herbicide usage, but activists continue to claim that pesticide 
        use has not decreased. 
       Why do you not condemn the destruction of regulated field trials?
          Field trials, conducted under government supervision, provide important 
          scientific information. More than 24,000 field trials have been conducted 
          on crops developed through biotechnology and have produced no evidence 
          for any alarm.
          Activists claim that "not enough is known" about agricultural biotechnology, 
          but they continue to destroy the research trials that could provide 
          the information they claim to want.
          Recently, for example, some Australian activists destroyed a field trial 
          that was seeking to produce pineapples with greater levels of proteins, 
          vitamins and sugars. The aim of such activists is clearly to stop the 
          technology. There should be no pretense about wanting more information.Do you people honestly believe that low-yield, high-cost, labor-intensive 
          organic agriculture can begin to feed the global population that is 
          expected to increase by at least 50 percent in the next 50 years?
          If modern agriculture had not increased yields to keep pace with global 
          population during the past 50 years, hundreds of millions of additional 
          acres would have been plowed up to produce low-yielding crops. The technologies 
          that allowed this yield increase - fertilizers, pesticides and hybrids 
          have reached a plateau, but population continues to increase.
          Can yields keep pace during the next 50 years? Biotechnology holds the 
          potential to significantly increase yields on existing lands so that 
          more land is not put into production, land currently reserved for wildlife 
          and human enjoyment. Struggle For FoodIn developing nations, especially in Africa, millions of people struggle 
        to provide food for themselves and could greatly benefit from biotechnology. 
        By simply planting a genetically improved seed, people could protect their 
        crop against loss to disease and insects.Is there no limit to your zealotry?
          The Rockefeller Foundation, working with a Swiss research institution, 
          is spending millions of dollars to research and develop a new strain 
          of rice enriched with vitamin A and iron. Such improvements to a staple 
          crop for billions of people could eliminate millions of cases of childhood 
          blindness and iron deficiency diseases among poor people.
          The profit motive, which activist groups oppose with such gusto, is 
          not a factor here. The foundation intends to make the rice seed available 
          to farmers in poor nations at no cost, but activist groups oppose this 
          project because of imagined ecological effects. This arrogance of plenty 
          is condemning millions to continued despair.Do you have one shred of evidence that biotech crops are unsafe?
          Crops produced through biotechnology are intensely regulated by three 
          agencies of the federal government. Nearly every aspect of a biotech 
          crop is compared with its traditional counterpart. Every new crop on 
          the market today has been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, 
          which will not give its blessing unless the improved variety is found 
          to be substantially equivalent to or as safe as the conventionally produced 
          variety.Federal ApprovalThe Environmental Protection Agency will not approve a crop if it poses 
        unacceptable risk to human health, wildlife or the environment. And the 
        Department of Agriculture will not approve new crops if they pose a risk 
        of becoming a plant pest or creating a plant pest in the environment. 
        The crops are tested for allergenicity and other possible effects. Since 
        1996, biotech crops have been used in foods and feeds consumed by millions 
        with absolutely no adverse effect. These people are not used to answering hard questions, but it is time 
        someone started asking them.== == ==C.S. Prakash is a professor and director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research at Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Ala. He is a participant in 
        the biotechnology conference that begins today in Boston. 


              









Document Number: 8450 
Agricultural biotechnology is based on age-old principles of selective breeding. Farmers have used these processes for centuries to provide variety, improve productivity and to produce higher quality foods. Modern biotechnology allows food producers to do the same thing today, but with greater understanding and selectivity.
Whereas farmers have traditionally bred thousands of plants over many generations to obtain a desired trait, modern biotechnology now allows us to focus on particular genes in plants, rather than the entire plant, and to simply transfer only the desired trait. This offers farmers a more precise way to produce plants and foods that possess certain beneficial characteristics.

After a decade of research and development, the first whole food produced through modern biotechnology was introduced in 1994, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that a tomato developed through biotechnology was as safe as those bred by conventional means. Other food biotechnology products available, or soon to be available, in the U.S. include:

Grains, fruits and vegetables with pesticide-resistant and environmentally friendly herbicide-tolerant characteristics;
Grains and fruit that resist viruses that cause loss of yield and crop quality;
Tomatoes that ripen more slowly, giving them more flavor, color and texture;
Grains, fruits and vegetables that contain more nutrients, such as proteins, vitamins and minerals, and have reduced fatty acid profiles;
Modified potatoes that contain less starch and water, making for a healthier french fry or potato chip; and
Peanuts with reduced levels of allergens.
Several federal agencies have been involved in determining the safety of biotechnology in food production, including the FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, the safety of biotechnology has been supported by numerous national and international health organizations, including the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization.










Document Number: 9370

What is agricultural biotechnology?

Agricultural biotechnology is a rapidly developing field of science that gives researchers ways to improve food and crops by selectively giving plants new qualities, such as higher levels of beneficial vitamins and minerals. Although based on age-old principles of selective breeding, biotechnology is a very precise method for developing plants that can help farmers provide for a more abundant, higher-quality and nutritious food supply.


How does "modern biotechnology" differ from traditional breeding?

Farmers have used selective breeding for centuries to improve taste and to produce new and more healthful foods. While traditional methods randomly transferred a wide range of genetic characteristics between plants over many generations of breeding, modern biotechnology makes it possible to develop plants with specific characteristics with greater understanding, speed and precision.


How widely is biotechnology used today?

Biotechnology has been widely accepted by farmers in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, biotech varieties planted in 2002 are expected to account for 71 percent of cotton planted, 74 percent of all soybeans and 32 percent of corn. And, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, more than 109 million acres of biotech crops were planted worldwide in 2000 - and many developing world countries, including India, China and Brazil have been rapid adopters.


What are the nutritional benefits of biotechnology?

Food biotechnology offers a number of benefits for consumers, developing countries and the environment. Foods have been produced through biotechnology that stay fresh longer, resist disease and insects, and can help foods taste better. Biotechnology can also improve the nutritional characteristics of food, providing a healthier diet to consumers and a greater availability of foods in all seasons. Many biotechnology plants help to protect the environment. Research into biotech food crops that are even more nutritious and can grow under tough conditions is especially promising for developing countries that continue to face high levels of hunger and malnutrition.


How can biotechnology protect the global environment?

Some biotech plant varieties have been developed to be herbicide-tolerant or to have built-in resistance to insect or virus damage, thus requiring fewer chemical applications. In addition, some biotech plants require less tilling, preserving precious topsoil and helping to reduce sediment run-off into rivers and streams. Other crops could allow farmers to use less land and other natural resources to grow the same amount crops. This is particularly important in developing countries where valuable temperate and tropical forests are routinely cut down for farmland.


How can biotechnology increase the world's food supply?

According to the United Nations Human Development Report 2001: “Transgenics offer the hope of crops with higher yields, pest- and drought-resistant properties and superior nutritional characteristics ­ especially for farmers in ecological zones left behind by the green revolution. In China, genetically modified rice offers 15 percent higher yields without the need for increases in other farm inputs, and modified cotton (Bt cotton) allows pesticide spraying to be reduced from 30 to 3 times.”


What biotechnology products are available on the market today?

Several crops and foods developed through biotechnology, including corn, cotton, soybeans, papaya and canola have been adopted widely throughout American agriculture. Other biotech products include sweet, nearly seedless mini-peppers; high-oleic sunflowers that produce oil that is low in trans-fatty acids; and others. Additionally, researchers are developing potatoes that contain less starch and water, making for a healthier French fry or potato chip; grains, fruits and vegetables that contain more nutrients, such as proteins, vitamins and minerals; rice and peanuts with reduced levels of allergens; and more. Researchers are also working on a strain of "golden rice" that could combat major nutritional deficiencies that lead to decreased birth rates, higher incidents of measles related deaths and other ailments in developing countries by delivering more beta-carotene and iron.


Are biotechnology foods safe? How are they regulated?

In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that foods produced through biotechnology are as safe as those developed through conventional means, and that they should therefore be required to meet the same standards of dietary and environmental safety. Biotech foods, like every other product, are strictly regulated by the FDA, Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture, as well as state governments. All biotech products undergo years of exhaustive laboratory and field testing to ensure their safety before they come to market. Authorities as diverse as the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization and National Research Council have supported the safety of biotechnology.


Are biotechnology foods labeled?

Federal law requires that biotech foods, like any other foods, carry labels if their nutritional composition has been substantially changed, or if they pose allergenic or other health risks. Because the biotech varieties that have been cleared for commercialization so far have been substantially equivalent to their traditional counterparts, the FDA has not required labels for any biotech foods currently on the market. Additionally, the FDA has provided draft guidelines for companies that wish to voluntarily label food products that do or do not contain biotech ingredients, so long as the label is not false or misleading.














Document Number: 8869


Environmental Benefits 

                  of Food Biotechnology Some biotech crops are already beginning to improve the environmental performance of agriculture, and future crops may eventually make significant global contributions to the preservation of valuable forestlands in the developing world. Following are anticipated environmental benefits from food biotechnology.Conservation of natural resources

                    Hardier disease- and pest-resistant crops can allow greater 

                    conservation of resources by requiring less fuel, labor, water 

                    and fertilizer. For example, international researchers in 

                    Georgia and Israel are exploring ways to produce cotton that 

                    can survive in semi-arid conditions, a development that could 

                    one day lead to a savings of some 12 billion gallons of water 

                    a year.Less land useNational 

                    Council on Food and Agricultural Policy, improved farm 

                    productivity could result in less impact on prairies, wetlands, 

                    forests and other fragile ecosystems that might otherwise 

                    be converted for agricultural purposes.Less pesticide use

                    Biotech crops can reduce the use of agricultural chemicals 

                    such as insecticides and fungicides. Scientists have developed 

                    strains of corn and cotton that produce their own protection 

                    against specifically targeted pests, thus reducing the amount 

                    of pesticides necessary to control them. In addition, herbicide 

                    tolerant varieties of many crops have been developed. According 

                    to a study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural 

                    Policy (NCFAP), U.S. pesticide use was 45.6 million pounds 

                    lower in 2001 than it would have been without the use of biotech 

                    crops. The use of herbicide tolerant soybeans reduced pesticide 

                    levels by 28.7 million pounds, while herbicide tolerant cotton 

                    helped cut pesticide levels by 6.2 million pounds. Another 

                    report by NCFAP notes several studies finding that growers 

                    are achieving higher yields and attaining higher profits by 

                    planting Bt varieties of crops, due to the better pest control 

                    and decreased pest control costs they provide.
                    









Document Number: 9128 

Biotechnology and the Developing WorldWorld hunger and malnutrition are global problems that are not readily or easily solved. However, the use of biotech plants and foods is increasingly seen as providing part of the solution. Agricultural biotechnology has tremendous potential as a tool for producing more and better foods on existing farmland. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, "Biotechnology &hellip; is no longer viewed as merely a desirable element but an essential one in a multiple thrust global strategy for food security."Did you know&hellip;Today, there are more than 826 million undernourished people in the developing world. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 13 percent of the world's population lacks access to adequate amounts of food.World 

                            Health Organization estimates that malnutrition 

                            causes more than half of all childhood deaths in the 

                            developing world. Each year, 10 percent of all children 

                            die from starvation. Two out of five children in the 

                            developing world experience stunted growth and one 

                            in three is underweight.According to the Worldwatch 

                            Institute, 60 percent of all newborns in India 

                            would be in intensive care if they had been born in 

                            California.Nutritionally enhanced foods

                    Biotech researchers have already developed and are field-testing 

                    rice enhanced with beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, 

                    which is important because rice is a primary diet staple in 

                    the developing world. The United 

                    Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recently stated: 

                    "The potential to create rice with an enhanced micronutrient 

                    content illustrates one way in which genetic engineering can 

                    contribute to reducing malnutrition. Vitamin A deficiency, 

                    which is widespread in the developing world, can lead to morbidity 

                    and blindness and contribute to child mortality." Similarly, 

                    researchers at the Donald 

                    Danforth Plant Science Center are developing high protein 

                    and vitamin enhanced cassava, the primary source of food calories 

                    in tropical regions of the developing world.Disease-resistant plants

                    Biotechnology is helping to make hardier strains of staple 

                    crops such as sweet potato, cassava, papaya, rice and corn 

                    and better protect them against insects and diseases. Developing 

                    countries account for nearly 98 percent of the world&rsquo;s sweet 

                    potato crop, a key source of calories, vitamins and minerals 

                    in African countries such as Kenya. In an effort to improve 

                    yields, researchers at ISAAA&rsquo;s 

                    Center are developing sweet potatoes that are 

                    resistant to the sweet potato feathery mottle virus, which 

                    can destroy between 20 to 80 percent of a sweet potato crop. 

                  Longer-lasting produce

                    Biotech foods could one day reduce losses to spoilage, especially 

                    in areas with limited transportation and refrigeration capability. 

                    According to a joint 

                    report issued by the National Academy of Sciences of the 

                    United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, China, India and other 

                    developing countries, "&hellip; it is possible that farmers in developing 

                    countries could benefit considerably from crops with delayed 

                    ripening or softening, as this may allow them much greater 

                    flexibility in distribution than they have at present. In 

                    many cases small-scale farmers suffer heavy losses due to 

                    excessive or uncontrolled ripening or softening of fruit or 

                    vegetables." Hardier cropsU.S. Department of Agriculture 

                    estimates that most of the world's available farmland is already 

                    under cultivation. At the same time, the USDA estimates suggest 

                    that nearly 70 countries in the developing world are likely 

                    to face a widening "food gap" in the next 10 years. Never 

                    has it been so important to produce more food on the same 

                    amount of land. Food biotechnology is helping to address this 

                    problem, with research on plants that can grow under tough 

                    conditions. Biotech scientists are working to improve farming 

                    in regions where food is difficult to grow by improving crops' 

                    abilities to withstand natural environmental factors, such 

                    as heat, drought, soil toxicity, salinity and flooding. Sustainable farming

                    Biotechnology is already providing farmers with the means 

                    to decrease soil erosion through farming practices that protect 

                    the environment. For example, certain biotech varieties of 

                    cotton and soybeans require less tilling, preserving precious 

                    topsoil and helping to reduce sediment run-off into rivers 

                    and streams. The impact of these benefits, suggests Dr. Florence 

                    Wambugu in her recent book, Modifying 

                    Africa
                    









Document Number: 2823 

The World is Slowly Turning to GMO 

                          The NationC.S. Prakash12/9/2003

                           Prakash writes of his dismay to learn that anti-technology groups continue to stand in the way of progress in Thailand by promoting misinformation about the safety and benefits of biotech crops. &ldquo;Scientific and regulatory authorities across Asia and all over the world have endorsed&hellip;scientific information that upholds the safety and benefits of biotech crops and foods,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The reality is that crops developed through plant biotechnology are among the most well-tested, well-characterized and well-regulated food and fiber products ever developed.&rdquo; 

                          This Food is Safe 

                          The Globe and Mail Robert Wagner12/6/2003

                           Robert Wagner of Malaspina University College argues that since food in Canada is labeled for nutritional content or known allergens, and food produced using biotechnology is extensively tested and is the same as other foods in both of these areas, there is no reason for biotech labels. &ldquo;There is not a single proven case of harm from more than two trillion meals containing GM ingredients. That is safe food.&rdquo; 

                          GM Sugar Beet 'Far More Environmentally Friendly' 

                          New ScientistAndy Coghlan12/6/2003

                           Biotech sugar beet has more environmental benefits than conventional varieties, according to a new analysis that is the first to measure the wider impact of biotech crops, including their impacts on global warming, the ozone layer and aquatic life. "Overall, herbicide-resistant GM beet was 15 to 50 per cent better for the environment, depending on what impact was being measured," says Richard Phipps of the School of Agriculture at the University of Reading in Berkshire, UK.  

                          European Agency Calls Biotech Corn Safe 

                          Associated Press Paul Geitner12/5/2003

                           Adding to pressure on European Union governments to lift their blockade on new biotech crops, the European Food Safety Authority said Thursday that Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn is as safe as conventional corn and "unlikely" to have any negative health effects. 

                          Economic Benefits of Biotech Crops 

                          Council for Biotechnology Information12/1/2003

                           "Biotechnology continues to be the most rapidly adopted technology in agricultural history due to the social and economic benefits the crops offer farmers and society, particularly the 5 million resource-poor farmers in developing countries," says Clive James, chairman and founder of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 

                          GM Goods 'Will Gain Wider Public Acceptance'  

                          Scotsman.comVic Robertson12/1/2003

                           Biotech food will eventually win out over the traditional and organic foods, explains Sean Rickard of Cranfield University in England. This growth will be driven by consumers&rsquo; desires for new food experiences and growing pressure on healthcare budgets.  

                          Biotechnology Could Help Provide Healthier Diets 

                          Council for Biotechnology Information12/1/2003

                           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," says Catherine Woteki, dean of Iowa State University's College of Agriculture. 

                          Debate Grows Over Biotech Food  

                          Washington Post Justin Gillis11/30/2003

                           When a mob of starving African villagers forced their way into a warehouse containing biotech corn, donated by the United States, but locked up by the Zambian government, a feast ensued. &ldquo;With that momentary act of defiance, the villagers of Munyama not only restocked their barren larders, they unwittingly became symbols in the long-running fight between Europe and the United States over agricultural biotechnology.&rdquo;  

                          Federal Government Invested in GM Wheat  

                          CBC News11/29/2003

                           Agriculture Canada, a department of the Canadian government, has invested nearly $2.5 million in the development of biotech wheat. Murray Fulton, an agricultural economist at the University of Saskatchewan, said the government is involved because "they feel a new technology is coming along, [which] needs to be supported because &hellip; there will be some benefits to society."  

                          Biotech Industry Targets 'Deadly' Trans Fat in Foods

 

                          USA TodayElizabeth Weise 11/28/2003

                           The effort to get trans fat, the "deadliest fat in the American diet," out of the food supply is getting a potential boost from the biotech industry, as Monsanto announces plans to produce soybeans that are trans-fat-free. For the consumer, that means the possibility of a new generation of saturated- and trans-fat-free chips, cakes, cookies and fries full of heart-healthy oils at fast-food outlets and on grocery shelves. 

                          GM Crops to Feed the World? 

                          Food Navigator.com11/27/2003

                           While the UN&rsquo;s annual hunger report warns that hunger is on the rise again, a Danish task force asserts that many organizations are falling short in their responsibility to developing countries if they fail to adopt a position with regards to biotech crops and their use in these countries.  

                          Development of Genetically Improved Pineapples is Under Way 

                          The News JournalSeam Hao11/26/2003

                           Hawaii's pineapple industry is pushing ahead with efforts to produce a pineapple able to resist the ringspot virus using biotechnology, though a commercial version might be five or six years away.  

                          My Biotech Thanksgiving 

                          AgWeb.comDean Kleckner11/26/2003

                           Just about every American is having a biotech Thanksgiving this year, considering that about 70 percent of the food in the typical grocery store owes something to biotechnology. That figure will only increase in the years ahead. &ldquo;There is no scientific evidence suggesting that [biotech foods] are anything but perfectly healthy,&rdquo; says Truth About Trade and Technology&rsquo;s Dean Kleckner. &ldquo;If I had even the slightest doubt about biotech food, I wouldn't eat it myself&hellip;And I surely wouldn't feed it to the Kleckner clan on Thanksgiving.&rdquo; 

                          Forum Serves Food for Thought 

                          The Daily BruinJoie Guner11/25/2003

                           At a symposium entitled "Foods for the Future,&rdquo; experts on biotechnology spoke on issues ranging from oral vaccines and eliminating food allergens to the regulation of biotech foods and the benefit of these products to developing countries. "The controversy with respect to genetic engineering and plants will go down as the biggest hoax of the last part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century because there are no valid reasons other than ideology that would prevent any of this stuff from going forward," said UCLA&rsquo;s Robert Goldberg. 

                          Brazil Farmers Declare Plans for Genetically Modified Soybeans  

                          ReutersReese Ewing11/19/2003

                           At least 50,400 soy producers in Brazil have registered to plant biotech soybeans in the 2003/2004 crop year, according to the Agriculture Ministry. "Here, people don't have any fear of signing up because they know they are planting a product that is not bad for health or the environment, because they can spray less agrochemicals on the crops," said the mayor of Chapada, a region where almost 98 percent of the growers intend to plant biotech soy. 

                          U.N.`s Human-rights Violations 

                          The Washington TimesHenry I. Miller and Gregory Conko 11/18/2003

                           The United Nations is supposed to be a watchdog of human rights, but it needs watching itself. With its excessive, unscientific regulation of biotechnology, the U.N. has been denying people, especially the poor, the right to feed themselves, buy from others and use their land as they wish. 

                          NU Research Shows Feeding, Grazing GM Corn Doesn't Affect Livestock Performance 

                          The IndependentRobert Pore 11/14/2003

                           New research from the University of Nebraska confirms that biotech corn has no effect on livestock performance. According to animal scientist Galen Erickson, "The bottom line for livestock producers is they can expect the same livestock performance whether they feed currently available genetically modified corn or conventional corn." 

                          India 'to approve GM potato' 

                          BBC NewsPallab Ghosh11/13/2003

                           The commercial growing of a &ldquo;protato,&rdquo; a biotech potato containing nutrients lacking in the diets of many Indians, is expected to be approved in India within six months. One of India's leading industrialists in biotechnology, Dr Balvinder Singh Khalsi, says, "We see this as a technology for the future, because the real need for India is to feed its growing population.&rdquo; 

                          MSU Research Fights Hunger 

                          The Detroit NewsJodi Upton11/11/2003

                           Michigan State University will lead an international team of researchers in a program called HarvestPlus, which will develop supernutritious staple crops for the malnourished in developing countries, including beans with extra iron and zinc, or maize with extra vitamin A. "This is a very important step in curing hunger," said Brian Halweil a senior researcher at The Worldwatch Institute. 

                          GMO: Sirchia, No Proof that they&rsquo;re Harmful 

                          AGI Online11/11/2003

                           There is no scientific evidence to suggest that biotech foods are dangerous, Italy&rsquo;s Health Minister, Girolamo Sirchia, told a Vatican conference. "We need careful decisions but it isn't acceptable to condemn these products in general because they could be an important tool in the war against famine". 

                          &lsquo;Regulatory Oversight of Agricultural Biotech Should Be Science-based&rsquo; 

                          The Financial Express11/10/2003

                           In this interview, Dr Vibha Dhawan of The Energy Research Institute&rsquo;s Centre of Bioresources and Biotechnology in India talks about the crucial role of biotechnology in accelerating agricultural productivity. He also states, &ldquo;In my opinion, federal regulatory oversight of agricultural biotechnology should be science-based. Methods to ensure the safety of foods derived from [biotech] crops should continue to be refined and improved.&rdquo; 

                          Vatican Opens Talks on Biotech Foods  

                          USA TodayNicole Winfield, The Associated Press11/10/2003

                           The Vatican has invited scientists, health experts, U.N. officials and farmers' groups to a two-day symposium on biotech foods which some Vatican officials have said could help alleviate world hunger. Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, says, "The problem of hunger involves the conscience of every man and in particular those of Christians. For this reason, the Catholic Church follows with special interest and solicitude every development in science to help the solution of a plight that afflicts such a large part of humanity."  

                          Beyond Bt Cotton: GM Maps New Crop Era for Farmers, Consumers 

                          The Financial ExpressSudhir Chowdhary11/10/2003

                           According to India&rsquo;s agricultural commissioner Dr. C.D. Mayee, agricultural biotechnology can help reduce poverty, promote rural development, strengthen trade and economic competitiveness, and encourage agricultural sustainability, even while delivering direct benefits to farmers and consumers. &ldquo;It is a good option for agriculture since it is accurate, predictable, faster, scientific and safe,&rdquo; he said. 

                          GM Foods Feed the Future 

                          Arizona State UniversityIshtiaque Masud11/10/2003

                           &ldquo;By 2050, the global population will grow nearly 40 percent to reach 8.9 billion, according to the United Nations. And all these people will need to eat. Here's the problem: Feeding them all will require the current global food output to double or even triple. [Biotech] food may just pose the best solution to this upcoming dilemma.&rdquo;  

                          Heerree&rsquo;s Biotech&hellip;and It&rsquo;s Good for You! 

                          Dean Kleckner11/6/2003

                           &ldquo;Biotech is not only helping us eat smart today &ndash; it's going to help us eat even smarter tomorrow,&rdquo; says farmer Dean Kleckner. &ldquo;Biotech food means healthier food &ndash; and we're just now scratching the surface of what's possible. Soon we're going to hear plenty about tomatoes with cancer-fighting lycopene&hellip;[and] a new variety of corn that lowers cholesterol.&rdquo; 

                          GM Opposition a Threat to Poor Nations: Whelan 

                          The Western ProducerBarry Wilson11/6/2003

                           The increasingly bitter debate over the safety of biotech crops threatens to sabotage all the benefits that biotechnology can bring to agriculture and the developing world, Canadian federal International Cooperation Minister Susan Whelan warns. In a speech in Nairobi, Kenya, on Oct. 29, she called on developing countries to become more involved in the debate, and on scientists to take seriously the critics of biotech crops. 

                          Biotech Corn Can Boost Yields to Help Meet Growing World Food Demands 

                          International Service of the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications John Dutcher11/6/2003

                           Wider global adoption of biotech corn could produce an additional 35 million metric tons of corn &ndash; more than a 5 percent increase globally. That increase could give developing countries a significant boost in meeting rising demand for corn. &ldquo;Bt corn offers a unique opportunity to provide developing countries with safer and more affordable food and feed, which can make a major contribution in alleviating the hunger and malnutrition that claim 24,000 lives a day in Asia, Africa and Latin America,&rdquo; said Clive James, chair of ISAAA. 

                          Biotechnology: A solution for ending hunger and poverty in Ghana 

                          GhanaWeb.comAlbert Wireko Osei11/4/2003

                           Ghana&rsquo;s ratification of the Catagena Protocol on Bio-safety will have significant meaning for food policy and poverty reduction in the country. The international treaty sets up a comprehensive regulatory system for ensuring the safe development, transfer, handling and use of biotech seed and foods within and across state borders. Biotech foods and agricultural products may now become valuable contributors to producing an &ldquo;affordable, accessible and available supply of food to feed Ghanaians and those beyond her borders.&rdquo;  

                          Benefits Seen in GM Onion TrialLife Sciences Network11/3/2003

                           Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc) support an application from a government-owned research company to field test biotech onions designed to tolerate a common herbicide. "By using modified onions it will be possible to control weeds with only two or three applications. This is better for the environment and for growers concerned about risks from exposure to more toxic herbicides," said Hugh Ritchie, the federation's spokesman on biotechnology. 

                          Consumers and the Future of Biotech Foods in the United States

 

                          USDA-ERS Amber WavesRobbin Shoemaker, D. Demcey Johnson and Elise Gola11/1/2003

                           Farmers in the United States have adopted biotech crop varieties because they have benefited from increases in yields and net returns as a result of reduced use of insecticides and herbicides. Farmers also realize non-financial benefits in the form of convenience and reduced management time. The next generation of biotech crops, however, will have qualities &ndash; such as enhanced nutritional value or other functional characteristics &ndash; that make them attractive to consumers and others. The success of these foods will ultimately depend on consumer attitudes toward agricultural biotechnology. 

                          GM Crops: Let&rsquo;s stick to the facts 

                          Irish ExaminerJohn Geraghty10/28/2003

                           &ldquo;GM crops, if properly researched, developed and applied, can make a significant contribution to improving food security and increase production in areas where diseases, pests and adverse soil and climatic conditions stop farmers from producing enough food for themselves, their families and the local population.&rdquo; 

                          GMA Calls EU Biotech Regs &lsquo;Arbitrary Barrier to Trade with No Basis in Science&rsquo; 

                          The Grocery Manufacturers of AmericaStephanie Childs10/21/2003

                           According to Karil Kochenderfer of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, &ldquo;The European Union has codified a new barrier to trade by requiring mandatory traceability and labeling of all biotech ingredients.&rdquo; He further explains, &ldquo;Numerous scientific organizations, including the European Commission and the French National Academy of Sciences have repeatedly stated that biotech foods are as safe, if not safer than, conventional varieties of foods.&rdquo; 

                          Why Frankenfoods Will Save the Planet

 

                          Wall Street Journal EuropeJonathan Rauch 10/21/2003

                           Growing biotech crops could harm the environment, but failing to grow them could harm the environment a great deal more. The potential environmental benefits of biotech crops are large; and, among those benefits, the preservation of wildlife and wild lands is possibly the largest of all. Biotech crops offer hope of greatly increasing productivity from existing fields and reducing pesticide use by millions of pounds, which is why a growing number of American environmentalists are beginning to see biotechnology as an important tool. 

                          Agricultural Biotechnology - Large Global Benefits Available 

                          Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) Media Release10/21/2003

                           &ldquo;Worldwide adoption of biotechnology in crop production has the potential to generate substantial gains in global welfare&rdquo;, Dr Brian Fisher, Executive Director of ABARE, said today when releasing the report, Agricultural Biotechnology: Potential for Use in Developing Countries.  

                          Security Measures Taken To Protect Biotechnology 

                          Des Moines Register Anne Fitzgerald10/21/2003

                           The upper Midwest produces millions of acres of crops, and has dozens of agricultural research operations, including many that employ biotechnology. Agricultural biotechnology endeavors generally have not been the targets of sabotage, but companies have added security in recent years. "I think it's basically a question of being vigilant," said Walter Fehr, a soybean agronomist and head of agricultural biotechnology research at Iowa State University. 

                          GM World View 

                          Nature Publishing Group10/20/2003

                           Today, four countries account for 99 percent of the world's commercially grown biotech crops. However, biotechnology continues to take root around the world as policies are thrashed out, laws drawn up and seeds sown.  

                          Value in a GM Crop 

                          The Globe and Mail10/20/2003

                           Whatever environmental changes biotech crops might cause must be weighed against the enormous potential advantages they will bring. Some biotech crops allow farmers to use less pesticide, while others resist common herbicides, thus reducing weeds. Still other crops require less fertilizer, another potential pollutant. In addition, biotech crops are generally more productive, meaning that less land has to be cultivated to produce the same amount of food. For all of these reasons, it is odd that the environmental movement has become so fixated on the threat it sees in biotech foods. 

                          A Tale of Two Seeds 

                          Tech Central StationPramit Pal Chaudhuri10/20/2003

                           India and Brazil are continents apart, yet the experience of farmers in both countries illustrates their common desire to access new technologies, improve productivity and reach new markets. Indeed, the future of agriculture biotechnology may rest on what happens in these two large agriculturally significant countries. The increasing demand for biotech seeds by farmers is forcing the hands of the governments in both countries. 

                          USDA Establishes New Biotechnology Compliance and Enforcement Unit 

                          U.S. Department of Agriculture&rsquo;s Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceJim Rogers and Jerry Redding10/17/2003

                           The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has announced the establishment of a dedicated compliance and enforcement unit within its Biotechnology Regulatory Services program. "Compliance with APHIS' biotechnology regulations has been very high over the past 15 years, but with the ever-changing science, it is imperative that the safeguards in place to protect America's agriculture continue to evolve," said APHIS Administrator Bobby Acord. 

                          Protecting Potatoes 

                          The California AggiePeter Hamilton10/15/2003

                           Researchers have discovered and cloned the gene that protects potatoes from all known strains of potato blight. A biotech potato containing the gene will be very beneficial to both the United States and the developing world. It could be only a matter of time before the resistant potatoes are commercially used, says John Helgeson of the University of Wisconsin - Madison, who notes that &ldquo;the environmental stress of thousands of tons of fungicides could be reduced or eliminated.&rdquo;  

                          Gates Funds Nutritious Crops Initiative 

                          Associated Press10/15/2003

                           HarvestPlus, a group working to provide more nutritious food to the world's poor, has received a $25 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The money will be used to fund a project on bio-fortification, as well as to conduct further research on biotech crops. "We're very convinced that this is where the breakthroughs will come in the future,&rdquo; said Joachim Voss, director general of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture. 

                          Food Safety and GM Crops: Implications for Developing-Country Research 

                          International Food Policy Research InstituteJoel I. Cohen, Hector Quemada, Robert Frederick10/10/2003

                           &ldquo;Crop biotechnology, appropriately applied, has the potential to address key production constraints affecting resource-poor farmers,&rdquo; states the report. It also stresses the importance of capacity building for biotechnology and biosafety in developing countries. 

                          International Visitors Gain Appreciation for Biotechnology at Nebraska Harvest and Industry Tour 

                          National Corn Growers Association10/10/2003

                           International visitors who participated in the Nebraska Harvest Tour got a firsthand view of biotechnology and, hopefully, a better understanding of the technology&rsquo;s importance, according to Nathan Danielson of the National Corn Growers Association. &ldquo;These other countries are concerned about biotechnology, and a lot of it is because there isn&rsquo;t good dialogue among the nations.&rdquo;  

                          Biotech Stepping Up for the Consumer

 

                          Truth About Trade & TechnologyDean Kleckner 10/10/2003

                           The next generation of biotech food will be driven almost entirely by its appeal to consumers. From foods that are made heart-healthy through biotechnology to crops that will help fight diseases, biotechnology is about to take a big step forward with the American public. &ldquo;In a few years, everybody will know they&rsquo;re consuming biotech foods. And they&rsquo;ll be glad about it,&rdquo; says Kleckner. 

                          Boosting Vitamin E in Corn and Other Crops  

                          Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of AgricultureDavid Elstein10/9/2003

                           Scientists are developing new varieties of corn and other food crops that have higher levels of vitamin E. In addition to making the crop more nutritious, boosting vitamin vitamin E levels is likely to increase the crop's shelf life. 

                          Call for Africa to Accept GM Crops 

                          United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs10/7/2003

                           Africa must seize the opportunity offered by biotech, explained Kingsley Amoako, head of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), to a conference on sustainable development in Ethiopia. A recent report issued by the ECA states, &ldquo;The biggest risk would be to do nothing and let the biotechnology revolution bypass the continent.&rdquo;  

                          Don't Believe Tales about Biotechnology 

                          Grand Forks HeraldTerry Wanzek10/5/2003

                           It appears that North Dakota will not impose a ban on biotech wheat anytime in the near future. Although opponents of biotechnology have tried twice to enact a moratorium on biotech wheat in North Dakota, they've failed both times, and their efforts are growing weaker. &ldquo;We stand at the threshold of a new era in which biotechnology will help us keep pace in a growing world. It's a wonderful opportunity that the people of North Dakota appear ready to seize,&rdquo; says former state senator Terry Wanzek. 

                          Vatican Prepares Statement as National Debates Continue: Opening Up to GM Crops

				           ZENIT, The World Seen From Rome 10/4/2003

                           The long-running debate over biotech crops is being examined by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Interest in what will be Rome's position on the subject is running high, as reports have indicated that the Vatican is opening up to the idea of approving biotech crops. Archbishop Renato Martino, the president of Justice and Peace, has said that it is imperative to find a way to bring food to those who are starving. 

                          Former U.S. President Carter Backs Biotechnology for Africa

 

                          Council for Biotechnology Information10/1/2003

                           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, Carter condemned those who portray biotechnology as a threat to safety and to the environment without offering any facts to back up such claims. "There has never been any evidence of a hazard to humans or animals," he said. 

                          Saving the World's Bananas 

                          Council for Biotechnology Information10/1/2003

                           Researchers from around the world are working to develop biotech bananas that are resistant to two of the fruit's worst enemies &ndash; black Sigatoka and Panama fungal diseases. Recognition is growing that biotechnology may be the only way to save the banana from the ever-changing pests and diseases that prey on it.  

                          Brazil to Lift Ban on Crops With Genetic Modification 

                          New York TimesTony Smith 9/25/2003

                           Brazilian farmers, the world's No. 2 producers of soybeans, got the go-ahead today to plant biotech seeds this season after the country's vice president, José Alencar, said he would lift a ban on biotech crops. "This decree essentially legalizes what was already happening, but it is important," said Amaryllis Romano, agribusiness analyst at Tendencias, a consultant in São Paulo. 

                          Genetically Modified Food Ruling Hopeful  

                          UPI Science News Gene J. Koprowski9/19/2003

                           A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice is raising U.S. hopes that some European regulators might take a more scientific approach to regulating the sale of biotech foods. The ruling asserts Europena governments cannot ban the sale of biotech foods in their domestic markets based on concerns over the quality and safety of the products that are &ldquo;purely hypothetical or founded on mere suppositions which are not yet verified.&rdquo; 

                          Cancer-Fighting Potato Under Development 

                          Expatica9/18/2003

                           Researchers at the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Research in Gatersleben, Germany have created biotech potatoes that produce a cancer-fighting vaccine. Consumption of the potatoes, which contain proteins similar to those in the outer layer of human papilloma virus (HPV), leads the body to produce antibodies and create an immunity to HPV 16, the cause of about half of all cases of cervical cancer. 

                          French Maize Farmers Seen Embracing GM, Eventually 

                          ReutersDavid Evans 9/18/2003

                           French maize farmers will be swift in adopting new biotech strains once regulatory hurdles are swept away under EU law in the pipeline, officials from the main corn seed growers' association say. &ldquo;Once it takes off, I see exponential growth in their use and it will happen quite quickly," says Gregoire Berthe, president of the association. 

                          The Battle of Valle Verde  

                          Reason OnlineRonald Bailey9/17/2003

                           Villagers in the small town of Valle Verde, Mexico are not afraid of biotech crops. Despite efforts by anti-biotech activists to frighten the villagers into declining biotech food, not a single village woman was persuaded by the scare tactics, and all readily accepted donations of the food. One woman declared, &ldquo;We just know that the food is good; we buy it all the time in the stores.&rdquo; 

                          US Farmers Hope for Rich Harvest If EU Opens To GMOs 

                          World Environment News9/11/2003

                           If the European Union opens its market to two new biotech corn varieties, American farmers will grow the crops on a massive scale, says a United States biotech analyst. Leonard Gianessi, of the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy said a positive EU decision would spur the biotechnology sector in the U.S. "We would expect to see an increase of 50-60 percent in the number of acres of biotech maize (corn) under cultivation."  

                          Uganda's Push for GM 

                          BBC NewsOrla Ryan 9/11/2003

                           President George W. Bush has said Africa is losing out by not adopting biotech crops. Now Uganda's President, Yoweri Museveni, has also made clear that he is convinced of the logic for biotech food. Steps are underway to put a law in place governing the adoption and use of biotech foods in Uganda. According to Dr. Mugoya of the National Council for Science and Technology, the real risk is that Uganda is left behind, not that they move too fast.  

                          Agricultural Biotechnology And The Developing World 

                          U.S. Department of AgricultureJ. B. Penn, Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agri9/1/2003

                           Biotechnology, according to J.B. Penn, &ldquo;in combination with political and economic reforms, can increase crop productivity by increasing yields and improving the nutritional content of crops in developing countries. It will also help provide lower-cost food to low-income consumers. Bringing such benefits to developing countries would have far-reaching results.&rdquo; Penn also says that biotechnology is simply another crop improvement tool in the long history of cultivation. 

                          Understanding Biotechnology in Agriculture 

                          U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationLester M. Crawford, Deputy Commissioner, FDA9/1/2003

                           Biotechnology provides distinct advantages over traditional breeding technologies, says Deputy U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford. Crawford also argues that there are no scientific reasons that a product should include a label indicating that it was produced using biotechnology. &ldquo;We believe that we have neither a scientific nor a legal basis to require such labeling,&rdquo; he explains. 

                          The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology in World Food Aid

 

                          Biotechnology Center at the University of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignBruce Chassy 9/1/2003

                           &ldquo;There is accumulating evidence that biotech crops can be more productive and profitable for farmers,&rdquo; says Chassy. He goes on to say that biotechnology is now being directed at improving the production and yield of African staple crops and improving the nutritional value of the African diet. &ldquo;Over the long term, agricultural biotechnology promises to play a crucial role in the improving agricultural productivity and reducing the environmental impact of agriculture, leading to agricultural sustainability and food security in many regions of the world.&rdquo; 

                          Agricultural Biotechnology Development and Policy in China  

                          AgBioForumJikun Huang and Qinfang Wang, Chinese Academy of S9/1/2003

                           Chinese policymakers consider agricultural biotechnology as a strategic tool for improving national food security, raising agricultural productivity, and creating a competitive position in international agricultural markets. According to the authors, &ldquo;The demand of producers (for productivity-enhancing technology) and consumers (for cost savings), the current&hellip;increase of research investments, and past success in developing technologies suggest that products from China's plant biotechnology industry are likely to become widespread in China in the near future.&rdquo; 

                          Trade and Development Dimensions of U.S. International Biotechnology Policy 

                          Alan Larson, Under Secretary of State for Economic9/1/2003

                           &ldquo;Biotechnology is one of the most promising new technologies of our times,&rdquo; says Larson. He goes on to say that the unjustified restrictions some countries have imposed on biotech crops &ldquo;threaten the international trading system and are preventing developing countries from exploring the enormous potential of biotechnology to improve the lives of their people.&rdquo;  

                          President Museveni Okays Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Foods 

                          All AfricaGerald Tenywa8/25/2003

                           Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, has allowed the importation of biotech foods into the country. Mugerwa said biotechnology would enhance food security, especially in the poor countries. "I am now fully mobilized to accept biotechnology," Museveni said. 

                          South African Nations Get Green Light on GM 

                          SciDev.NetInnocent Sithole8/22/2003

                           A team of African scientists set up by the 14 nations of the Southern African Development Community to investigate the effects of biotech foods has concluded that they pose no immediate risk to humans and animals. The scientists also advise the South African nations should the technology, because of its potential to increase agricultural yields. 

                          Genetically Modified Food is Not Harmful 

                          Independent Online8/22/2003

                           Biotech crops pose no danger to humans, British Nobel prize winner Timothy Hunt said at a European technology forum taking place in Austria. "If gene manipulated organisms can grow better in the developing countries, we should not deny the population there these advantages...," says Hunt. 

                          Let Science, not Scare Tactics, Push GMO Laws 

                          Grand Forks Herald8/15/2003

                           Biotech crops are a reality. They have become - and will continue to become - crucial to the development of agriculture, not only in the United States, but worldwide. As North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture Roger Johnson said: "That genie is out of the bottle." And it should be. Responsibly managed and scientifically evolved, it can be a benevolent genie. 

                          Despite Concern, Honduras Remains Open to Biotech Products  

                          AGRI-NewsDaniel J. Grant8/14/2003

                           According to German Perez D-Estephen, assistant secretary of agriculture in Honduras, the main concern right now, about biotech crops, is simply a fear of the unknown. However, Honduras currently imports all its soybeans from the U.S., a country which plants roughly three-quarters of its soybean crop in biotech varieties. D-Estephen said that Honduras will continue to accept biotech foods as long as the products continue to prove themselves. "If we see the products are working well, then we won&rsquo;t have any problem adopting them," he added.  

                          Bush, Canadians, Argentines, Complain to WTO About EU Rejecting Biotech Food 

                          Canadian Press / Associated Press8/7/2003

                           The U.S. administration has requested formation of a World Trade Organization dispute panel as the United States presses ahead with a case against the European Union over genetically modified food. "This trade barrier harms farmers and consumers around the world by denying them the benefits of productive, nutritious and environmentally friendly biotech products," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said in a statement. 

                          US Files SOS With WTO: End EU'S GM Moratorium ASAP  

                          Information Systems for Biotechnology - IBS News ReportPhillip B. C. Jones8/1/2003

                           While the latest EU efforts may end the moratorium, the new rules on labeling and traceability pose difficulties for U.S. agriculture. In fact, Bob Callanan, a spokesman for the American Soybean Association, characterized the rules as "outrageously stupid." 

                          EU's Gene-Modified Laws Approved, May Spark U.S. Case 

                          Bloomberg7/22/2003

                           European Union governments gave their final approval to standards for labeling and tracing genetically modified food throughout the bloc's 15-nation food chain, a move that may prompt a U.S. challenge at the World Trade Organization. &ldquo;They are simply replacing one trade barrier with a worse trade barrier,&rdquo; said Stephanie Childs, a spokeswoman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America. 

                          Europeans Remain Reluctant to Accept Genetically Modified Foods 

                          St. Joseph News-PressCharles Crain 7/21/2003

                           &ldquo;Some governments are blocking the import of crops grown with biotechnology, which discourages African countries from producing and exporting these crops,&rdquo; President Bush said in laying out his agenda for his visit to Africa. &ldquo;The ban of these countries is unfounded. It is unscientific. It is undermining the agricultural future of Africa.&rdquo; The president&rsquo;s faith in genetically modified foods is shared by farmers and scientists across the United States, who see a weapon against hunger and disease in genetically modified crops. 

                          Biotechnology is One Key to Feeding the World, says Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug 

                          UC Berkeley NewsKathryn Stelljes, College of Natural Resources7/11/2003

                           Biotechnology, chemical fertilizers, and policy changes will be key to feeding the world's increasing population and protecting the environment, according to Nobel Laureate Norman E. Borlaug. "We should use any new crop variety that has an advantage over what is already out there. If you wait for perfection, you'll never produce anything," he says. 

                          Zambia Launches Its First Biotech Outreach Society 

                          Biosafety News7/1/2003

                           Speaking during the launch of the Biotechnology Outreach Society of Zambia, Dr Bruce Siamasonta, an official from the Zambia Cotton Development Trust, told delegates: &ldquo;Technology will not wait for us, it is advancing. Therefore if we do not go for it now, it will come to us later, at a price.&rdquo; He said biotechnology would greatly contribute to domestic food security through improved agricultural production, improved quality of agricultural commodities and increased income earnings to farmers.  

                          How Moratorium Affects Africa 

                          A Harvest.net1/1/2003

                           In many ways, the European Union&rsquo;s moratorium on biotech food and crops translates to a negative blow for Africa. The African continent, more than any other, urgently needs agricultural biotechnology to improve food production. &ldquo;Africa cannot afford to be excluded or to miss another major global 'technological revolution' because of the &lsquo;blackmail&rsquo; of trade.&rdquo; 

                          









Document Number: 4417 
Public Opinion

					Over the past few years, news coverage of 

                    scientific breakthroughs, documentaries, governmental policy 

                    announcements, advertising and word of mouth have contributed 

                    to a better understanding of how plant biotechnology might 

                    be used to feed a growing world population, protecting the 

                    environment and improving nutrition. See Chart 1 » Opinion polls show that Americans are increasingly 

                    more aware of the benefits of plant biotechnology. The chart 

                    above indicates people feel biotechnology can benefit agriculture 

                    and enhance the food supply.Even as public awareness of plant biotechnology 

                    continues to grow, Americans are still only beginning to form 

                    solid opinions about biotechnology. However, it is becoming 

                    increasingly clear that people are receptive to information 

                    about the science of biotechnology and likely resulting benefits, 

                    and that information is helping shape positive opinion and 

                    support.Surveys demonstrate that the more people 

                    learn about biotechnology, the more apt they are to support 

                    the science. The chart to the left demonstrates this relationship 

                    and shows that of those who have heard some or a lot about 

                    biotechnology, seven out of 10 approve using biotechnology 

                    to develop better crops, and a majority support its use to 

                    develop better foods. See Chart 2 » LabelingEven as consumers grow more aware of the 

                    benefits and safety of biotechnology, survey results consistently 

                    show they would perceive government-mandated labels identifying 

                    biotech foods to be a safety warning. Surveys also show that 

                    such labels would discourage people from buying those products.See Chart 3 » Tracking polls conducted for the Alliance 

                    for Better Foods and the International 

                    Food Information Council have asked consumers what they 

                    would do if a biotech label appeared on a food or food product 

                    they usually buy. Typically, at least half of the respondents 

                    say they would no longer buy foods bearing the label. An Alliance 

                    tracking poll conducted in February 2000 showed that 57 percent 

                    of consumers would interpret the label &quot;may contain genetically 

                    modified ingredients&quot; as a warning. However, polls also show that people are 

                    not clamoring for a biotech label on foods developed through 

                    biotechnology. When an open-ended question is asked about 

                    what should be on a food label, only two percent of respondents 

                    identify biotechnology.CHART 1CHART 2CHART 3&nbsp;








Document Number: 1847 

The real success story of GM cotton and edible cotton oil in India 2002-2011
by David Tribe on 15 July 2011

A wonderful colorful and readable booklet about the success of Bt cotton in India has been made available from the ISAAA website for India.
A sample table from this booklet tells the story of the massive expansion of cotton output over the last 10 years.


Indian cotton production statistics this last decade
“Amidst the oilseed crisis, cotton is the only oilseeds crop that has shown a remarkable progress after the introduction of Bt cotton hybrids in 2002. In the last nine years, cottonseed has become an important source of oilseeds in the country. The production of cotton oil registered a three-fold increase from 0.46 million tons in 2002-03 to 1.20 million tons in 2010-11 (Table 3). ”

Summary.
In this decade, 2002 to 2011, Bt cotton has been successfully used as a multiple purpose crop in three ways: in the form of edible oil as food for human consumption; de-oiled cake as an animal feed; and kapas for fiber. The production of cotton seed, and its byproducts as oil and meal, has increased manifold from 0.46 million tons in 2002-03 to 1.20 million tons in 2010-11. As a result, Bt cotton meal (de-oiled cake) contributes one third of the country’s total demand for animal feed, whereas cotton oil contributes 13.7% of total edible oil production for human consumption in the country – a significant contribution which offsets more than half of the import bill for edible oil valued at US$6.5 billion annually. Increased production of Bt cotton oil could be one of the important strategies to substitute for edible oil imports which constitute more than 50% of the total edible oil consumption in the country. In 2009-10 India, for the first time ever, imported more edible oil, 8.80 million tons, than the 7.88 million tons it produced domestically. Due to the high nutritional content of cotton oil, Bt cotton oil is marketed after blending it with different edible oils. India is becoming increasingly dependent on expensive imports of vegetable oil, which is a valid strategic concern, and biotech Bt cotton and its second generation of stacked products, as a multipurpose crop for oil, fiber and feed, can play a critical role in Indian agriculture in the near, mid and long term future (James, 2010).

It is noteworthy that the by-products of Bt cotton, have been safely consumed as food and feed in India for nine years, without incident. Given this unblemished record, which is consistent with experience of more than 10 other countries world-wide, now maybe is the time for India to benefit from the application of the well-tested Bt technology in other crops.

Citation: Choudhary, B. and Gaur, K. (2011). Bt cotton in India: A multipurpose crop, ISAAA Biotech Information Centre, ISAAA, New Delhi, India

Update:

10 Years of Bt in India: Biotech Seeds Save Indian Market 
By K.R. Kranthi May 1, 2011 Cotton 24-7
Part II: 10 Years of Bt in India 
By K.R. Kranthi May 1, 2011 Cotton 24-7

Bt cotton now helps to avoid several million cases of pesticide poisoning in India every year
Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis
Ecological Economics Article in Press, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.008
Abstract
While substantial research on the productivity and profit effects of Bt cotton has been carried out recently, the economic evaluation of positive and negative externalities has received much less attention. Here, we focus on farmer health impacts resulting from Bt-related changes in chemical pesticide use. Previous studies have documented that Bt cotton has reduced the problem of pesticide poisoning in developing countries, but they have failed to account for unobserved heterogeneity between technology adopters and non-adopters. We use unique panel survey data from India to estimate unbiased effects and their developments over time. Bt cotton has reduced pesticide applications by 50%, with the largest reductions of 70% occurring in the most toxic types of chemicals. Results of fixed-effects Poisson models confirm that Bt has notably reduced the incidence of acute pesticide poisoning among cotton growers. These effects have become more pronounced with increasing technology adoption rates. Bt cotton now helps to avoid several million cases of pesticide poisoning in India every year, which also entails sizeable health cost savings.
Shahzad Kouser and Matin Qaim,
a Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany
Available online 13 July 2011.
Other relevant posts at GMO Pundit (see also the “Cotton” and “India” tags)
Fluffy revolution
Financial Chronicle, India Sep 23 2009

For several years before the introduction of the new variety, cotton exports from India fluctuated between few thousands bales and one lakh bales. Within three years, exports moved to 5.8 million bales, peaking at 8.5 million in 2007-08 and earning foreign exchange worth Rs 8,366 crore. Compared with the other two top producers of cotton in the world, India’s performance is even more impressive. In 2002, the United States produced 17.2 million bales and China 25.2 million bales, according to figures published by the US department of agriculture. The spurt in India’s cotton production took it to 29 million bales in 2008-09, while the US declined to 13.52 million bales, having peaked at 23.89 in 2005-06. China produced 36. 5 million. From producing around 40 per cent of what China did, India has now touched a level of almost 70 per cent. Against the US, India’s output was 61 per cent

Roundup of Indian cotton statistics

International Food Policy Research Institute study on the possible connection between Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India
We first show that there is no evidence in available data of a “resurgence” of farmer suicides in India in the last five years. Second, we find that Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. However, the context in which Bt cotton was introduced has generated disappointing results in some particular districts and seasons. Third, our analysis clearly shows that Bt cotton is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the occurrence of farmer suicides. In contrast, many other factors have likely played a prominent role.












Document Number: 7861 



 15 years, 81 projects, 400 teams and 70 million all about GMOs and GMO safety; thank you European Union taxpayers 


 by  David Tribe  on 10 December 2010 


European commission webpage describing EC-sponsored research on safety of genetically modified organisms.


In the Introduction to this European commission webpage they note:


Of particular importance in this context is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms outside contained facilities. Consequently, GMO safety research has been supported in successive Framework Programmes from 1985 to the present day. The pattern of development of this support is illustrated in the table below, which shows that over this 15-year period 81 projects have been supported. These projects have involved over 400 teams from many different disciplines and represent a combined Community financial contribution of about 70 million. Summaries of all these projects are contained in this review.


This website overall provides a comprehensive review of the results of EC-supported research into the safety of Genetically Modified Organisms.


It presents research carried out under successive EC Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development from 1985 (Biotechnology Action Programme) to 2000 (Fifth Framework Programme).


The site is navigated by the sidebar to the left which contains links to research areas which include:


Plants, Plant microbes, Biocontrol,  Food  , Bioremediation, Tools, Fish, Vaccines


and these in turn link on to numerous different sub pages which are finally annotated with lists of papers supported with funding to the tune of millions of European taxpayers euros.


For example the  Food Link  provides access to:


4-01 Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically modified food products (FAIR-CT96-1667)  4-02 Reliable, standardised, specific, quantitative detection of genetically modified food (QLK1-1999-01301)  4-03 Development of methods to identify foods produced by means of genetic engineering SMT4-CT96-2072)  4-04 New methods for the safety testing of transgenic food (SAFOTEST)  (QLK1-1999-00651)  4-05 Development of new methods for safety evaluation of transgenic food crops  (AIR3-CT94-2311)  4-06 Opportunities of transgenic food crops for the consumer and the food industry in the Community (AGRF-CT90-0039)  4-07 Safety evaluation of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified organisms to the microflora of the food chain and human gut (QLK1-1999-00527)  4-08 Stability, survival and horizontal gene transfer of genetically engineered lactic streptococci (BAP-0409/0420/0477)  4-09 Gene transfer from and survival of genetically modified lactic acid bacteria (BAP-0474)  4-10 New methodologies for assessing the potential of unintended effects in genetically modified food crops (QLK1-1999-00765)  4-11 European network safety assessment of genetically modified food crops (QLK1-1999-01182)  4-12 Safety assessment of biotechnological processes and products in the agro-food area (SABAF) (AIR3-CT94-2342)













Document Number: 7156 



 2.4 billion extra people, no more land: Era of Cheap food over? 


 by  David Tribe  on 22 January 2011 


2.4 billion extra people, no more land: how will we feed the world in 2050?  Steve Connor reveals how scientists propose a major policy shift to tackle one of the great challenges of the 21st century


The Independent, UK  Saturday, 22 January 2011


The finite resources of the Earth will be be stretched as never before in the coming 40 years because of the unprecedented challenge of feeding the world in 2050, leading scientists have concluded in a report to be published next week.


Food production will have to increase by between 70 and 100 per cent, while the area of land given over to agriculture will remain static, or even decrease as a result of land degradation and climate change. Meanwhile the global population is expected to rise from 6.8 billion at present to about 9.2 billion by mid-century.


The Government-appointed advisers are expected to warn that ;business as usual; in terms of food production is not an option if mass famine is to be avoided, and to refer to the need for a second ;green revolution;, following the one that helped to feed the extra 3 billion people who have been added to the global population over the past 50 years.


In the hard-hitting report, commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the scientists will warn that the era of cheap food is over, and that governments around the world must prepare to follow the leads of China and Brazil by investing heavily in research and the development of new agricultural techniques and practices.













Document Number: 5086 



 250 g rice from a single maize-rice hybrid plant announced by China 


 by  David Tribe  on 19 October 2010 


;  Maize rice; developed in Henan, China


SeedQuest Announcement  China  October 14, 2010


Recently, over 30 experts from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Provincial Department of Science and Technology and Department of Agriculture, and some other organizations were so glad and excited to see a new type of rice with a single plant output of 250 grams in the experiment field of Henan Fengyuan Seed Company in Xinxiang. Such plant is called maize rice by farmers because like maize, it is over two meters high and has both broad and long leaves, dense aerial roots, erect and compact ears, and big and plump seeds.


This new rice line characterized by strong resistance against lodging, pest and disease and high yield was developed by Xinxiang Distant-origin Molecular Breeding Engineering Technical Research Center jointly established by the College of Life Sciences of Henan Normal University and Henan Fengyuan Seed Company in Xinxiang. This center successfully induced DNA fragments of maize into rice through in-situ induction of germplasm cells with the technique of transferring big molecules of distant origin rather than mediators that easily produce harmful substances. Such practice enabled rich variations in rice that would help to raise resistance and yield. Maize rice is one of germplasms selected by this center through multiple field tests, which could be used to develop new rice varieties with high resistance and high yield.  Ji Shengdong, teacher of the College of Life Sciences of Henan Normal University, said that they would develop a new variety of such maize rice with a yield of over 850 kg per mu (12750 kg per ha) within 2-3 years.  More news from: China, Ministry of Agriculture  Website:  http://www.agri.gov.cn  Published: October 18, 2010  The news item on this page is copyright by the organization where it originated  Fair use notice













Document Number: 6746 



 A Biofortified Podcast? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 9 February 2010 


For the second week in a row on my radio show on WSUM in Madison, I talked about plant genetics. Not that I;m trying to bore a general audience by discussing this topic over and over again, it;s just not every fortnight that you get to go to Berkeley to grub and elbow-rub with Michael Pollan. So naturally, I invited Anastasia on to the show for a half-hour discussion about blogging about plant genetics, our weekend in the Bay Area, Dinner with Michael, and we also talked about his new book, Food Rules. If you  happened to listen to the mp3  I put up from our conversation at the Maize Genetics Conference, and you care to compare how we sound talking about genetic engineering 11 months later, I have just uploaded it to Inoculated Media, feel free to  hop on over there  to punch up the audio. The interview begins at 18:30 into the program.


One of the things that we discovered while kicking around my place of origin is that we could very easily keep talking about GE crops and related issues until our voices ran out. We covered a lot of ground and have since thought that it would be nice to share some of those thoughts in more ways than just through written paragraphs. We recorded a video conversation right after we got back to my folk;s place from Chez Panisse, which I should have edited pretty soon, for example, and then there;s also the interview for my radio show. But we would like to do more. What do y;all think about a Biofortified podcast?


Our idea is to record a conversation once a month to talk about recent issues, thoughts we;ve had, and we could also add interviews to it. For instance, the Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, Megan Westgate, has already agreed to record an audio interview with me for the blog, and we could put that in there. I have enough recording equipment at home to be able to include up to three different locations in a recorded conversation: one phone line, one skype, and a couple local microphones. So we could also rotate through other blog contributors who might like to chat over the phone, and there are ways for readers/listeners to contribute audio quotes and questions which we could try down the road.


Would you listen to it? What would you like to hear on it? Chat about recent issues not covered on the blog, or find general topics to discuss?


What should we call it?


And what kind of music just says  Biofortified  all over it?


There are three weeks left to the month, I bet we could figure this out before the first episode at the beginning of March!


[Later edited to add image awesomeness]













Document Number: 9960 



 A Bird;s Eye View: George Steinmetz;s Aerial Landscapes 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 28 July 2010 


George Steinmetz began his aerial adventures on leave from Stanford in 1979. Thirty one years later he has accumulated thousands of photographs from his flying machine. He showed us a sample here at the  Aspen Environment Forum  , sponsored by the National Geographic and the Aspen Institute.


The Waw an Namu volcano in S. Libya, A 20K peak in the Himalayas, deserts encroaching on farms in China, immigrant tomato pickers in Saudia Arabia, sand basins in the Sahara- all photographed from a motorized paraglider.


The flying man is determined and creative. He has dodged arrows, fled machine guns, survived crashes, and recovered from severe altitude sickness.


Sorry, I had to remove the photos downloaded from Google images due to copyright protection.













Document Number: 4870 



 A New Twist on Transgenes and Allergies 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 July 2009 


When you bring up GE crops to people, one of the common objections is ;Can;t these GMOs cause allergies?; Sure it is possible, as with any plant genetic modification (including breeding), which is why GE crops are tested for allergenicity according to regulations.


But now, it seems, the opposite may be true. ;Can;t we use GMOs to   eliminate  allergies?;


The  New Scientist reports  that one Japanese researcher and his team are having some success with that possibility. 20% of Japanese citizens succumb to a harsh reaction to Japanese Cedar pollen. Proteins within the pollen cause the body to react as it would to an invading pathogen, which is what defines an allergy. Treatment currently requires pollen injections, which can be dangerous.


The new rice, which  has been tested in mice  and Macaques with no side effects, helps the body learn to tolerate the presence of those allergenic proteins. How does it work?


It is genetically modified to contain the seven proteins within cedar pollen that provoke the most serious allergic reactions in people.   Once in the intestine, the proteins damp down allergic responses through so-called ;oral tolerance;. This is a process, controlled by lymph nodes, by which the immune system ;learns; not to overreact to harmless foreign material such as  food  .  To stop the proteins being digested before they can have their effect, the rice was engineered to produce them in the endoplasmic reticulum, a part of rice plant cells that passes undigested through the stomach.


Pretty amazing! Before, people were worried that a genetically engineered protein in GE crops would survive digestion and cause allergies, but it appears that in order to make this work, they had to essentially  cause  the protein to survive digestion.


(I would like to point out an error in the New Scientist ; the rice was not engineered with seven proteins. They made a ;hybrid peptide; of the seven major allergy-causing epitopes. What this means is that they took the parts of those seven proteins that the immune system recognizes ; known as epitopes ; and put them together in a single protein.)


This brings up several questions. First, how would the public react to this rice in Japan? Japan is not known for being keen on GE crops, although they have many active research projects going on in the public and private sector. Would a rice such as this that could provide direct, accessible benefits to 20% of the population positively affect resistance to the technology?


Alternately, it could raise other objections. Although rice is self-pollinated, and a pretty good system for keeping unwanted cross-pollination out, people might object to allergenic proteins put into their major staple crop. Not only would this rice need a good human safety assessment for scientific reasons, it would need it for social reasons too.


The researchers are also investigating a similar GE rice that should help people with allergies to dust mites. Any chance they could make one to help with  Ragweed  pollen allergies? It;s my nemesis.


There are many traits in GE crops that are in development, already exist and are being tested, or are only now being conceived of. Whereas the first generation of these only really helped the farmers, the next generation will undoubtedly benefit and appeal to consumers. I have  predicted before  that there will be a cultural collision between those who are ideologically opposed to GE crops, and those who are wary of them because they get no tangible, direct benefits.


But what will be the shape of this collision? Will it be a sharp division between people who may now actively seek certain GE crops and those who want to avoid them, or will it be a slow trend from opposition to acceptance?


In any case, it seems that for now, the only long-term solution to ragweed pollen is a dose of local Honey, which I also highly endorse.


Domon, E., Takagi, H., Hirose, S., Sugita, K., Kasahara, S., Ebinuma, H., &amp; Takaiwa, F. (2009). 26-Week Oral Safety Study in Macaques for Transgenic Rice Containing Major Human T-Cell Epitope Peptides from Japanese Cedar Pollen Allergens  Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57  (12), 5633-5638 DOI:  10.1021/jf900371u













Document Number: 6759 



 A sustainability gap needing to be filled by farm innovation 


 by  David Tribe  on 4 November 2010 


Global Harvest Initiative GAP report 2010


A new report has come out which explains why agricultural innovation is important for conserving resources and benefiting the global environment.  It does this by showing that we need improvements in what economists call total factor productivity of agriculture to meet the demands on the farm output that will rise considerably by the year 2050. To do this without increasing usage of inputs like water we need to increase the economic productivity of agriculture which is measured by a number called total factor productivity (TFP). The graph from the report shown here shows the gap between current improvements in agricultural productivity and the productivity needed to raise farm output by 200% in the year 2050 without increasing net farm demand on resources.


There is a gap on this graph between necessary productivity improvement and actual current improvement rate, &nbsp;which means we have to dramatically increase the productivity of global agriculture by numerous innovative approaches if we are going to avoid massive expansion of water and other farm input useage by &nbsp;over the coming decades.


A key passage from this new report, the 2010 GAP Report, follows:


An Evergreen Revolution  Simply put, the challenge is on the scale of supporting an Evergreen Revolution that is longer in duration and greener than the last. It will take innovations like those that spurred the remarkable increases in productivity in the Green Revolution of the 1970s and 1980s, which averaged a staggering 2.2 percent growth in output per year. Yet this new Evergreen Revolution must endeavor to do more with less, in terms of natural resources and other inputs.  Increasing annual TFP growth from 1.4 percent to 1.75 percent may not seem like a big challenge. However, it takes years to reap the returns of investments in the infrastructure and research required to increase productivity. Failure to begin now could well mean that the gap will not be closed by 2050.  Achieving the goal will require meaningful innovation that leads to heightened, scalable productivity in every facet of agriculture. Central challenges that must be overcome to sustainably meet the worlds demands of agriculture for food, feed, fiber, fuel, and other uses include:


Dramatically increasing the efficiency of water utilization, including the development of drought-tolerant crops.  Focusing on sustainable use of croplands.  Maximizing yields through scientific advancements in cropping and livestock systems.  Improving nutrient utilization.  Raising human labor productivity with mechanization.  Improving utilization of feedstuffs by livestock.  Improving food system infrastructure and processing to benefit agricultural products distribution and minimize waste.


While great, the challenge is achievable. There is promise. Modern, productive agriculture has many new innovations in the pipeline. However, more must be done. With the right combination of tools and incentives, as well as both public and private sector investments around the globe beginning now, agriculture will be poised to close the global productivity gap and sustainably meet the worlds needs in 2050.


(Global Harvest Initiative GAP report 2010)













Document Number: 2474 



 A Vf gene a day keeps the fungus away 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 16 November 2009 


Ever gotten apples from the farmer;s market or grocery store only to have them go bad in the back of your fridge? I know I have. Just a few weeks ago, I got about 20 apples from the  CSA  . Unfortunately, I can only eat so many per day and they started to go bad before I got to eat them. Some of them got really nasty (as you can see to the right) within just a few days despite being in the fridge.


Eating locally is great, but since apples only ripen once per year, and they spoil relatively fast, that means we only have fresh apples for a short time each year. That;s too bad, since apples are a wonderful crunchy snack loved by kids and adults that provide health benefits from their fiber and  antioxidants  .


Shipping the apples from another place (like New Zealand) extends the time that apples are available, but shipping in refrigerated containers is expensive and results in greenhouse gas emissions, and we all know that those apples from far away just don;t taste as good as local ones.


Scab Resistant Selection RS103-130. Image from &quot;Organic Production of a New Australian-bred Scab Resistant Apple in Queensland, Australia&quot; by Middleton, et. al


There might be a way to have local apples available for a much longer time, as well as to have apples shipped in that use less energy and less pesticides!


After more than 20 years of work, researchers in Australia have developed apples that are resistant to  black spot aka apple scab  , a fungus that destroys fruit and leaves. The scab resistant line, called RS103-130, also stays fresh and crunchy much longer than typical apple lines. They achieved this through some initial crosses with a crabapple species followed by years of selective breeding. The crabapple provided RS103-130 with the Vf gene complex, which has been previously used to produce transgenic scab-resistant apples, which I;ll describe in more detail shortly. You can find the Australian patent for RS103-130 at  FreePatentsOnline  .


In 2005 and 2006, comparison experiments showed RS103-130 to have many benefits over Galaxy, a typical non-resistant cultivar (see chart below). According to Middleton, et. al, RS103-130 has off white flesh and medium texture, is crisp, sweet, low-acid, and juicy, with a mild flavor.


Chart from &quot;Organic Production of a New Australian-bred Scab Resistant Apple in Queensland, Australia&quot; by Middleton, et. al.


Because of all of these benefits and the reduced pesticides needed, organic apple growers in Australia are very interested in RS103-130. I wasn;t able to find any information on whether RS103-130 has been commercialized yet, or on how long it might be before I can try them. Apparently something happened with RS103-130 lately, because stories appeared in  The Independent  and in the  New York Daily News  last week. Neither of the stories say what prompted the coverage, nor does  Treehugger  , which picked up on the 1st two. If you know what;s new with these apples, please comment!


My first question upon reading these articles was: why has it taken twenty years?! Selective breeding can be painstaking, especially when you;re talking trees. There is a faster way;


The HcrVf2 gene from a wild apple confers scab resistance to a transgenic cultivated variety  showed that the Vf gene can be inserted with biotechnology into apple varieties (in this case, the gene was inserted by  Agrobacterium tumefaciens  into the Gala apple cultivar). In the introduction of this paper from 2003, Belfanti  et. al  point out that:


the transfer of these genes by classical breeding to cultivated apples is difficult because of the long juvenile phase, self-incompatibility, and the impossibility of exactly reproducing the heterozygous state of cultivated varieties. Starting from the wild species  Malus floribunda  821 carrying the  Vf  gene, breeders have developed several scab-resistant apple cvs. (  2  ), but not one has met with commercial success. Indeed, when compared with such commercially popular cvs. as Golden Delicious and Gala, the main horticultural and fruit-quality traits of these scab-resistant cvs. are notably different and undoubtedly less acceptable.


Using biotechnology, the researchers were able to confer scab resistance in one generation. In this paper, the authors don;t mention any increase in lifespan for the fresh apples ; I;ll look on Web of Science for more info tomorrow. I do appreciate that the authors are hopeful for the future of apple biotech.


The cloning of an apple scab resistance gene represents the basis for further investigation of the resistance mechanism. It also represents a step toward a gene therapy (restoring resistance where lost) of the scab-susceptible cvs. that currently dominate the apple industry. This strategy will allow the transfer of resistance from a wild apple species to any commercial apple genotype while maintaining the horticultural and fruit-quality traits growers and consumers prize most. It may also be possible to achieve greater resistance durability by the simultaneous transfer of several resistance genes from wild apple species. Going one step further, it may be possible to use apple promoters and novel techniques that, by eliminating selective marker genes (  38  ,  39  ), generate transgenic varieties without any foreign genes and, hence, may make genetically modified plants more acceptable to growers and consumers alike.


I;m particularly interested that Balfanti et. al mentioned  cisgenics  , although they didn;t use the term. There is potential to insert genes like Vf into many varieties of apples, meaning that cultivars developed for specific microclimates may be quickly made resistant to scab (and potentially given a longer shelf life) without any loss of their other traits. This is a good example of how biotechnology and breeding can have the same results ; get a gene into a cultivar ; although one takes much longer than the other.













Document Number: 3913 



 Academics Review meets Genetic Roulette 


 by  David Tribe  on 27 March 2010 


As I;ve mentioned before, I;m an Australian. But us Ozzies get to meet a lot of Americans.


American author of  Seeds of Deception  and public speaker Jeffrey Smith;s of Fairfield Iowa, first came to the attention of Australians when he was rolled out by the anti-GM activists to try and prevent Australian farmers being given the freedom of choice on crop technology in late 2007. Fortunately this effort by the anti-technology lobby groups was unsuccessful.


At most meetings organized by these activists that I have attended since that time ; and there have been quite a few ; stacks of his more recent book   Genetic Roulette  book were available for purchase, and I snapped up one early on.


A brief perusal of the articles revealed the book was highly biased. Nowhere in the book was there a mention of any of the major good outcomes from GM technologysuch as decreased risk of cancer from mycotoxins in moldy corm (see  this link for Chassy and Tribe;s efforts on this important topic at   Academics Review  ). On the topics that I was most familiar such  as antibiotic resistance in bacteria,   Genetic Roulette  was deeply misleading and factually wrong.


I decided late 2007 to investigate its claims thoroughly, little knowing how huge the task would be because as it turned out every one of the 65 claims in it ; better called myths; was distorted, misleading, plain wrong, or based on misrepresentation or misreading of the sources it quoted.


An early step in providing  an antidote for this misadventure appeared in an Australian rural newspaper, which I happily reproduced on my website in November 2007  . But that fine article only tackles a sampling of the 65 Smith myths. Other aspects of  Jeffrey M Smith;s effort were tackled in other GMO Pundit posts  .


Fortunately I was able to team up with Prof Bruce Chassy with University of Illinois and together work through a careful dissection of the book;s claims. We sent our efforts to many experts in particular areas to make sure we got as much rigorous peer review as possible. In some topics, Jeffrey Smiths claims are based on such flimsy evidence that it was difficult to find experts to take them seriously enough to provide expert review  they were just dismissed as a waste of reviewers time.


The results of our efforts are now published on a special website called   Academics Review  which we hope will become a forum for a series of other critical reviews where peer-reviewed scientific evidence is brought to shine a light on the wide range of topics that are important for public health or for environmental management, or on any area where modern science can help us make better decisions.


Why write about 65 flimsy myths?


Several people have asked me why I tackled such a time-consuming task. Now that we have the site finished, we can see the effectiveness and wide reach of internet publication. We can enjoy the splendid esthetic attractiveness of academicsreview.org (for which Bruce and I were mere by-standers while real graphic artists and programmers pitched in). And we are continuing to discover new bad outcomes fuelled by Jeffrey Smith;s misinformation ; for example the  recent disgraceful hold-up of insect protected eggplant (Bt-Brinjal) in India  (see for example  Seetharam 2010  ,  Tribe 2009  ). Taking all this in, Bruce Chassy, myself, and our many valued collaborators and reviewers are very pleased (and relieved) to find it was time and effort well spent.


We are now taking pleasure in encouraging other scientists to join us as members on an internet platform designed to put scientific knowledge and expertise to the service of the broad community.


Go to   Academics Review  and check it out!


http://academicsreview.org/


References:


Sridevi Seetharam (2010).  Should the Bt Brinjal controversy concern healthcare professionals and bioethicists? I  ndian J Med Ethics.2010 Jan-Mar;7(1)


David Tribe (2009). Blog posting Jan 30 2009. GMO Pundit blog.  Agbiotech Hoax Watch 2009 #4. Genetics ;expert Prof ; Smith advises developing country about food policy.













Document Number: 7446 



 ACLU and gene patents 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 15 May 2009 


Although this is not related to plants, this certainly has implications for plant genetics. I have just received notice that th ACLU has filed a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, the company that owns the patents on the BCRA1 and BCRA2 breast and ovarian cancer genes in humans.


According to  this press release  , the ACLU charges ;that the patenting of two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer will inhibit medical research. The organization also claims that the patents are invalid and unconstitutional.;


It continues:


;This is going to turn into one of the watershed events in the evolution of the bioindustry,; says John Sterling, Editor in Chief of GEN. ;The pros and cons of patenting genes have been an ongoing, and often acrimonious series of debates, since the in re Chakrabarty decision in 1980. But this particular case seems to have taken on a life of its own with over fifteen plaintiffs. For while the lawsuit specifically centers on the patentability of two cancer-related genes, the ACLU says it plans to challenge the entire concept of patenting genes. What we have here is one group, the ACLU and its allies, contending that gene patents stifle life science research and potentially harm the health of thousands of patients. On the other side are biotech companies who maintain that without gene patents research incentives are seriously diminished and innovation is smothered.;   Kenneth I. Berns, M.D., Ph.D., Editor in Chief of the peer reviewed journal,  Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers  (  http://www.liebertpub.com/gtmb  ), which is the official journal of the Genetic Alliance, says the ;patenting of human genes is a bad idea and that healthcare in the U.S. would be enhanced if the ACLU suit prevails.; Dr. Berns is also Director of the University of Florida Genetics Institute in Gainesville.   William Warren, partner at the Sutherland law firm, thinks the ACLU, in this case, is barking up the wrong tree. ;The ACLU unexpectedly based its invalidity challenge on claims to unpatentable subject matter,; he says. ;The ACLU might have instead considered challenging the Myriad patents for obviousness.; Warren and Sutherland colleague, Lei Fang, Ph.D., M.D., have authored a legal article, which will be published in the June 1 issue of GEN entitled ;Patentability of Genetic Sequences Limited.; It is now available online. (  http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=54504126&amp;source=genwire  )


Genetic Engineering &amp; Biotechnology News also has  an article about the lawsuit  .


I;m interested to see what the legal arguments will entail, so I;ll try to follow this as it develops.


Here;s a bit of background into the issue at hand. When you make a genetic discovery, such as figuring out the gene (or allele) that causes X, whether it be a predisposition to breast cancer, added sweetness in sweet corn, etc. Under U.S. Patent law you are allowed to patent that genetic sequence, which gives you certain rights as I understand it.


For a period of time, you are allowed a monopoly on profiting from the specific information of that discovery. In the case of Myriad Genetics, they get to charge people if they want to conduct research on the patented versions of the gene, do a diagnostic test based on that sequence, etc. The idea behind this is that it gives people a financial incentive to not only make these discoveries but also to publish them. Without such a financial incentive, it might be much longer before either public institutions discover it and publish, or companies will keep this information secret in order to protect their investment. Without patents, Myriad may still be charging for a ;breast cancer predisposition; screen test ; without telling anybody what the gene is.


On the other hand, as a monopoly, it restricts the ability for people to find out such information about themselves, and restrict the ability of public researchers (and other companies) to conduct research on these genes. They would have to arrange a licensing agreement with the patent holder in order to do so. In the case of a crop gene, it might be annoying from the perspective of a breeder that wanted to use a molecular marker to ;precision breed; this gene into their crops. But when it comes to public researchers studying diseases like breast cancer, patent restrictions can go from beyond annoying to potentially dangerous.


Now to address a common myth about patents in the life sciences. Some people believe that the patents on BCRA1 and BCRA2, and other patents of this type, mean that the patent holders ;own; the genes, and even the organisms that contain them. This is not true. As I understand it (and I;m not a patent law expert!) they own the use of the information about that gene, for example, the specific sequence of the mutant breast-cancer gene. They do not own any part of men or women who possess this gene!


In plants, if one were to patent a gene that gives a desirable trait, then you would own the ability for a breeder to use the sequence of that gene to screen their different plant lines for that gene directly. This is known as a  molecular marker  , which is a tool for more accurate breeding. If, however, there was a way to screen for the gene that was based upon phenotype, such as a wrinkly seed in a test cross, the patent would have no effect on that.


In fact, there would be absolutely no restriction on such a patented gene being bred into whatever cultivars anyone so chooses. The gene existed before its discovery, and so the patent cannot touch that. You cannot take some native landrace, find a few genes in it, and claim that you own the plant ; as is often implied about such patents.


This is distinct from the kind of patent that comes into play with transgenic crops, where a gene is assembled from various components and inserted into the genome of a plant. In this case because the gene itself is owned, people or organizations that generated this new gene own your ability to use the gene  and  breed it into other crops.


Because these two kinds of patents are different, I don;t think the ACLU lawsuit will affect GE crops, however, if they are successful, it may affect other patents related to plant genetics. Patents are a human construct, not a biological one, and when you apply human concepts to biological realities there may always be conflicts. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.













Document Number: 7198 



 Africa at Crossroads 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 18 December 2009 


This was a pleasant surprise in my news feed. Israel Deladem Agorsor, in the department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology at the University of Cape Coast in Ghana just published a column on GE crops and the future of African Agriculture.  The debates on Genetically modified organisms at crossroads: Which way for Africa?  Africa is busy trying to catch up to the developed world in order to feed itself on into the future, and genetic engineering is a contentious topic over there. Perhaps nowhere else in the world is it as touchy of an issue, for a variety of reasons that Agorsor details. Is Africa embracing biotechnology an inevitability, welcome or not? Will it help with adaptations to climate change?


Here is a good excerpt:


Now, here we are at the crossroads with what looks like a monkey business, confronted with a choice as to whether to go east or west, as to whether to embrace or ignore plant genetic engineering and GMOs.  If you ask me what we should do, I may not be able to tell you. But what I can tell you for a fact is that in the midst of the raging debates on the safety or otherwise of genetically modified organisms, top scientists across many of the world;s developed countries are virtually locked up in sophisticated laboratories doing their own thing as though they are being motivated by some Mo Ibrahim Prize! Are you aware the Mo Ibrahim Prize is the most rewarding prize money our world has known in living memory, more rewarding than even the world-famous Nobel Prizes which crown the years of efforts of outstanding scholars who make a significant breakthrough in their areas of research?  So the developed world research scientists are vigorously pursuing research in plant molecular biology. They are genetically engineering some staple crops, giving rise to genetically modified foods with desirable traits.  But are these research scientists not aware of the raging controversies? Why are they so bent on sowing the seeds of self-destruction? Or are they simply finding answers to the heavy questions often posed by the opponents of genetic engineering?


Read the rest here  .


I would like to take this moment to say that not all ag scientists are ;locked up; in their ivory-tower labs and field research stations, in fact, a lot of them would like to reach out and help in any way they can. Reaching out and finding answers to heavy questions is what this blog is about!













Document Number: 2091 



 African GM cowpea potentially huge boost for local farmers 


 by  David Tribe  on 4 October 2010 


Scientists claim GM cowpea could generate US$1 billion  Busani Bafana, SciDEv net  1 October 2010


The cowpea is emerging as an important food crop


[SALY, SENEGAL] A pest-resistant version of the black-eyed pea, a subspecies of the cowpea, is on track for commercial introduction, promising higher yields and claimed savings of up to US$1 billion on a crop that has found new popularity among African smallholders.


The cowpea, actually a bean, is rich in protein and is an important crop for both tackling malnutrition and adapting to climate change as it tolerates hot, dry conditions.


But infestation by the  Maruca vitrata  pod borer has cut the value of crops by up to US$300 million for smallholders in Africa, who produce nearly 5.2 million tonnes of the bean. The continent currently accounts for about 70 per cent of global production.


Now, scientists at the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria, in collaboration with other institutes including the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, Kenya, have engineered an insect-resistant Bt (  Bacillus thuringiensis  ) cowpea that they say could be on shelves in six years. more at link













Document Number: 5017 



 Agchat Twitter Twoubles 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 21 October 2010 


There is a weekly meeting of Twitter denizens where they discuss questions about agriculture called  Agchat  . Run by  Michele Payn-Knoper  , it meets every Tuesday evening from 8-10 pm Eastern, and all someone has to do to participate is get an account on Twitter, put #agchat in your 140-character posts, and follow the conversation by searching for #agchat. I haven;t participated in one of these before, although I have heard of it and seen other people participating while surveying the tweetscape. So when Agchat approached me to be a special guest to talk about Food Insecurity and Hunger I thought, sure, but this means I;ll have to sign up for twitter! For those of you who know me, I;m not tempted to use a social networking service that tells me that I cannot use grammatically correct sentences and say exactly what I mean. We do have a blog twitter feed, but Frank manages that one pretty well on his own. Well, if genetically engineered ear of corn can do it, why can;t I give it a whirl?


A week before the October 12th agchat was scheduled to begin, I signed up for twitter as  @kjhvm  , tested out some tweets, and caught the end of the previous agchat to get a feel for it. Later, I wrote a blog post on the topic of Food Insecurity and Hunger for the Agchat site. I started by thinking how would I define and approach this subject, given my training, background, and interests (and in only a few paragraphs)? The result was  Breeding Food Security  , take a look! Soon enough, it was 7 pm on the 12th in my time zone, and time for the agchat to begin. After people networked, I was asked to introduce myself and so I did. A few minutes later I realized that my tweets were not showing up in the chat. Twitter, I gather, is prone to getting bogged down so I thought it would clear up. It didn;t. I thought that maybe the problem was with Tweetdeck, so I went straight to twitter.com and logged in to try it out. Again it failed. I was completely unable to participate in agchat. Possible reasons included it being a new account not yet included in searches or that someone reported this brand new account as spam. The first seems unlikely as I already successfully participated in a chat. But the second?


Disappointed, I had to relinquish my special guest status to instead be an observer.


Frank, on the other hand, joined in and stole the show. He talked about the  ups  and  downs  of trade liberalization,  governments funding ag research  for their own countries, and  posted links  to youtube videos from Willy Wonka. I too want to know what  schnozberries  taste like! The entire evenings chat festivities are available in the  agchat archives  , for each of the 10 + 1 questions:


How can US farmers thru USDA Africa offices be more involved in bringing tech &amp; experience to Africas farmers?   What role do biotechnology products play in solving hunger issues?   How can farmers use social media to raise awareness about global hunger?   What role do smallholder farmers have to play in improving food insecurity?   Could trade liberalization effect food insecurity in 3rd world countries? If so, what would be the outcomes?   What policy changes can governments enact to improve food security?   What role will fertilizer source, e.g manure, urea &amp; nitrates play in intensification of ag to feed others?   If you could wave a wand and make a new biotech trait in a plant, what would it be? Who would it help?   What can be done on a local level to help with food insecurity?   Hunger has always been around. What are we doing different to really change &amp; what should we be doing differently?   Work Food Day is 10/16. What is the one executable idea you will take from this convo to make a difference &amp; celebrate that?


Not an unproductive evening, despite my own technological troubles. Still it makes me feel like retreating into my anti-twitter ludditism and yearn for the good ole; days of internet forums and blog posts. With the frequency that twitter  bogs down  , I wonder about the utility of this particular system for communicating? I don;t know how Frank does it.


Forget about my outlier experience. If you are a ;tweep;* and like talking about ag, plop yourself in front of your favorite twitter application and take a ride on the next agchat train.**


* I vigorously defend my use of scare quotes for this word. Why does everything related to twitter got to start with  tw  ?  ** Or should it be ;twain;?


For posterity, here is my agchat post.


Breeding Food Security


This week, the World Food Prize organization is holding its annual Borlaug Dialogue, complete with lectures, prizes, and above all, thoughtful discussion on how to improve food security for people in developing countries. There are many ways that this can be done, through old and new genetic techniques, to improvements in farming practices and soil management, to food storage, distribution, and infrastructure  not to mention social practices and attitudes about food. But as an aspiring plant geneticist, when I think of food security I think first about improving the plants that we grow.


Being a plant breeder is not as easy as it might seem. Each crop species has its own history contained in the genetic code of the seeds that exist today, some more than others. Useful versions of the many thousands of genes that there are in crops are continually being discovered, and plant breeders draw on this variation to cross and select plants that have the right combinations of traits.


What is the right combination  the perfect plant on a genetic level? To answer that question we must consider the environment that they grow in  the intersection of climate, weather, soils, and resources that we call the farm. A variety perfectly suited to a rich soil in a moist climate may not even produce anything in a dry, sandy location, whereas a plant adapted to survive in such arid lands will be woefully inadequate where conditions are ideal. And year to year, weather patterns change, making the task of a breeder even more difficult  and more important.


You cannot talk about things such as food distribution if you do not have the food to distribute. We have witnessed in recent years that droughts and severe weather conditions are enough to cause shortages in some of the more secure of nations. Even the threat of a shortage is enough to close a trade barrier and endanger food supplies elsewhere. As our climate continues to change and these  uncommon events that put crops at risk become more frequent  , we need to gird ourselves (and our plants) against such possibilities.


Breeders are hard at work trying to bring together genes that will strengthen crops against these conditions, but I worry if it will be enough? I think we will need to draw on genes from outside the gene pool of individual species to bring together traits that are sorely needed. Genetic engineering is one tool among many that can help make food security possible. We will also need improvements in growing practices, which will go hand in hand with genetic improvements.


Drought tolerance is one important trait, but nutritionally improved staples such as  golden rice  ,  super cassava  , and even conventionally bred  high-protein maize  are another important step. The ever-present biological threats of insect pests, disease, and parasitic weeds in Africa, demand attention as well. If a region, nation, or planet can first grow crops that will guarantee that enough nourishing food will be always be available for a growing population, then we can have the stable political environment that will make it possible for us to figure out how to get it into everyones hands.













Document Number: 3470 



 All you wanted to know about induced mutations in crop breeding 


 by  David Tribe  on 22 July 2010 


SeedQuest ; Central information website for the global seed industry      FAO publication: Induced Plant Mutations in the Genomics Era      Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)  Rome, 2009    Preface   The year 2008 marks the 80th anniversary of mutation induction in plants. The application of mutation techniques, i.e. Gamma-rays and other physical and chemical mutagens, has generated a vast amount of genetic variability and has played a significant role in plant breeding and genetic studies. The widespread use of induced mutants in plant breeding programmes throughout the world has led to the official release of more than 2,700 plant mutant varieties. A large number of these varieties (including cereals, pulses, oil, root and tuber crops, and ornamentals) have been released in developing countries, resulting in enormous positive economic impacts.   During the last decade, with the unfolding of new biological fields such as genomics and functional genomics, bioinformatics, and the development of new technologies based on these sciences, there has been an increased interest in induced mutations within the scientific community. Induced mutations are now widely used for developing improved crop varieties and for the discovery of genes, controlling important traits and understanding the functions and mechanisms of actions of these genes. Progress is also being made in deciphering the biological nature of DNA damage, repair and mutagenesis. To this end, the International Symposium on Induced Mutations in Plants was organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations through the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture.


The Symposium comprised an open session, two plenary sessions and ten concurrent sessions, covering topics from induced mutations in food and agriculture, plant mutagenesis, genetic diversity, biofortification, abiotic stress tolerance and adaptation to climate changes, crop quality and nutrition, seed and vegetatively propagated plants, gene discovery and functional genomics. A workshop on low phytate rice breeding was also organized. About 500 participants from 82 Member States of the IAEA and FAO, and nine international organizations/institutions attended the Symposium, with a good balance between the private and public sector, as well as developing and developed Member States. The Symposium received valuable assistance from the cooperating organizations and generous support from the private sector, for which the sponsoring organizations are most grateful.


This publication is a compilation of peer-reviewed full papers contributed by participants. They were either oral or poster presentations given in different sessions except Concurrent Session 3 (which will be compiled by the Human Health Division in a separate publication). These papers not only provide valuable information on the recent development in various fields related to induced mutations, but also on the social and economic impact of mutant varieties worldwide. Therefore, these Proceedings should be an excellent reference book for researchers, students and policy makers for understanding applications of induced mutations in crop improvement and biological research.


Qu Liang  Director  Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture  IAEA    Download the full version  (6,302 Kb)   Contents    Preface  Table of Contents  Opening Remarks  Opening Remarks  Summary of the FAO/IAEA International Symposium on Induced Mutations in Plants  Closing Statement  A Summary of the International Symposium on Induced Mutations in Plants   (    Download ; 544Kb   )    Opening Session  (    Download ; 181Kb   )    Plenary Session 1  (    Download ; 511Kb   )    Induced Mutations In Food and Agriculture    Concurrent Session 1  (    Download ; 579Kb   )    Mutation Enhancement of Genetic Diversity and Crop Domestication    Concurrent Session 2  (    Download ; 365Kb   )    DNA Damage, Repair and Genome Stability    Concurrent Session 4  (    Download ; 452Kb   )    Induced Mutations for Traits that Affect Abiotic Stress Tolerance and Adaptation to Climate Change    Concurrent Session 5  (    Download ; 773Kb   )    Induced Mutations for Enhancing Crop Quality and Nutrition    Concurrent Session 6  (    Download ; 462Kb   )    New Techniques and Systems for Mutation Induction    Concurrent Session 7  (    Download ; 252Kb   )   High Throughput Techniques for Mutation Screening    Concurrent Session 8  (    Download ; 945Kb   )    Mutation Induction and Breeding of Ornamental and Vegetatively Propagated Plants    Concurrent Session 9  (    Download ; 178Kb   )    Induced Mutations in Seed Crop Breeding (1)    Concurrent Session 10  (    Download ; 1,015Kb   )    Induced Mutations in Seed Crop Breeding (2)    Plenary Session 2  (    Download ; 1,172Kb   )    Induced Mutations in the Genomics Era: New Opportunities and Challenges


More news from  :  FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)


Website  :  http://www.fao.org    Published  : July 21, 2010













Document Number: 1017 



 Amartya Sen;s entitlement thesis muddied by history of China;s great famine: Food for Arms 


 by  David Tribe  on 7 October 2010 


Cover of Frank&nbsp;Diktter;s book   Systematic genocide&nbsp;


25 September 2010


Jasper Becker;s review at  The Spectator


This book sheds light on many other aspects of the famine but its great importance is to remind us of why we need to revise our understanding of 20th-century history. If you add up the death tolls from the famines caused by communist leaders in China, the Soviet Union (Lenin and Stalin oversaw three mass famines), Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, you reach a figure of close to 90 million.You might think all this would merit serious study, but it has taken 50 years for a professional scholar like Diktter to examine the Chinese famine in a major book.  Take Professor Amartya Sen, awarded a Nobel Prize for his work on famines and development. He chose to study the Bengal famine in 1943, when under British rule up to 3 million died, and the Ethiopian and Sahel famines in the 1960s and 1970s. He then developed the theory that famine is a widespread failure of entitlements. In other words, famine and poverty are not about governments forcibly seizing peasants grain and closing down markets but failing to intervene enough and provide them with their entitlements.


He later published, together with other scholars, a three-volume work,  The Political Economy of Famine  , which somehow finds no space to examine Maos famines or indeed any of those under other communist governments. Yet in the 1980s, we already knew that over 20 million had died in the Leap and Robert Conquest had published  Harvest of Sorrow  , the harrowing account of the Soviet famines.


In review of  MAOS GREAT FAMINE: THE HISTORY OF CHINAS MOST DEVASTATING CATASTROPHE,  1958-1962


Frank Diktter  Bloomsbury, 448pp, 25













Document Number: 3567 



 American-Australian breeding companies collaborate on wheat biotechnology 


 by  David Tribe  on 26 August 2010 


26 August 2010  INTERGRAIN AND MONSANTO ANNOUNCE NEW WHEAT BREEDING COLLABORATION  Press Release  Monsanto and Intergrain


Monsanto to share technology, germplasm with Australian breeding leader; makes equity investment


InterGrain Pty Ltd and Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) today announced a technology collaboration agreement expected to lead to significant new advances in wheat technology for Australian growers. In connection with the collaboration, Monsanto has acquired a 19.9 % minority interest in InterGrain, a leading cereal breeder in Australia. The WA State Government remains the majority shareholder, with the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) remaining a shareholder as well. Monsanto and InterGrain will exchange certain wheat germplasm for breeding, with InterGrain gaining access to breeding technology tools and services for genotyping and marker development. This is expected to deliver increased genetic gain which will ultimately provide Australian wheat farmers with the ability to achieve higher yields.


This is a very exciting development for Australian wheat farmers, with the partnering of Australias leading wheat breeder and germplasm developer and the worlds no. 1 technology provider, InterGrain Chairman Dale Baker said. InterGrain has been actively seeking a partner to grow our wheat breeding program for some time, and is very pleased to reach this agreement with Monsanto, the worlds leader in this regard. It will open the doors to a vast new library of germplasm and powerful technology capacity which Australian wheat growers have not previously had access to, which we expect will translate to more rapid improvements in wheat yields and performance.  Baker said the collaboration would potentially allow advances in areas such as yield performance, disease resistance and drought tolerance, as well as improved end use qualities. InterGrain is a leading Australian crop breeding company with highly successful wheat and barley breeding programs which target the major cereal growing areas of Australia. InterGrain Pty Ltd was established in 2007 by the State Government of Western Australia and the GRDC.  This collaboration, and the associated funding and access to advanced breeding tools it brings, will support the acceleration of genetic gain for wheat, which is a promising development for wheat growers around the world  especially those in Australia, said Robb Fraley, Monsantos Chief Technology Officer. InterGrain has an excellent team of breeders, and with the breeding and technology expertise Monsanto brings to this collaboration, together we expect to deliver significant benefits to Australian wheat growers.  Australia is a major wheat producing country and exporter. Wheat is its most important crop domestically, and significant public and private research and development is occurring in wheat breeding and biotechnology.  Monsanto has a strong history of investment in technology collaborations, and as we look for opportunities to enhance our wheat business, this is a natural fit for us, Fraley said. We are committed to developing advances in breeding and biotechnology to deliver improved wheat yield and productivity and are pleased to be partnering with a market leader which has demonstrated both its expertise and commitment to enhancing the productivity of the Australian grains industry.  Longer term, the collaboration also will provide InterGrain with access to biotechnology traits currently being developed for wheat, which Monsanto would expect to introduce in the next decade, pending appropriate regulatory approvals. Monsanto is working on developing important traits for wheat farmers around the globe including drought tolerance and yield improvement. Monsantos recent work in wheat began in 2009 with the acquisition of the WestBred U.S. wheatbreeding business and the companys near term focus is on launching better varieties of wheat through its conventional and markerassisted breeding investments.  Through its technologies, Monsanto sees an opportunity to bolster the sustainability of wheat cultivation by helping wheat farmers improve yields while reducing the use of input resources, such as water, land and energy. Monsanto earlier this year announced the expansion of its yield and stress collaboration with BASF to include wheat.  ENDS  For more information, contact:  InterGrain  Bryan Whan  Chief Executive Officer  +61 08 9368 3300  Monsanto U.S. Media Contact  Kelli Powers  Public Affairs  +1 314 694 4003  Monsanto Australia Media Contact  Keryn McLean  Corporate Affairs  +613 9522 7165













Document Number: 7741 



 An Inoculated Introduction 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 1 November 2008 


Greetings. My name is Karl Haro von Mogel. A few years ago, while I was studying genetics as an undergrad at UC Davis, I took an introductory plant biology course that opened up my eyes. Professor Robert Thornton, now retired, got me to think about plant biology like no other subject before. Although my first lab experience was as an intern in a mouse genetics lab studying endocrine disruptors, I was hooked on plants. Within a couple short years, I was adding whatever plant biology courses I could to my schedule, and took a paying job in a plant lab studying legumes and symbiosis.


Meanwhile, I got into food. Well, I;ve known how to bake and cook a few things since I was very young, but on my own living in an apartment I was figuring out how to make different kinds of food, across different cultures. I also had a gardening itch, and started supplementing my diet with vegetables that I tended at an organic community garden on campus. Before long, I was thinking about the biological basis for the wonderful flavors I was tasting, and the nutritional value of produce. I thought, could I make any of these plants better?


On the other side of campus, I dug into a different kind of soil. The muck of a political columnist that made outrageously false claims about climate science galvanized my desire to try to write a science column for the school paper, The California Aggie. I called it The Inoculated Mind, and I wrote it for three years before handing it off to another science writer so I could start something else. I loved picking topics every week to write at length about, and explore not only the history and current status of science, but also the social, philosophical, and political aspects as well. A love for writing (that I never knew I would have) and expressing my opinions (this was never a secret to my family) on controversial subjects had me also hooked.


While I was writing for The Aggie, I started doing a weekly science radio show on a local community station. Later, I replaced writing for the newspaper with writing a blog, keeping the naame, The Inoculated Mind. Soon enough, I turned my radio show into a podcast, which I call the Mindcast. It is available in iTunes, and at my site  here  .


Pulled in two separate directions, my interest in plant genetics and the genetic basis of flavor and nutrition in crops, and my desire to communicate and editorialize about science in the press, were pulling me in opposite directions, so it seemed. Scientist, or Journalist? How about Journalist Scientist? I;ll do both. Many people expressed doubt that plant genetics and journalism could ever go together. I;ll explain how they;re a perfect match for me below.


I worked in another plant genetics lab, screening tomato DNA for mutations in specific genes, and when I was finished with that and my then-girlfriend, now spouse Ariela finished her degree at Davis, I applied for graduate school in plant genetics. I wanted to enroll in a good plant genetics program at a school with a strong journalism program as well. My first pick was the University of Wisconsin, Madison, which was top in plant breeding, and had a great journalism program, as well as a similar program called Life Sciences Communication. When I was visiting schools to check out their programs, I met a professor at Madison named Dr. Shawn Kaeppler, who had a project that fit me perfectly.


He received a grant to fund a research project on a gene in sweet corn called Sugary Enhancer. It makes already sugary corn even sweeter, but we don;t know where it is or how it works. On seed packages at your local nursery, it has this gene (or the recessive allele of this gene, technically) if it says ;Sugar Enhanced.; At the same time, funded by the same grant, Shawn had an educational video project he wanted to start up to promote plant breeding to prospective students and the general public.


So that;s where I find myself today. Working through the five or more long years of graduate student level coursework to get my Ph.D., conducting research on the Sugary Enhancer gene, doing a minor in Life Sciences Communication, and on top of it all, a two-year video project. I;m already working on ideas about what I;ll do when that is complete.


I;m the one in the hat - not the best picture of me at work on my vids!


Maybe I might do something about biofuels, perhaps genetic engineering. But I plan to continue this combinatorial approach to life: doing science, and communicating science at the same time. There;s a lot that can be gained by having people who are knowledgeable about a particular topic who can also communicate the issues surrounding that topic to people who don;t have specialist training in those fields. And lately, there has been a widening public knowledge gap and a deepening controversy over one such topic, Genetic Engineering.


It strikes fear in its opponents, and worry in those who have only barely heard about it. Tinkering with the genetics of the crops that grow our food? Moving genes between species? Altering the nutritional content of produce, or adding compounds toxic to insects? How unprecedented! Actually, it;s not.


We;ve been tinkering with the genetics of our crops for thousands of years, we just haven;t known what we were doing. Genes have moved between species on their own (it;s called Lateral Gene Transfer) over the course of evolution, and we;ve been doing it for a long time by crossing our crops with wild relatives. We;ve been duplicating chromosomes, combining entire species together to form new species (ever eaten wheat?), and enhanced the nutritional content of the carrot, which didn;t used to be orange, by the way. As we have come to understand the ways that plants defend themselves from insect pests, we have come to understand that breeding pest resistant plants was all about increasing the activity of compounds that kill insects.


The few genetically engineered crops that have been on the market have been very widely adopted by farmers, yet, there is a steady distrust and rejection of these crops by consumers. Why? Is it because the first traits engineered into crops benefited the farmers and not the consumers? Is it because large companies were the first to take advantage of the new technology, rather than public institutions? Or is it because it is being perceived as ;more of the same,; an extension of problematic farming practices that are damaging the environment, and even our own health? Or does it go deeper than that into philosophical views about the nature of life, and humanity;s place in the Universe?


Or does it stem from a vocal contingent of activists that know only a little about the subject, and the lack of scientists communicating this topic effectively?


Count me in on this debate. It is one of the more important scientific discussions of our time, and not everyone realizes this. We have the ability to directly alter the genetics of our crops (and more), with increasing precision and complexity. We need to discuss  how  to use this technology, and how this will affect our cultural, social, political, and philosophical views. There are problems that can be solved with it, and issues raised by it, but most of all ; scientists need to get involved and keep a clear head about what we want out of it. I think I can do that, to help people learn about this fascinating topic, and give the information necessary and arguments that are helpful in forming opinions about genetic engineering.


But I couldn;t do it alone, especially with my busy schedule as a grad student. So that;s why I started the Biofortified blog project, and invited other scientists and grad students who are interested in educating and fostering public discussion. Together, we can build a valuable public resource and public forum for discussing issues and responding to current events related to the field.


I like to cut deep into the scientific details that I love to study, but I also cut deep into the other reasons why people believe what they believe. I like to think of introducing people to new facts as ;Inoculating; them with science, and forming arguments against false or ;pathogenic; ideas as inoculating people  against  those ideas, like a mental vaccine. Yes, I like to debunk or ;fisk; poor arguments and you;ll see quite a bit of that from me here. I am interested in biofuels, and as UW-Madison is a part of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, I sit in on seminars and a few meetings and I will get to see this project progress first-hand. I;m also intimately connected to the food that I eat, and I might post a few recipes or fun genetic facts about foods that you may or may not yet enjoy. Finally, my opinions on ethical topics will be tempered by a humanistic outlook, where my views are based on verifiable facts and human values, rather than prior philosophical commitments.


I hope you;ll stick around and be a part of the discussion.













Document Number: 632 



 An ode to Dr. Oz 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 10 December 2010 


The Digital CuttleFish  writes another good verse.


This one  is for Dr. Oz.


Tomorrow;s Tabl  e  I;m healthy and wealthy; I;ve outgrown my past;  When I need to lose weight, I can diet or fast;  Starvation is not in the lot I;ve been cast;  My perspective is clearly not skewed.  I can buy the best produce they;ve managed to breed,  Have it shipped to my doorstep with mind-boggling speed;  In  a world of such plenty  , I don;t see the need  For genetically modified food


We can learn about foods from the Frankenstein myth  And distill what we know into substance and pith:  It;s much safer, our going without food than with  If the food isn;t natural, like mine  Some time in the future, we might pay the price  For life-saving products like  GMO rice  (Of course the poor love it, but we can think twice;  Our neglect will be purely benign!)


Concerned about p  esticides used to grow cotton  ?  The GE varieties best be forgotten;  We want, after all, to show people how rotten  Such produce can be for the Earth  The civilized buyer will treat as pariah,  The virus-resistant  new strains of papaya  ,  A slap in the face of our dear Mother Gaia,  Despite how the poor see its worth


Of course, there;s a view,  if you;re willing to learn  ,  Where the rest of humanity;s still our concern;  Even those who don;t make what us comfy folk earn,  But who still do the best they are able;  If you;re part of the planet (it seems so to me)  And look all around you, and find you agree  With John Donne, when he noted the bell tolls for thee;  There;s a seat here, for you,  at the table  .


Thanks Cuttlefish!


For more on Dr. Oz and science denialism, see blog posts by  Respectful Insolence  and  ERV  .













Document Number: 4196 



 And a good time was had by all 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 28 October 2009 


Hi everyone, Frank N. Foode here. I have just received word that the Ashoka Changemakers GMO Risk or Rescue contest has been closed. No more votes will be collected. It has been an exciting week for all of us, our supporters, and also our competitors. During the last few days of the final voting week, we gathered an enormous number of votes, and I want to thank all the bloggers out there who supported us by linking to our entry and asking their readers to vote for us.


Last week, James and the Giant Corn gave us a plug with  Putting Prejudice over Science  . The Council for Biotechnology Information  gave us a plug  on Twitter, as well as  Mica from Monsanto  on her twitter account. Thanks for helping! We enjoyed an early lead of a dozen votes at the beginning, but when Monday morning rolled around, we were behind the Non-GMO Project by about 100 votes. They gathered an impressive number of votes from Friday through the weekend, networking through  facebook  and other places.


But then at a little after 8 in the morning PZ Myers of the popular blog, Pharyngula, boomed  Yum, Genetically Engineered Plants!  An hour later, we overtook the competition and took the lead! PZ is an immensely popular blogger, and the pulse of his endorsement was felt across the world, from California to the UK! It was almost inexplicable! Thanks for your help!


Later that day, the indomitable ;Mean Girl; Abbie Smith at Endogenous Retrovirus joined in with  Vote for Biofortified!  and chimed ;DOO EEEEEET FOR THE PAPAYAS!!!!; She also liked the discussion going on at the changemakers site on our entry, and anyone that sticks up for the papayas gets an AA in their punnett square as far as I;m concerned. Thank you ERV!


With  A Science-based blog about GMO  , Tim Kreider at Science Based Medicine gave us a shining endorsement and sent a new army of voters our way. We are happy they like what we are doing over here, we love what you do for medicine over there! Thanks Tim!


Apparently, our quick influx of voters made a few people upset, and they started saying not-so-nice things about who must be supporting us. Cries of ;Fixing the Competition; by the ;biotech industry;  were flying around thanks to my  newest bestest buddy  GM Watch  . And PZ Myers jumped back into the fray with a  second post  on his blog, saying  and those cheapskates at Monsanto haven;t given me a penny!  Thanks PZ for the double-plug, and thanks GM Watch for keeping the attention on us! They must have thought we made a Deal with the Devil; they just didn;t know what kind. We were  Pharyngulated  .


Dr. ;Orac; at Respectful Insolence couldn;t stand to have PZ be the only one getting ;all that filthy Monsanto lucre; so he posted,  I may be late to this party, but I want my big Monsanto check anyway  ! You won;t be late in our thanks, oh acrylic-encased one. Thank you!


Thank you everyone who passed on our message through email, facebook, over the phone, etc. Your efforts are not forgotten, pat yourselves on the back ; you know who you are!


And thank you  Anastasia  ,  Pam  ,  Karl  , and  David  for your tireless efforts to get out the vote and welcome people to the site! You;re all heavyweight science bloggers now. We have only one week to wait as the votes are tallied officially and the winner is announced next Wednesday. The votes are not visible on the entries anymore, but the last tally we had that was just minutes before the contest was closed placed the top three entries in this order:


Biofortified  : 830 votes


The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America  : 379 votes


The Non-GMO Project  : 347 votes


These results are by no means final, as the changemakers team still has to verify that each vote came from a registered user, and we have undoubtedly made their job a lot harder. But it looks like we may have won by more than a 2-to-1 margin. Thanks for your support, everyone who managed to make it through their site to register ; I know how hard it was so it means a lot to this little ear. We made a really good showing in this contest, and I hope you will stick around and read what else our bloggers have to say in the future, and check back on Wednesday for the results! Thanks again for everyone who supported us!


Enjoy this nifty graph of the voting progress:


Science is so cool!


And a good time was had by all!


Look, we just passed 600 votes!













Document Number: 463 



 April Fools 2009 at Biofortified 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 2 April 2009 


So last week I said to my spouse Ariela, ;which would be funnier, if the Biofortified Blog got bought out by Monsanto, or instead, taken over by Greenpeace?;


;Oh, Greenpeace. Definitely!;


Plus given that I just heard that Monsanto already has a blog, it wouldn;t quite be as funny. So a little creative photoshopping later and a couple post ideas in my brain I set the stage for a little April Fools prank on our readers, and my fellow bloggers, too. Biofortified  By Greenpeace!


Greenpeace ;Takeover; header


I looked for famous dead people with common enough sounding names, and decided on  William Harvey  , born on April 1st, 1578. This physician also died in 1657, and left a few quotes lying around the literature, one of which I used in a post. Then, after coming up with a  believable  sounding title, Director of Global GMO policy, it was time to write a little something to get people riled up.


;William Harvey;s; first post,  Are GMOs a plot to rule the World?


It is a common refrain from the anti-GE crowd. Because genetically engineered crops can be patented, the argument is that biotech companies will control the world;s food, when in reality they want to make money selling improved seeds. Will started out with an argument that all GE crops will necessarily involve patents and contracts and control of food. This is not true ; publicly funded GE crops, particularly the humanitarian ones, have and will have no such restrictions.


This is why Greenpeace has a strong stance against genetic modification, because as a corporate technology it inherently requires that farmers be unable to save seed. We also seek to eliminate hybrid crops, because these are another method for maintaining the dominance of seed companies over farmers. Hybrids do not breed true ; and so farmers have to keep re-buying seed. Recently, we have added seedless watermelons to our growing list of farmer suicide foods, because the triploid seeds must be purchased every year.


Note: there is no such thinig as a corporate technology. Technologies are applications of knowledge, and can be used for bad, good, capitalism and socialism. If genetic engineering was so corporate ; why would the Chinese government be such a big player in this field?


The argument that not being able to save seed does not often spread into arguing against hybrid crops, although I have heard it in a couple cases. But what I have not heard are statements that seedless watermelons are immoral ; but here;s the thing ; if people who used that argument were consistent, it would logically follow that seedless watermelons are immoral. But no one is arguing that ; because it is not about the seed saving itself ; it is about being a ;GMO.;


These plant breeder protections are there for a reason ; so farmers and breeders can maintain control of what they produce, because it is their intellectual property.


Yes, Percy Schmeiser actually tried to argue from the basis of plant breeder;s rights that he should be allowed to keep his seed, even though it contained the intellectual property of a biotech company. (It was a dramatic turnaround in his legal argumentation.) The inherent contradiction of first claiming that living things couldn;t be owned, and then claiming that he owned a living thing escaped him.


Next, Golden Rice, the moral dilemma:


It is clear that the very attempt to address malnutrition in developing countries through genetic engineering is immoral precisely because it presents us with a moral dilemma.


Two things wrong with this argument:the complaint that a moral dilemma is presented is not a counter-argument that foils the dilemma, and second ; Golden Rice was not dreamed up by the biotech companies ; its genesis is due to Ingo Potrykus who wanted to address malnutrition in southeast Asia.


Nor is it up to debate whether it is right to test this unsafe food on children. Before they have long-term studies proving the safety of this GMO in the diets of children, it is wrong to test it on anyone elses children. Let these genetic engineers test it on their own kids before poisoning children in other countries. (If they did this, however, we should take their kids away for reckless endangerment.) Golden Rice is racist, classist, and is utilizing strategies that have not been seen since the Third Reich.


Ah, the Nazi claim ; which came out a month ago when word came out that a nutritional study involving malnourished kids was being conducted with Golden Rice. But of course, the call for extensive testing before; um;  testing  was almost comical in its contradiction. Of course, the kind of testing they  were calling for  was treating Golden Rice as a safety hazard, while comparing the humanitarian effort to Nazis.


As soon as we allow a purportedly humanitarian GMO to be grown on Asian soil, the biotech companies will press hard for their for-profit GMOs to be allowed through local regulations.


That is their fear. And so the argument over Golden Rice is really not about Golden Rice per se, but other crops created through the same process. People with nutritional security arguing that others cannot use a particular method to achieve nutritional security because of what they fear those others might grow to feed themselves farther down the road?


Now, on to the second post,  Risks of the Gaps  .


The quote at the beginning, ;   All we know is still infinitely less than all that remains unknown.; really came from William Harvey. Anyone who might have  googled it  would have had their confirmation that yes, April Fools is alive and well. James caught on with the first post, but this one was full of tougher stuff.


I thought I would start with a tie-in to other publicly contentious scientific issues, global warming and evolution. While being all over the place with the logic of what someone is to do with gaps in our knowledge, it served as an opener that was as hard to write as it was to read.


What these researchers are admitting by even doing this research is that there are huge safety risks involved in genetic modification, and they are hard at work filling those gaps in the GMO safety net after-the-fact.


Ah, the tried-and-true ;they are studying it, therefore there;s something wrong with it.; I picked this bit of ill-logic from reading anti-evolution screeds for a few years.


Or post-mortem, I should say. A scientist and author, Jeffrey Smith, has chronicled a laundry list of food safety hazards created by genetic engineering, from dead sheep to increases in allergies. Merely from growing GMO soy in England in 1999, the harvest at the end of the season was enough to increase soy allergies by a whopping 50% earlier the same year. Genetic engineers are frantically trying to figure out what went wrong, while nations around the world (except for the totalitarian regimes of China, Brazil, Cuba, Australia, and the US) continue to reject GMOs.


It is unbelievably easy to find articles referring to Jeffrey Smith as a scientist, or even a professor. His resume even almost sounds as if he;s done work with genetics ; but he has no background in science. (I could just hear Anastasia either fuming or giggling upon reading that title.) Nor does he understand the scientific method ; an anecdotal story about dead sheep might just be about a poisonous fungal toxin (  such as this  ) if anything at all, but one wonders why no one has attempted to test their hypothesis that it was the GE cotton that did it? You have to wonder why they are avoiding such a simple experiment ; perhaps because science is easiest when done by press release.


I loved the part about the soy allergies, because ;William; said that the crop grown in 1999 affected the allergies of people  earlier the same year  . That is essentially what the European soy allergy claim is about. And Mary was right to ask for a reference, and all roads lead back to  a single article  that was not describing peer reviewed research. Another press release by a dubious source.


But every time they close one gap, they open up two more. Sure, the gene expression is below the natural variation, but this just means that that is not the reason why GMOs are unsafe. That gap is filled, but it opens up even more gaps ; researchers now have to investigate every single gene that was affected! If those genes are not sufficient to explain what we think is going on, then they have to sink deeper into the mire of endless scientific experimentation.  You may call it moving the goalposts, but as long as science continues to not find the danger that we are looking for in GMOs, the danger must still lurk somewhere in the gaps in our knowledge.


Assuming what they would like to prove. The danger is in there somewhere; you just have to keep looking, and you only stop when you find it. In truth, you can never guarrantee 100% safety through science, there is always uncertainty, however small. So demanding 100% certainty is an abuse of science as a guide for decision making.


Anyway, I hope you all enjoyed my little joke, it appears through emails and comments here and elsewhere that my co-bloggers figured it out. In case anyone didn;t notice, the sidebar changed to say:


Biofortified is a group website devoted to eliminating factual information and restricting discussion about plant genetics, especially genetic engineering. The site is underwritten by Greenpeace International, written by grad students, professors, and the occasional guest expert.


And the Comment Moderation Policy that appeared below it:


Any comments that fail to recognize that GMOs are an evil plot to take over the world will be deleted or disemvoweled. Critical comments about Biofortified;s parent company, Greenpeace, are cause for a permanent ban. Comments that make factual errors in favor of anti-GMO activists will be automatically approved without review.


Hehe. Nothing like that to seal the deal. The icing on the cake was having ;William; a maker of biodynamic wine in Marin. It was just too fitting to be unbelievable. But it was believable for a second (or so I heard), because the arguments being made in condensed and contradictory form were real. And sometimes they;re much worse.


Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won;t mistake for the real thing.


This is known as ;  Poe;s Law  .;


But before I go, there is one thing I learned first-hand while setting up this joke: It is exceedingly easy to write something factually inaccurate and logically unsound and put it out there. I wrote each post in about 20 minutes, assembled from a hodge-podge of common misconceptions, position statements, and playfully self-imploding strings of logic. My review of those joke posts that I wrote myself took  two hours  . Imagine the time it takes to carefully research a response to incorrect claims when first encountering them. That;s the task we have ahead of us, and though it sounds daunting it will be worth it.


I will leave the blog as-is for another day, after which I will restore the images and sidebar text to its original and proper form, saving the content here for posterity.













Document Number: 1992 



 April Fools comes in a shiny box 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 April 2011 


I don;t know about you, but I had a fun week, and a very fun Friday. Besides all the usual things I get myself into, I decided to make a shiny box for our blog mascot, Frank N. Foode, and  pull a little prank on everyone  . I conceived of the idea months ago, and this week I had to get it all together in time. I announced on the blog that not only was there a Frank N. Foode doll for sale in stores, but that each box came with genetically engineered seeds for kids to grow. This took a little bit of planning, and had some interesting results. I had two main goals, and the first was to have some fun.


Sunday evening, I sat down and combed the internet for images to use to make a box. I envisioned a 5;4 box a foot tall, with a flap on the back. Bit by bit it came together, and looked something like this:


(Click to zoom in on the picture)


Grad student life is busy, and I didn;t get to printing this out until Thursday afternoon. I actually printed it on poster material, which I thought might be too thin to work, but it worked out nicely. Getting it home unwrinkled was a challenge given my two-wheeled mode of transportation, and a little razor-blade work and careful creasing later, I had a box ready to glue together. The plastic window was actually one of those old term paper covers sliced to fit. To make Frank stand up inside, I had to cut some slits and twist-tie his rear husk in place. My spouses Ariela provided some skillful handwriting to label the seed packets, although it did not show up in the video. (see below) I should also credit Valerie Lusk, Anastasia;s sister, for her Frank N. Foode artwork which made it into two places on the box.


The following morning, at roughly 6:30 or so, I set things up to record a short video talking about the ;exciting news; and showing the box in a very live form. I could have written it out, but I thought that it would not only be faster this way, but seeing the box handled in real-time would make it that much more  real  . I mean, who wouldn;t consider that  maybe this is not a joke  if I;m waving a toy box around on camera? Granted, Frank N. Foode dolls you can buy with corn seeds may not be so fantastic, but adding that the seeds have been genetically engineered puts it over the top.


Naturally, something so fantastic immediately arouses suspicion, on April 1st especially. However, for some it was not so easy to dismiss the possibility. One person searched the Toys R Us website to see if it was up yet. A fake Toys R Us page added later in the day confused things a little more. After all, according to the video, they bought 10,000 units! (The  video has now been edited  to reflect the post-prank news, with a little commentary.)


Others, such as whomever runs the  @MADGEAustralia twitter account  (likely Madeleine Love), revealed precisely the worries that many anti-GE people have. GE crops must cause allergies, and the scientists must know this is true which is why they aren;t labeled. Here are some snapshots of tweets, with a few thoughts interpolated:


Screaming with laughter. @franknfoode has put together a [grow your own allergies in your backyard] kids #GMO product. Only this is;   .. the kids seem to have to comply with licence conditions. Guess they;re not allowed to replant their #GMO seeds! @franknfoode   ..The #GMO gift for kids that has to be repurchased year after year! ROFSWL Hey @franknfoode you;ve got that marketing edge.


Oh yes, I thought it would be thoroughly hilarious to put a license agreement on the lid, for your enjoyment here is a clear shot of it. But I;ll bet that if this was real something could be worked out similar to the arrangement made for developing countries ; small scale home seed saving is not the kind of thing that big commercial seed companies would likely care about. But this is my joke, so I get to make the license agreement laughs:


(Definitely click to embiggen)


I thought that the absurdity of license agreements on a children;s toy would be ripe to make fun of. MADGE continues:


Have you considered the liability attached to this product @franknfoode? Those #GMO seeds are LABELLED. If new allergies dvlp, cd be problem   Before releasing your treasure onto the market @franknfoode, would you like us to go through the #GMO data to assess the risk ur facing?


I;m sure Frank would love to spend time going through the peer-reviewed data, as would I. Consider, however, that GE foods are labeled in many other countries, and no one has traced any novel allergies to it, nor have legitimate liability concerns been raised in those places.


If this is not an #aprilfools joke @franknfoode, can you confirm that it;s Bt-11? #GMO   A number of reports say that Syngenta;s #GMO Bt-11 corn retained the bacterial origin of replication @franknfoode ; eww


What about a bacterial origin of replication makes someone who considers themselves qualified to school others on risk assessment go ;eww?; Why, the word ;Bacterial;!


@franknfoode Did you forget the word ;bacterial; in that q;n? Have you got the Bt11 #GMO constrct &amp; addit;l bits sequence?


An  origin of replication  is merely a sequence of DNA that is recognized by a protein that initiates replication in circular bacterial chromosomes. It is not a protein, nor does it actively  do  anything, and it is not active in eukaryotic cells such as plants. In other words, this is an inert stretch of DNA and not a cause for ;eww.; Note that moments before this ;MADGE; was all too quick to play the role of expert on relative risks of genetic sequences, but now can;t get past the word ;bacterial.; How does she feel about all the billions and billions of  bacterial  origins of replication in your average tub of yogurt?


Another Frank [Plughoff], who tweets as @Earthnik, instead started talking about getting royalties from this toy product. If you recall, Frank P. featured our beloved Frank N. Foode in one of his  ;Earthnik Gazettes;  , as a  sinister  way to market GE foods to children.


.@HendrikRietman If true then @franknfoode owes me residuals because the toy corn was my idea in the EG: http://bit.ly/ans7y9


Which prompted Hendrik to respond thus:


@Earthnik you;re trying to make money out of #GMO? You really dissapoint me.  @franknfoode


The check must have gotten lost in the mail. Funny how a ;STAUNCH GMO OPPONENT; lights up their eyes with Dollar $ign$ when they think that their intellectual property is being used! (Hint: It was also not your idea.)


Hendrik also added,


@franknfoode Not online yet. http://is.gd/VNBG0K , would love to buy and grow your family! Is it really Bt-corn inside?&gt;Not allowed in EU:-O


Hendrik checked the Toys R Us website looking to see if it was available ; and liked the idea. And this, actually, was the majority reaction that I encountered. I sent a notice through some email lists, and one person said they tried to buy 4 on  the fake Toys R Us  page I put up that afternoon, and realizing it was a joke, said it would be great if this actually happened. April-Fools-savvy readers of the blog  registered their belief that it was a prank  , followed by a desire to have one. A few  other regulars  , whom I shall allow to identify themselves if they so choose, were psyched about it and thought it was real. I delight in fooling my friends as much as I do strangers on the internet ; actually more! (It was retweeted enough to  make the #GMO Daily, too  )


I also brought the box to my lab Friday, and each member of my lab (who did not know about it beforehand) thought it was real and wanted to know if they could get a free one since they work with me. One held it up and said, ;Yeah, you;re finally selling them!; and when I walked into my adviser;s office to punk him as well, I can safely say he was quite surprised and confused, and likely thinking, ;How many potential thesis paragraphs were not written last night to put this together?; But he did like the idea of the corn seeds heterozygous for recessive mutant alleles. ;Very Entertaining!; Was his final word.


This part of the Prank Frank Box is I think the best aspect ; seed corn heterozygous for recessive kernel mutants. The kids get a packet of normal-looking seeds, with instructions on how to grow and self-pollinate the seeds with bags and paper clips. Then, when the self-pollinated ear develops and matures, all of a sudden these kernel mutants manifest (at a 3:1 ratio), and the kids could have a surprise and a teaching moment about basic genetics. Dominant and Recessive, Punnet Squares, Homozygosity and Heterozygosity, Mendelian Genetics ; right in their backyard. This would not only be very easily do-able, but also very educational. As I said in the video, the kids could try more advanced experiments and replant the seeds next year, or perhaps even cross the seeds with their friends; seeds to make double-mutants. Extra packets of seeds could also be available for more experiments.


As for providing genetically engineered sweet corn seeds, currently only one is available, a Syngenta variety that produces Bt. I know Monsanto is working on their own at the moment but is not yet available. Theoretically, all you need to do is cross GE field corn with sweet corn and keep backcrossing to a good sweet corn variety while hanging on to the transgenes. However, field-corn crosses into sweet corn bring in all kinds of nasty off-flavors (Remember that munching/spitting scene in King Corn? They were eating field corn), and it naturally takes a while to do well to create a high-quality sweet corn with genes that came from field corn. Bt would be the obvious choice for such a toy package, however with small plots of backyard corn there will not likely be much Lepidopteran insect pressure (corn borer, earworm) and it may not make much of a difference to your backyard garden. However, knowing that it is GE and eating and enjoying it will be the main benefit. I wonder, though, if the Bt was put in a sweet corn that;s good for a backyard garden, or just large-scale fields? A question worth considering ; because an ill-adapted corn variety for those conditions could have the opposite effect. But right now, Bt corn is just about the only kind of GE crop that could currently apply for a back yard hands-on experiment.


Legal issues are another question, and it would take a forward-thinking seed company to work something out to allow backyard cultivation of their transgenic corn. If sold as hybrid corn, the likelihood of good seed-saving and further planting and cultivation is low. And given that many of these companies have worked out $10,000 or below exemptions for seed saving in developing countries, this is magnitudes smaller and maybe they could be persuaded to help out. There may also be regulatory issues, someone suggested to me that there may be an acreage issue involved ; as in, below the minimum acreage for a field to prevent insect resistance. Anybody heard of this? A refuge in a bag would be easy to do ; heck the Mystery Mutant seeds could be that refuge. (Another teaching moment about evolution!) And there;s an added benefit to trying to get GE seeds part of the mix ; Greenpeace would give it lots of free advertising.


Certainly there would be obstacles both legal and practical (who;s going to maintain those heterozygous seeds for the toys?) to including seeds in a Frank N. Foode doll box, but I think there;s a lot of potential ; Especially in filling our photo album with pictures of people with Frank, and the chance to do a little informal education about genetics and maybe help spark the kind of interest that could lead to a future career or a fun hobby. As I was sitting there designing the box graphics or gluing the box together, I kept thinking  This could actually work  . So maybe this time the Frank N. Foode toy for sale in Toys R Us is a hoax, but maybe the next time it could be for real. So I;m sorry to those who are disappointed to find out that they cannot get their own Frank N. Foode (or the seeds) for now, but this leads me to the second goal I mentioned at the beginning of this post, and that was to test the water. Feels warm, maybe a little choppy, but I;m game to take a swim!













Document Number: 1484 



 AquAdvantage update 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 27 October 2010 


In  Risk assessment and mitigation of AquAdvantage salmon  I discussed exactly what Aqua Bounty was asking permission from the FDA to do, as well as the environmental, animal welfare, and human health concerns associated with the AquAvantage fish in comparison to non-transgenic farmed salmon.


The Center for Food Safety has a ;new; document to bring to the discussion: an  opinion  (pdf) written by the  National Marine Fisheries Service  regarding a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal about ocean net pens to raise finfish off the coast of Maine that was written in 2003. CFS talks about this letter in a blog post titled  Newly Disclosed Government Documents Conclude GE Salmon Pose A Critical Threat To Marine Environments  . Let;s just say there;s a few errors in the reasoning found in the blog post and indeed all over the  GFS site about genetically engineered fish  . Here, I;ll go over the blog post (I;ll let our excellent commenters take a look at the rest of the site) and discuss some of the errors.


The post opens with:


Adding a new twist to the controversy over genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) revealed today that, in recent hearings on transgenic fish, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knowingly withheld a Federal Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmon in open-water net pens pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).


Is this fish crying? Maybe she read the CFS blog post.


The problem is that the opinion wasn;t about genetically engineered salmon. It was about the risks of any ocean farmed salmon, with a fairly small amount of discussion of transgenic fish (less than 3 pages of a document totally 101 pages, with a full 61 pages of text). Is this opinion relevant to the application by Aqua Bounty to raise transgenic salmon in two very specific land based facilities? Perhaps. Here;s everything the report says about transgenic fish:


page 27  Transgenic salmonids are prohibited at these facilities [referring to a list of permitted ocean pen fish farms]. Transgenic salmonids are defined as species of the genera Salmo, Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus of the family Salmonidae and bearing, within their DNA, copies of novel genetic constructs introduced through, recombinant DNA technology using genetic material derived from a species different from the recipient, and including descendants of individuals so transfected. This prohibition does not apply to vaccines.   page 34-35  [at the very end of the section Disease Factors, Predators, and Competitors discussing concerns of farmed salmon] Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout produced by the aquaculture industry (including non-North American strains and potentially transgenics) that escape from hatcheries or net pens also compete with wild Atlantic salmon.   page 74-75  [under the heading Transgenics]  The potential use of transgenic salmonids in the aquaculture industry has recently been identified as a possible threat to wild Atlantic salmon populations. Transgenic salmonids include fish species of the genera Salmo, Oncorhynchus, or Salvelinus in the family Salmonidae that bear, within their DNA, copies of novel genetic constructs introduced through recombinant DNA technology using genetic material derived from a species different from the recipient, and descendants of any individuals so transfected. Escaped, reproductively viable transgenic salmon could interbreed with wild fish. Research to develop transgenic fish for aquaculture increased through the 1980s and had advanced to the extent that, by 1989, production of 14 species of transgenic fish, including Atlantic salmon, had been reported (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990).  Transgenic fish produced for culture in marine net pens must be selected to survive under nearly natural physical and chemical environmental conditions. If they escape, therefore, it is likely that. a portion of them will survive. In a study by Sheela et al. (1999), transgenes were inherited in many progeny from transformed fish, as determined through DNA analyses and through expression of the reporter gene. If an introduced construct can find its way onto or into a chromosome before the first cell division of a newly-fertilized egg, all the cells in the developing organism, including future germ cells, will contain copies (Lutz 2000). The transmission of novel genes to wild fish could lead to physiological and behavioral changes, and traits other than those targeted by the insert gene are likely to be affected. Ecological effects are expected to be greatest where transgenic fish exhibit substantial altered performance. Such fish could destabilize or change aquatic ecosystems (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990).  In a study by Cook et al. (2000), growth-enhanced transgenic Atlantic salmon exhibited a 2.62- to 2.85-fold greater rate of growth relative to non-transgenic salmon, over the body weight interval examined. This study found that the transgenic experimental subjects possessed the physiological plasticity necessary to accommodate acceleration in growth well beyond the normal range for this species, with few effects other than a greater appetite and a leaner body (Cook et al. 2000). Because aquatic ecosystems function through complex interactions involving transfers of energy, organisms, nutrients, and information, it is difficult to predict the community-level impacts of releasing transgenic fishes that exhibit one or more types of phenotypic change (Kapuscinski and Hallerman 1990). At this time, more research is needed to identify the impacts that escaped transgenic salmon would have on natural populations and their habitat before use for commercial aquaculture is considered.  Research and development efforts on transgenic forms of Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout are currently being directed toward their potential for sea pen aquaculture. Emphasis has been placed on enhancement of growth and low water temperature tolerance through the transfer of genetic material from other cold-tolerant species, such as flounder. In 2002, the Food and Drug Administration received an application for approval to sell and possibly grow transgenic salmon in the United States for use by the aquaculture industry.  The prohibition on the Use of transgenic salmonids at existing marine sites off the coast of Maine (Special Condition No. 2) will eliminate the potentially adverse disease and ecological risks posed by the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture. The risk posed by a transgenic salmonid to wild salmon would be greatly affected by the specific gene manipulation conducted. Anyone proposing the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture would need to provide information on the methods used and the potential for genetic, fish health and ecological impacts on wild stocks. This information would have to be evaluated to determine the level of risk posed to wild Atlantic salmon stocks and a decision would have to be made as to whether that level of risk was acceptable or not. The use of transgenic salmonids will be prohibited under Condition No. 2 until such time as these risks can be evaluated.


A slightly better than superficial reading of this discussion of transgenic salmon reveals that the National Marine Fisheries Service is strongly recommending a ban on transgenic salmon in ocean pens due to concerns that the transgene will make the fish more fit than non-transgenic fish and that such a transgene would spread through natural populations if the accidentally released transgenic fish were reproductively viable. Anyone wanting to use transgenic salmon in aquaculture would need to provide clear information about the specific risks they may pose to wild salmon (which is exactly what Aqua Bounty did). I;m not sure if this recommendation was codified ; if anyone knows, please provide that information in the comments.


CFS concludes something a little different:


This adds further evidence that in fact GE salmon pose a serious threat to marine environments and is another compelling reason for the FDA not to approve the fish for commercial use, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. While the FDA applauded the companys choice of land-based containment as responsible, it never revealed that it is illegal in the U.S. to grow genetically engineered salmon in open-water net pens.


Is it actually illegal to raise transgenic salmon in open water pens? If it is illegal, is that relevant to a discussion of land based aquaculture? The differences between risks of ocean based compared to land based aquaculture are quite large, whether we;re discussing transgenic or non-transgenic fish. All ocean based aquaculture was determined by the same report to be quite risky to wild fish:


page 79  [Conclusion] Based on the close proximity of hundreds of fish pens to the GOM DPS [Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment] of Atlantic salmon, and the anticipated continued escapes, the best available scientific data and commercial information indicates that the continued operation of Maine aquaculture facilities poses a threat to individual wild salmon because escaped aquaculture salmon compete for food and habitat, disrupt redds, interbreed, thus disrupting breeding, feeding and sheltering of wild Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture facilities may also promote the transfer of disease and parasites to wild salmon, which may also adversely affect wild salmon.


The National Marine Fisheries Service thinks that the permit procedure and the special conditions the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommends will help mitigate the risk to wild fish. The special conditions (presumably applying to ocean pen aquaculture since that;s what the entire opinion is about) are:


(1) eliminating the use of non-North American strain Atlantic salmon; (2) developing containment management systems with loss control plans and audits; (3) marking aquaculture fish; (4) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmonids; and (5) requiring fish health certification before stocking alternative salmonids.


CFS thinks that this report means that transgenic fish are a great threat, but it;s clear that National Marine Fisheries Service thinks that all ocean pen aquaculture is a great threat. National Marine Fisheries Service seems to think that these conditions are enough to mitigate the risk, although I am skeptical. Anyway, the only thing that sets transgenic fish apart is that there are more unknowns, or at least there were at the time, when the literature indicated that fast-growing salmon would be better able to compete than salmon without a growth hormone transgene. Later studies have shown that the fast growing salmon have behavioral phenotypes that actually make them less likely to survive than non-transgenic salmon. For example, fast growing salmon are more fearless such that they are more likely to be eaten by predators.


An  opinion  (pdf) by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 on the same subject (whether there should be ocean pen fish farms allowed off the coast of Maine where there are a lot of wild salmon) says pretty much the same thing, with some of the text seemingly cut and pasted from the 2001 Environmental Protection Agency opinion to the 2003 National Marine Fisheries Service opinion.


Anyway, CFS thinks that since these two documents weren;t presented earlier, that must mean the FDA is keeping information from the public. Maybe, but it seems more like these documents weren;t relevant to the discussion of Aqua Bounty;s application for land based facilities rearing fish that are sterile 98% of the time or more (on average).


The CFS post concludes:


Conversations between NOAA and FWS staff in 2009 highlight a Swedish study that found that in simulated escapes, transgenic fish have a considerably greater effect on the natural environment than hatchery-reared, non-transgenic fish when they escape. The study further noted that genetically modified fish survive better when there is a shortage of food, benefit more than non-transgenic fish from increasing water temperatures, and can be more resistant to environmental toxins that may ultimately end up in consumers.


Why does;t anyone ever provide a proper citation? According to Web of Science, there were 2,044 papers about salmon published in 2009. Out of the subset of 28 papers that also included the word transgenic, I think the study they;re referring to is:


L. Fredrik Sundstrm, Wendy E. Tymchuk, Mare Lhmus, &amp; Robert H. Devlin (2009).  Sustained predation effects of hatchery-reared transgenic coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch in semi-natural environments  . Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 762-769 :  10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01668.x


This study didn;t mention toxins at all, or temperatures, but did find that transgenic fish with a growth enhancing gene ate more than non-transgenic fish, at least at first. After about two months, all fish were the same size (not significantly different sizes), including: non-transgenic fish, transgenic fish that were fed an amount of food that restricted them to approximately the same size as non-transgenic, and transgenic fish that were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. The reduced swimming capacity of the transgenic fish that were allowed to eat as much as they wanted led to higher ability of prey to swim away, leaving those prey for other fish. It wasn;t apparent from this study that transgenic fish would have a greater effect on the environment than non-transgenic farmed fish.


Finally, there wasn;t any mention in the Environmental Protection Agency or National Marine Fisheries Service documents about risks of fish bred for specific traits such as fast growth to wild fish. The natural variation in salmon populations for size, growth rate, etc is pretty wide. It;s very possible that a breeding program could develop super salmon without any genetic engineering and those super salmon could potentially be a threat to wild salmon, particularly if they were farmed as reproductively viable individuals in ocean pens near by wild salmon populations. Perhaps this is covered by special condition 1: ;eliminating the use of non-North American strain Atlantic salmon;? This is unlikely to have any real positive effect, since the problem of ocean farmed salmon escaping is that they spread a) disease and b) genes that are far less diverse than those in wild populations even when they are of the same strain. I stand by my  previous  assertion that both ocean farmed non-transgenic salmon and fishing of wild fish are a greater risk to wild salmon than transgenic salmon in land based facilities.


.


Hat tip to  Mark Bittman  (  @bittman  ) for creatively  tweeting  about the CFS blog post:


FDA hid evidence about threats posed by genetically engineered salmon. Your tax $ at work:  http://bit.ly/aYJGbl


I;ve been a strong advocate of Bittman;s work. He advocates a diet that is mostly plant based for environmental and health reasons but allows meat as an indulgence. I have a lot of respect for his stepping out with this rare practical viewpoint. I love his  How to Cook Everything Vegetarian  and recommend it to everyone, especially if you;re not an experienced cook. But, I don;t love uncritical tweets. Mark, if you happen to read this, please, please consider some critical thinking material such as the  Skeptoid  podcast where Brian Dunning takes the listener through the process of claim, evidence, evaluation of claim.













Document Number: 5214 



 Are GMOs a plot to rule the world? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 1 April 2009 


Editor;s note: The following post was part of an April Fools Joke.  Go here  for more details.


By William Harvey:


Hello readers, I am William Harvey, the Director of Global GMO Policy at Greenpeace International. In exchange for support of this blog;s continued operations, I will be posting regularly at Biofortified, and my office staff will monitor and moderate the continued discussion. We have made a few minor changes to the look of the blog. Now for my first blog post.


Everyone knows that every Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are patented by corporations. There is not a single GMO that can be grown without the explicit permission through a signed contract. This puts the power in the hands of multinationals, taking it away from the indigenous people of Hawaii, Southeast Asia, Africa, and even farmers in the U.S. are having their right stripped away. The right to save seed is fundamental to growing food, and anything that removes this right is morally wrong.


This is why Greenpeace has a strong stance against genetic modification, because as a corporate technology it inherently requires that farmers be unable to save seed. We also seek to eliminate hybrid crops, because these are another method for maintaining the dominance of seed companies over farmers. Hybrids do not breed true ; and so farmers have to keep re-buying seed. Recently, we have added seedless watermelons to our growing list of ;farmer suicide; foods, because the triploid seeds must be purchased every year.


As we have learned from cases such as Schmeiser v Monsanto, the biotech companies will stop at nothing to prevent farmers from saving their seeds.  Indeed, they were violating his rights as a plant breeder to have control over his own homebrewed canola seeds. Farmers that breed crops have the right to control their seeds while biotech companies do not. These plant breeder protections are there for a reason ; so farmers and breeders can maintain control of what they produce, because it is their intellectual property.


Before I go, there is one last issue that I would like to address: Golden Rice. This ;biofortified; rice is nothing more than a PR effort by the biotech companies, and represents a Trojan Horse designed to slip through the opposition to GMOs by presenting us with a moral dilemma: either allow GMOs to be grown or people will suffer. In 2001, Michael Pollan  saw through this attempt  :


Unless I;m missing something, the aim of the biotechnology industry;s audacious new advertising campaign is to impale people like mewell-off first worlders dubious about genetically engineered foodon the horns of a moral dilemma.  (;)  Granted, it would be immoral for finicky Americans to thwart a technology that could rescue malnourished children. But wouldn;t it also be immoral for an industry to use those children;s suffering in order to rescue itself?


It is clear that the very attempt to address malnutrition in developing countries through genetic engineering is immoral precisely because it presents us with a moral dilemma. Our values are not up for debate.


Nor is it up to debate whether it is right to test this unsafe food on children. Before they have long-term studies proving the safety of this GMO in the diets of children, it is wrong to test it on anyone else;s children. Let these genetic engineers test it on their own kids before poisoning children in other countries. (If they did this, however, we should take their kids away for reckless endangerment.) Golden Rice is racist, classist, and is utilizing strategies that have not been seen since the Third Reich.


As soon as we allow a purportedly humanitarian GMO to be grown on Asian soil, the biotech companies will press hard for their for-profit GMOs to be allowed through local regulations. If Golden Rice can be grown, why not Roundup Ready soy or Liberty Link corn?


It is my firm belief that as soon as Golden Rice is grown and people are forced to be dependent upon it, that the rug will be pulled out from under them. Any one of the patents underlying the rice crop could be used to force them to pay for it down the road. With their own local varieties destroyed, the transnational colonialism would be complete, if there was any resistance left it will be finished.


In conclusion, it is clear that this rice must be stopped at all costs, because it may be a scheme intended to keep the people in developing countries underfoot.


William Harvey is the Director of Global GMO Policy at Greenpeace International. He makes his own Biodynamic Wine from the safety of Marin County, which is GE Free.













Document Number: 8911 



 At BIO 2010! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 4 May 2010 


Hi there folks, Frank N. Foode here. I;ve been hanging out in Chicago for the  Biotechnology Industry Organization International Convention  . I remember last year:  the farmers, scientists, and businesspeople I met  , and the stuff I learned. And as soon as Karl joins me at  McCormick Place  tomorrow, I can get some more good pictures. I will be going to a lot of panel discussions, and Biofortified;s own  Dr. Pam Ronald  and Karl Haro von Mogel will each be participating in one of them. Cool!


I will also be available for photo ops, too, so to make it easy for you to find me, here;s where I will be on Wednesday the 5th:


The Global Experience with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety   Session Track:  Food and Agriculture, Breakout Sessions   Session Location:  Room N426C   Session Date:  Wednesday May 5, 2010   Session Time:  10:00 AM ; 11:30 AM   Session Speaker:  Alexander Grobman, PhD ; Chair | Company:Peru Biotec [and other speakers]   Summary:  The Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety, approved in February 2000, was implemented in September 2003. The Protocol applies to the transboundary movement, transit, handling and use of all living modified;


Then it will be time for lunch, and I;ve got a date with Pam! Well ok, I;m in the  audience  .


BIO will host a special media luncheon on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 featuring  Dr. Channapatna S. Prakash  , professor of plant molecular genetics at Tuskegee University, who will moderate a discussion on When Politics Impedes Progress to Combat Hunger.  Luncheon speakers are scheduled to include:    Pam Ronald  , Professor of Plant Pathology and Chair of the Plant Genomics Program at the University of California, Davis, and author of the book,  Tomorrows Table   Michael Specter  , New Yorker staff writer and author of  Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives.   Margaret Zeigler, deputy director of the  Congressional Hunger Center  .


But wait,  Former Vice President Al Gore is also scheduled to give a keynote luncheon  at the same time! What is a plant to do? I know Karl will be at the panel discussion, because for some weird reason the media don;t get to listen to Gore;s speech. (Who made  that  decision?) Maybe I can slip away and catch part of it, I don;t know!


Whatever I manage to do, after lunch it will back to the breakout sessions. This one looks really good:


How Public Perception Affects Adoption of Technologies that Help Feed the World   Session Track:  Food and Agriculture, Breakout Sessions   Session Location:  Room N426C   Session Date:  Wednesday May 5, 2010   Session Time:  2:00 PM ; 3:30 PM   Session Speaker:  Sally Squires ; Chair [and other speakers]   Summary:  The panel will address the connection between public perception of technologies, such as agricultural biotechnology, and their adoption. The speakers will address the political hurdles, which often;   And then there;s this one, I wonder if they will talk about the  Supreme Court Case  ?     Legal Barriers &amp; Sustainability Opportunities for Food, Feed and Energy Feedstocks   Session Track:  Food and Agriculture, Breakout Sessions   Session Location:  Room N426C   Session Date:  Wednesday May 5, 2010   Session Time:  4:00 PM ; 5:30 PM   Session Speaker:  Thomas Redick, Esq ; Chair | Company:Global Environmental Ethics Counsel [and other speakers]   Summary:  The benefits of biotech crops for sustainable supplies of food, feed, fuel and fiber must hurdle standard setting and laws that deny the sustainability of biotech crops. While legal WTO victories;   But I will have to leave this one early to make it in time to see Karl Haro von Mogel participate in a  panel discussion  about blogging about biotechnology. And they;re providing drinks for people to hang out, listen, and think!    Think &amp; Drink    Wednesday, May 5  5:00  6:30pm  Biotech Now Lounge, West Lobby, Level 1    Social MediaMaster or Slave?  Organized by:  Brodeur Partners  The explosive growth of social media is reinventing the way companies communicate with consumers, lawmakers, investors and the broader public. Organizations that don;t master this changing communications landscape will find themselves left behind. The challenge if social media is that when everyone has a platform to speak his mind, anti-biotech naysayers can reach an even greater audience with fewer moderating forces to counter misinformation. How individual companies, nonprofit organizations and the industry as a whole respond to this moment will have reverberations for decades to come. Come hear from biotech companies engaging in social media and learn about new tools to improve the public perception of biotechnology.  I wonder if Karl will let me sit on his lap so I can have a little of the spotlight? Pretty please with mulch on top?   I;ll try to  tweet  when I can, and you can also follow the convention chatter with the #bio2010 hashtag













Document Number: 4598 



 Australian genetics group open up new avenues to salt-tolerant rice 


 by  David Tribe  on 17 September 2010 


Improved Salinity Tolerance of Rice Through Cell Type-Specific Expression of [sodium pump] AtHKT1  This work presents an important step in the development of abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants via targeted changes in mineral transport.


Previously, cell type-specific expression of AtHKT1;1, a sodium transporter, improved sodium (Na+) exclusion and salinity tolerance in Arabidopsis.


In the current work, AtHKT1;1, was expressed specifically in the root cortical and epidermal cells of an Arabidopsis GAL4-GFP enhancer trap line. These transgenic plants were found to have significantly improved Na+ exclusion under conditions of salinity stress.


&nbsp;The feasibility of a similar biotechnological approach in crop plants was explored using a GAL4-GFP enhancer trap rice line to drive expression of AtHKT1;1 specifically in the root cortex. Compared with the background GAL4-GFP line, the rice plants expressing AtHKT1;1 had a higher fresh weight under salinity stress, which was related to a lower concentration of Na+ in the shoots. The root-to-shoot transport of 22Na+ was also decreased and was correlated with an upregulation of OsHKT1;5, the native transporter responsible for Na+ retrieval from the transpiration stream. Interestingly, in the transgenic Arabidopsis plants overexpressing AtHKT1;1 in the cortex and epidermis, the native AtHKT1;1 gene responsible for Na+ retrieval from the transpiration stream, was also upregulated. Extra Na+ retrieved from the xylem was stored in the outer root cells and was correlated with a significant increase in expression of the vacuolar pyrophosphatases (in Arabidopsis and rice) the activity of which would be necessary to move the additional stored Na+ into the vacuoles of these cells.


Citation: Plett D, Safwat G, Gilliham M, Skrumsager Mller I, Roy S, et al. (2010) Improved Salinity Tolerance of Rice Through Cell Type-Specific Expression of AtHKT1;1. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12571. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012571













Document Number: 3138 



 Barriers to GE Hort Crop Commercialization 


 by  Kevin Folta  on 2 September 2010 


Last week a workshop at the International Horticultural Congress in Lisbon, Portugal featured a series of speakers known for their work in transgenic technology. I;ll summarize these in the next few posts. Today;s post addresses an important question- why are there few horticultural (basically non-agronomic fruits and vegetables) transgenic crops available, at least relative to corn, soy and other huge agronomic crops? These are the capsules of flavor and nutrition truly necessary in a diverse diet, yet they suffer tremendous challenges to production and distribution. Transgenic technologies could deliver great benefits.


The issue was approached by Dr. Ralph Scorza from the USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Station. Ive known of Dr. Scorzas outstanding work for almost two decades. Years ago he sought a solution to the plum pox virus (PPV), the causative agent of a devastating disease called  Sharka  . The disease affects stone fruits (peaches, apricots, others) and can destroy whole orchards and decimate natural populations. While breeding solutions are being pursued with timelines measured in decades, PPV can now be mitigated with Scorzas solution by grafting a stonefruit scion to the transgenic rootstock. Works like a charm, and the fruit are not transgenic.


The solution was introduction of a gene encoding the coat protein of PPV. When overexpressed in plums (because they are routinely transformed in the Scorza Lab), the plant became immune to the disease, almost like a vaccination. While this was interesting science it was not viewed as an application, that is until PPV was identified in the United States. While the disease was successfully controlled with quarantine, the development of PPV-resistant plums (a cultivar known as Honeysweet) was initiated as a solution in future outbreaks.


Years later in 2010, the Honeysweet cultivar has found approval. It is a true minority, as very few horticultural crops are ever approved, reserving much of the focus for major agronomical crops like soy and corn. To date, only 6% of de-regulated crops are horticultural and only 1% had viable commercial potential. Of that, 0.2 were crops other than tomato and potato. Therein lies the question, why are transgenic technologies not approved (or even pursued) in fruits and vegetables?


A mere 127 horticultural crop lines have sought deregulation, but the vast majority of these did not complete the process to commercialization. Dr. Scorza indicates that the costs of pursuing deregulation and testing are incredibly expensive, leading companies or universities to abandon the process in mid-stream, even if promising.


He goes on to describe other potential reasons for the waning desire to deregulate. First, there is a relatively small market for any given horticultural crop, so the likelihood of substantial profit is low, an important consideration when the costs of R&amp;D and deregulation are concerned. Universities and small companies do not have the funds, infrastructure or intellectual property resources required to hustle the process along. Horticultural companies and universities may understand the potentially negative perception that the public has on safe transgenic technology, so they stay away from attempting to commercializing transgenic plant lines that while scientifically proven, may not be tremendously profitable.


The other key reason while these crops do not navigate the maze to deregulation is because there is no incentive for the scientist. Inventing a solution to a horticultural problem does not bring in grant money, does not generate publications, and requires a tremendous investment of time in meetings and paperwork that may never be rewarded. Ask anyone working in the public science sector; we didnt get into it for the love of beaurocracy. Additionally, there are steep consequences of not following the approval process to the letter, with substantial fines and/or regulatory action. Together these barriers frame a formidable disincentive. To date the effect shows, as private concerns have deregulated many achievements in tomato, potato, squash and tobacco, whereas public entities have only released (the amazingly successful) papaya and now plum.


The other problem is the aforementioned maze of regulatory hassle. There are three major levels of approval for a GM food crop. The first is through USDA-APHIS, an agency that regulates the growing of GM foods. Honeysweet cleared this barrier quickly. Next the FDA has to approve safety. For Honeysweet that took 2.5 years. Finally, the EPA must approve the new organism, a process that took almost 3 years in the case of Honeysweet.


After all of the regulatory hurdles the product still may not be commercialized, mostly based on public perception. For instance, it cost nearly half a million dollars to build raspberry plants resistant to the Raspberry Bushy Dwarf Virus, a devastating disease. While the plants work brilliantly, the industry suggested they not be commercialized due to public fears.


The other problems are from coordinated attacks by anti-GE groups. In 2007, while Honeysweet was in the process of deregulation, instructions on gmofreetrees.com provided details to cut-and-paste complaints into websites of federal agencies. Of the 1725 notes provided, 1708 were negative to Honeysweet deregulation, but all followed the cut-and-paste format.


Dr. Scorza completed his discussion by noting that transgenic plant acceptance will be disaster driven. When farmers and consumers have no choice, then the new technologies will be accepted. Problems such as PPV in stonefruits, Pierces disease in grapes, and citrus greening may all soon benefit from transgenic technology with existing tools that may save an industry. Even crusty old Europe is considering ;Honeysweet; and weighing real risks in the face of losing tremendous stonefruit populations to a viral outbreak. Just as a major outbreak of polio will send anti-vaccination parents scurrying for a jab, the adoption of GE technology will be found quite acceptable when scenarios dictate no other choice.


I agree with Dr. Scorzas assessment. Anti-GE interests dont trust big, private agribusiness, but then simultaneously support a regulatory system where only it can thrive. Public scientists that have a mission of societal contribution lack the funds and infrastructure to obtain approval have trouble competing in the disincentivized process.


Dr. Scorza concluded that he remains optimistic. Consumers have accepted GM soy and corn. The acceptance of horticultural crops will happen eventually, but the barriers to application will make the process slow, impeding potential benefits to the consumer, the farmer and the environment.













Document Number: 6186 



 Big Island Transgenics 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 15 February 2009 


By the year 2050, the Earth;s population will double. If we continue with current farming practices, vast amounts of wilderness will be lost, millions of birds and billions of insects will die, and the environmental cost will be immeasurable. Clearly, the world needs a better way to meet the demand for increased food production.


To meet the growing need to feed the worlds population in an environmentally friendly way will require combining the technologies of genetic engineering and organic farming.


To successfully marry these two technologies we will need to overcome long held animosity between scientists, supporters of organic farming and conventional farmers. We will also need to address the antagonism some feel toward the idea of genetic engineering.


The recent debate on the Big Island over genetically engineered crops pitted organic coffee farmers against researchers and the biotech industry, with some organic farmers voicing concern that genetically engineered crops threaten their livelihood and agricultural philosophy.


However, it appears their concerns about food safety are driven more by technological anxiety than by science.  Today, the majority of all processed foods in the United States have at least one ingredient from genetically engineered crops and all scientific panels that have studied this matter have concluded that the GE crops currently grown in the United States are safe to eat.


The National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom Genetically Modified Science Review Panel have both concluded that the process of adding genes to our food by genetic engineering is just as safe as conventional plant breeding.


Organic farming techniques have proven results in reducing the use of insecticides, and doing so benefits humans and the environment. The question is whether the technology of organic agriculture is robust enough to meet the growing demand for food around the world.


One way to enhance yields is to develop new varieties of crops that can survive harsh conditions such as drought, cold, heat, salt, and flooding. Many of the worlds poorest people farm in areas that are far from ideal. They face tremendous obstacles with soil quality, access to water, pests, and periodic flooding. Organic farming techniques can offer some solutions, but they still have their limits.


It is estimated that pests and disease can reduce agricultural productivity worldwide by 40 percent. If we reduce this loss it would be equivalent to creating more land and more water. However, current pesticide use is a health and environmental hazard.


One logical approach would have to be combining the techniques of organic farming and genetic engineering. Genetic engineering can be used to develop plants with enhanced resistance to pests and disease; organic farming can manage the overall spectrum of pests more effectively.


Genetically engineered crops have already been proven against pests. For example, in central and southern India, where small-scale farmers typically suffer large losses because of pests, average yields of genetically engineered crops exceeded those of conventional crops by 80 percent.


In Hawaii, the 1998 introduction of an engineered papaya plant that could resist the papaya ringspot virus has long been credited with saving the industry. The availability of GE papaya brought struggling growers back into the papaya business and by 2003, production in the region had rebounded. There was no other technology then, including organic farming techniques, to protect the papaya from this devastating disease, nor is there today.


Genetic engineering also helps achieve other goals of the organic farming movement. By reducing the use of pesticides and by reducing pest and disease, it can make farming more affordable and thus keep family farmers in business. It can also assure local food security, an issue of growing concern here in Hawaii.


Worldwide demand by farmers for improved hybrid corn has also made Hawaiis expanding seed industry the number one agricultural commodity in the state. According to an economic analysis commissioned by the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, the Hawaii seed industry contributes approximately $144 million of economic activity to Hawaiis economy. This translates to $7 million in annual taxes to the state, $53 million in annual labor income, and more than 2,000 jobs.


There seems to be a communication gap between organic and conventional farmers, as well as between consumers and scientists. It is time to close that gap. Dialogue is needed if we are to advance along the road to an ecologically balanced, biologically based system of farming.


Science and good farming alone will not be sufficient to provide food security to the healthy, or to the poor and malnourished, or to solve all our current environmental problems. However, without science and good farming we cannot even begin to dream about maintaining such a secure future.


Rather than indulge in speculation and mistrust, let us focus our attention on the facts and to where it matters: the need to support farming methods that are good for the environment and for our children.













Document Number: 3507 



 Bill Gates on how organic farming and &quot;GMOs&quot; can preserve the environment and feed people 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 21 August 2010 


Bill Gates had a lot of thoughtful things to say about technology and social innovation at the recent  Techonomy  conference, including a nice plug for  Tomorrow;s Table  !


;There;s a lot of great thinking [from both the GMO and organic communities], which lead to things you should care about-preserving the environments and feeding people with a decent diet.;


Video:  Reinventing Capitalism: How to jumpstart what the marketplace can;t  Speaker: Bill Gates, Bill ; Melinda Gates Foundation Interviewed by Brent Schlender


http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid87735931001?bclid=87675639001;bctid=541391120001


The 1 minute clip discussing Tomorrow;s Table starts at 19:10.


;It is only 190 pages if you skip the recipes;













Document Number: 9394 



 BIO-FABulous! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 20 January 2010 


Genetic Engineering &amp; Biotechnology News  reports  that UC Berkeley and Stanford University are collaborating on a project to build a biotechnology resource called  BIOFAB  . This stands for International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology. (IOFAB?) I guess the missing B stands for BYOB, or ;Bring Your Own B.; What;s so fabulous about BIOFAB?


Well, genetic engineering requires all sorts of tools. There are the various parts of genes that you need, from the promoter sequence, to the terminator sequence, enhancers, repressors, not to mention the functional part of the gene itself. But then you also need the tools to get it into your target organism; and the list goes on. It takes time, research, and least of all piles of $$$ to get all these parts together to make it all work. It;s no small wonder that the only companies to successfully launch GE crops are the big ones.


But there;s a new field emerging that is much more demanding than splicing a few genes together ; synthetic biology. Building new organisms means that an organismal toolkit will have to be put together. Preferably one that many people can use, free of patent restrictions that could hinder their use by academic labs and small startups. Something open-source;


The new effort, called the BIOFAB: International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology (BIOFAB), aims to produce thousands of  free  , standardized DNA parts to shorten the development time and lower the cost of synthetic biology for academic or biotech laboratories. The BIOFAB has received two years of funding from the NSF and matching support from founding partners Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the BioBricks Foundation (BBF), a non-profit organization that supports and promotes the use of synthetic biology. (emphasis added)


Bio-Fabulous!


The chair of BIOFAB;s executive committee, Jay Keasling, is also familiar to some of us. Shortly after receiving a very nice humanitarian award, Frank was all over him to get a photo with him. (I tried to do a video interview but the camera ran out of battery power.)


Unfortunately, there is not much information on the BIOFAB website, so the article is all we have to go off of for now. I;m interested to see what comes out of this project in the future, and what happens when open-source GE goes mainstream!













Document Number: 4422 



 Biodiversity world tour event at Nagoya Japan ;save forest for nature by working from the ground up not top-down 


 by  David Tribe  on 1 November 2010 


GMO Pundit participated in a session running in parallel with the conference of parties (COP) biodiversity discussions that occurred last week in Nagoya, Japan. He had an opportunity to frame some points to make to the delegates who are interested in conserving biodiversity, an issue the Pundit is passionate about too. He does worry that global approaches to conserving natural biodiversity may miss out on encouraging some of the most effective but not necessarily obvious pathways to long-term preservation of nature.


In his opinion we should focus on ensuring farming operations preserve nature by working from the ground up, rather than working top down by making global rules about biodiversity.


At the Nagoya session he had the opportunity to express some of these views, (see video of session here  http://www.biodiversityworldtour.com/category/events/  ) but now he is home from the conference that he is taking the opportunity to amplify them here at GMO Pundit.


GMO Pundit thinks we could gain from the old and well-known aphorism of Rene Dubos ; think globally but act locally. This catch-phrase is really relevant to how we can think about the global biodiversity issue in a more effective way. The big global issues of biodiversity are extremely important but we need to act locally at the farm level to devise policies can be successful in practice and also benefit local community welfare and people.


The way the Pundit sees it, thinking locally involves evaluating and &nbsp;addressing the&nbsp;root&nbsp;causes of threats to biodiversity from farm operations.


These root causes can be spelt out as    rural poverty    poor farmer nutrition,    lack of access to land    lack of access to education especially for women    and lack of access to better technologies.


Thus the Pundit;s view is that it;s important that in all the thinking we do globally about biodiversity that we don;t compromise our opportunities to have an impact on the root causes of the damage to biodiversity that could come from farm operations.


Progress on changing these challenges such as rural poverty land access and poor rural nutrition is necessarily long-term but in his opinion is absolutely necessarily if were going to achieve global protection of biodiversity. It seems to him that &nbsp;local farmer level changes are a necessary first step to achieve preservation of forest biodiversity. The connections of all of these issues listed in the above dotpoints to biodiversity are numerous and complex but they are well established and well discussed by many agricultural economists and human development specialists, for example the scholars at the  International Food Policy Research Institute  . But there is one central way they all help biodiversity, which is that they enable farmers to produce more food on less land and thus save forests for nature


The Pundit;s personal view is that there are lots of opportunities where access to better technology to help former poorer farmers in the developing world but he does also recognise that this is sometimes characterised as an overemphasis on food production issues, and as a &nbsp;failure to take into account that access to food involves other issues apart from the amount of food produced, such as access and entitlement to food as eloquently mapped out by the economist Amartya Sen.


But it;s sometimes forgotten that farm output and farmer income and good nutrition for farmers families, farm productivity, and the ability of farmers to afford education for the children are all interlinked so that is not possible to separate out access to new technology from the many other factors that influence rural welfare. And so that an emphasis on ensuring access to technology is in fact addressing many of the aspects of elimination of poverty and malnutrition which are necessary steps to ensuring that enough land is left for nature and for biodiversity protection free from forest and wilderness clearing.


The Pundit thinks to understand what to do to preserve biodiversity and to give us hope we should go over some of the real success stories or tangible success possibilities that illustrate that technology can substantially change rural poverty. Three success stories &nbsp;which the Pundit is very excited about are:


Example 1. The successes with revitalisation of maize farming in Malawi driven by economist Jeffrey Sachs and various collaborators particularly those from the United Nations which have produced an economic transformation in that country,  Example 2. The wonderful benefits to Indian cotton farmers have accrued from them taking on commercially produced seeds which is yielded more than $1.8 billion worth of extra farmer income,  Example 3. The potentially massive benefits from biofortified rice and wheat from countries such as the SubSahara region of Africa and Southeast Asia which Australian economist Kym Anderson has estimated to amount to several billions of dollars of actual welfare benefits per year. One of the key messages from Kym Anderson;s assessments is better nutrition is a key factor in holding back the productivity of rural workers. This link between technology health and quality of life underlines the fact that discussions about farm output, and protecting biodiversity withh small real farm land footprints are not just about output of food and biodiversity, they;re about the quality of people;s lives.













Document Number: 3753 



 Biofortification of cassava makes real progress thanks to SNP detection methods 


 by  David Tribe  on 18 March 2011 


A Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in a Phytoene Synthase Gene can Simplify Provitamin A Biofortification of Cassava  Ralf Welsch  ISB NEWS REPORT MARCH 2011  The need for biofortification of staple crops  Millions of poor people rely on staples to meet their daily calorie requirements. The existence of such energydense food is the result of genetic selection by humans since the beginning of agriculture, which was dominated by selection criteria related to yield increase. Biochemical diversity as an important food requirement, such as the need for micronutrientsi.e., vitamins and microelementscould not be considered. The resulting &nbsp;biochemical monotony in staples can be counterbalanced by food diversification, where possible. However, poverty reasons have led to predominant consumption of staples in large parts of the world60% of calories consumed are from three crops: rice, corn and wheat. Consequently, a variety of micronutrient malnutrition diseases affecting large parts of the worlds population have emerged.  Biofortification of crop plants describes the idea of providing the micronutrients through the staple crop plants own biosynthetic (vitamins) or physiological (minerals) capacity. This can be accomplished by conventional classical breeding, when the desired micronutrient-rich germplasm is available, allowing the transfer of such nutritional traits into agriculturally relevant cultivars. In the absence of sufficient genetic variability or when plant breeding is ineffective, the introduction of the desired trait by genetic engineering is required.


An important scientific prerequisite for the application of genetic engineering is inter alia a toolbox of identified genes. The term Nutritional Genomics has been coined to describe a discipline of modern plant biology that focuses on the molecular elucidation of the biochemical pathways or physiological processes involved in micronutrient accumulation.


Biofortification as a necessary vitamin A deficiency intervention Vitamin A malnutrition is widespread in the tropics, leading to irreversible blindness and severely exacerbating infectious diseases due to its essential role in the immune response. &nbsp;According to the WHO, an estimated million preschool children are affected by vitamin A deficiency, with 250 000  500 000 children becoming blind every year, half of whom die within a year (WHO database of vitamin A deficiency;  &nbsp;  http://www.who.int/vmnis/vitamina/data/en/index.html  ). Vitamin A denotes a group of compounds formed by the cleavage of provitamin A carotenoids, i.e., carotenoids containing at least one unsubstituted -ionone ring, such as - or -carotene. Prevalence of Vitamin A deficiency among poor people with diets primarily based on rice prompted the development of Golden Rice, which is a rice cultivar that accumulates provitamin A carotenoids in the &nbsp;endosperm, the edible part of the rice grain. The absence of variability for the trait (no germplasm accession is known that develops yellow endosperm) required the use of genetic engineering for biofortification.


Cassava is another important staple crop, cited as the fifth most important crop worldwide. Its importance &nbsp;is even higher in arid areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa. Roots of commercial cassava cultivars are rich in starch, but low in proteins and micronutrients, including provitamin A carotenoids; thus biofortified cultivars &nbsp;with elevated levels of provitamin A are desirable. In contrast to rice, some yellow-rooted cassava varieties do exist, and thus, breeding efforts have yielded a three-fold increase in provitamin A content. However, cassava is vegetatively propagated and breeding is very tedious because of long breeding cycles. Moreover the very complex genetics of cassava renders varietal recovery extremely difficult. Thus, the identification of genes crucial for improvements of the provitamin A content in cassava storage roots can greatly assist in accelerating the development of provitamin A-rich cassava both by breeding and genetic engineering.  We therefore focused on the carotenoid biosynthesis pathway in cassava. We took advantage of existing cassava varieties differing in root carotenoid accumulation and found an allelic polymorphism in the gene coding for the rate-limiting enzyme of carotenoid biosynthesis. This polymorphism was found to determine root color differences caused by varying accumulations of provitamin A carotenoids..  (More at link to  ISB  )













Document Number: 9822 



 Biofortified Lettuce not a Bitter Pill 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 21 October 2009 


Calcium is the most abundant mineral in the human body, and most of it is found in our bones and teeth. Without this element to form the hard structures of our bodies, life as we know it as mammals would be in peril. We need it for our nerves and muscles to function properly, too. Many people in the United States are deficient in calcium, upwards of 44%, and in the developing world, these numbers are sadly much, much higher. And as we age, we lose more and more calcium from our bones, leading to osteoporosis. Women are  particularly at risk  for this disease once they go through menopause.


What can we do? Taking calcium in supplement form can be one way to absorb it, but according to the results of a huge multi-year trial of calcium supplements conducted by the Women;s Health Initiative, these provided  only modest benefits  . Only women over 60 who took the full regimen of calcium supplements (with Vitamin D) had a statistically significant difference from the control group. And this benefit came with a cost ; of more kidney stones.


Nutrition research continues to find wrinkles in the vitamin and mineral pill-popping philosophy, often due to the fact that there are many factors that influence the absorption of needed nutrients. In the case of calcium, vitamin D is important to help its absorption, while  antinutrients  such as phytic acid (aka phytate) and oxalic acid will inhibit its absorption. One particular form, calcium oxalate, is insoluble in water, and will pass right through us, if it doesn;t irritate our tissues on the way through. (It is often shaped like tiny needles that the plants doubtlessly use to defend themselves.)


Can;t we just eat vegetables that are high in calcium? Not necessarily.  Broccoli and spinach come to mind, but the calciferous-ness of these two vegetables is often in the oxalate form ; enough that people who are predisposed to kidney stones  have to limit  how much broccoli they eat for this reason. Though a vegetable may be high in calcium, that doesn;t necessarily mean that it will be in a form that is good for you. Or one you can absorb ; calcium in soybeans is not very available, and it takes the processing of turning it into tofu to make it a better source. Phytate found in beans can be an impediment to absorption.


And when calcium is added to fortified foods, it  often imparts an unpleasant taste  . To get around this, my spouse likes to eat those calcium pills disguised in the form of chocolate candy. (I;m sure it;s about the calcium!)


Finally, vegetables that are high in calcium  also tend to be more bitter  . Great. It makes you want to forget about veggies and just eat cheese. Maybe that;s why I moved to Wisconsin!


No, actually, here;s part of the reason. I believe that a large part of the answer to our our nutrient needs will be found through modifying the plants that we eat through breeding and genetic engineering. The concept of breeding for nutrient content is relatively new, but the concept of breeding for the  bioavailability  of nutrients is even newer. A nutrient is  bioavailable  if it is in a form that can be absorbed by our bodies, and in the proper context to speed that absorption. And a plant-based food that has been fortified with a nutrient biologically is called  Biofortified  . (Hence the name of this blog!)


How could you breed a better source of calcium? The sources of raw material for plant breeders are the many varieties and closely related species of our crops. Breeders will search these plants for traits that they want to breed into varieties that we can grow and eat. It takes many years to do this for a single crop, and the more complex the trait, the harder it is to do.


First, you could search for variation in nutrient content. If an obscure variety of beans is found with high levels, you could breed that trait in relatively easily. On the other hand, say your a smarter breeder and you also look for variations in phytate levels and  also  breed a low-phytate bean. Finally, if you;re a breeder ahead of your time, you;ll also test out varieties of beans to see how much of the calcium is absorbed. That would be the most informative, but also the hardest of all to do!


Genetic engineering can also help. If you understand the biology of your nutrient in plants, you can try doing it directly. You could find a gene that has an important role in your chosen nutrient (or antinutrient) and try modifying your plant that way. Keep in mind, breeding also modifies the genetics of plants ; you just don;t know how you;re modifying it without doing further research.


A little over a year ago,  a monumental paper was published  on calcium-biofortified carrots. It wasn;t the first paper on biofortified crops, nor was it the first on biofortifying through genetic engineering. What made it so significant was that it was the first to demonstrate through feeding trials that the modification worked ; it increased the absorption of calcium dramatically.


What they did is inserted a gene from a plant called Arabidopsis, that produces a calcium ;antiporter; protein. Called  sCAX1  , this protein is found in the membrane that envelops the large, fluid-filled Vacuole in plant cells, as shown above. It is an antiporter because it uses hydrogen ions that want to move out of the vacuole to ;pump; Calcium into the vacuole. Theoretically, if you enhanced the activity of these antiporters, you could make the plant store more calcium in its vacuoloes. And that;s what happened.


But they didn;t stop there. Sure, the carrots had more calcium in them, but was it bioavailable? They first fed the carrots to mice, and to track how much calcium the mice absorbed they ;labeled; the carrots with a radioisotope of calcium,  45  Ca. By comparing the proportions of  45  Ca in the bones of mice fed the biofortified and control carrots, they found that the mice fed the enhanced carrots absorbed twice as much calcium as the mice fed normal carrots. They would need to eat half as much of the new carrot to get the same amount of calcium, the researchers reported.


There;s more. They continued with a human feeding experiment. By labeling the carrots with a rare, yet stable Calcium isotope known as  42  Ca, and injecting the 30 participants with another rare form,  46  Ca, the researchers were able to measure how much calcium in their bodies came from the carrots. They found that people who ate the ;super carrot; absorbed 41% more calcium than if they ate normal carrots. Success!


The research was widely promoted, and it was also criticized. The general criticism was that it involved genetic engineering, which carries a fairly significant stigma. But this could instead be considered an asset ; another case where GE crops can benefit consumers. Some of the more intractable critics criticized the fact that carrots provide little calcium in the first place, and that the total milligrams of additional calcium absorbed was insignificant compared to our daily dietary needs.


But this criticism missed a major point ; this was a proof-in-concept that calcium nutrition could be improved with this technique. And although the carrot would not itself solve the problem, imagine if each vegetable in your salad could be improved this way ; it could really add up!


Now, I;m pleased to report, there is a new paper involving this same gene, this time in lettuce, and investigating another important aspect of biofortified crops ; how do they taste?


Recall that higher calcium content might affect how food tastes. I;d like to call this the Bitterness Barrier. Although bitterness can be caused by many other compounds in your food, it is possible that if you engineered your lettuce to have more calcium you might make it less tasty.


How ironic would that be? People don;t eat enough healthy veggies as it is, and if plant geneticists are going to help people eat healthier ; it would have to be done in a way that still tastes good. It would do no good to make healthy lettuce that tasted like endives! So Sunghun Park at Kansas State University wanted to find out if using sCAX1 to enhance calcium levels in lettuce would affect the flavor or not.


They started with a lettuce variety called Black Seeded Simpson ; it is a common green leaf lettuce that you see in most grocery stores. They made a genetic construct containing the sCAX1 gene, a promoter, and a marker gene. The marker gene is a gene used to make sure that the genetic construct was successfully inserted into the nucleus of the lettuce cells.


The promoter is a DNA sequence that tells the plant what to do with the gene ; when to turn it on and off and how strongly the cells express the gene. A common one that plant geneticists use is the CaMV 35s promoter which comes from a plant virus and tells the plant to turn the gene on  full blast  . The researchers also wanted to test out another promoter called cdc2a, which comes from a gene involved in cell division cycles.


They inserted both versions of this construct into lettuce plants, and checked to make sure it was there using several methods. They took their successful transformations and tested the level of expression of the sCAX1 gene. Was it working?


On the right is a northern blot ; a measure of the amount of messenger RNA (mRNA) produced from the gene. mRNA carries the genetic code from the DNA in the nucleus to a structure called the Ribosome where it gets translated into protein. By measuring the levels of sCAX1 RNA you can find out how much of the gene is being produced. The stronger the band, the more RNA is being produced. As you can see in the image, two of the 35s-sCAX1 plants have strong expression, and the cdc2a-sCAX1 plant also expresses the gene, but a little weaker. The bands in the dark image on the bottom are ribosomal RNA, which are used to make sure that the RNA levels between each plant are comparable. Naturally, a normal plant ; the Control ; did not express the gene.


The plants all grew normally and looked identical, so set to studying the calcium levels of the plants. Did they have more calcium?


Oh yes, about 27-29% more calcium was in each plant. Just like the carrots as before, lettuce plants with the sCAX1 gene inserted had higher levels of calclium.


To make sure that the trait was stable in each generation, they allowed the plants to go to seed, and submitted the next generation to the same tests. They also tested to see if the levels of other minerals changed. Calcium was the only mineral that increased, and by 25-32% in this generation. Success!


Well, not quite, now they wanted to find out how it tasted. Although I imagine they did a little munching while watering the plants in the greenhouse, they put together a panel of five highly trained professional tasters to carefully analyze the flavor of the lettuce in a blind taste test.


They analyzed all sorts of various aspects of the flavor and texture, from Flavor, to Bitterness, Sweetness, Crispness, Metallic, Celery and Spinach-like flavors, to something called ;Tooth-etch.; (This is a measure of the chalkiness of food.) Each of these attributes were rated on a scale of 0 to 15, 15 being the strongest.


Without boring you with a table full of numbers, let me tell you a bit about the results. Overall sweetness for the regular control lettuce got an average value of 1.533, while the biofortified lettuce got 1.489. To see whether this difference is significant, they calculated what is called a p-value. This tells you how likely the difference in results could be due to chance. A high p-value means that the difference between the two averages means that the difference is not statistically significant. A low p-value means that it is unlikely that chance played a major role ; and that the difference between your two averages are real. In the case of the average overall sweetness of the control versus the biofortified lettuce, they got a p-value of 0.763. This means that the results are 76.3% likely to be due to chance. In other words ; they couldn;t notice a difference in how sweet the lettuces are.


The same went for the other characteristics. The musty/earthy flavor of the control was 1.833 and the biofortified one got 1.644. With a p-value of .166, still not a significant difference. The crispness rating was by far the most identical between the two ; 5.367 and 5.344 respectively, had a p-value of 0.949. At a 94.9% likeihood that this miniscule difference in ratings was due to chance ; you can safely say that this calcium-biofortified lettuce is just as crisp as it should be. Not a single texture or flavor beat the odds ; the lettuce was truly the same as its normal counterpart ; almost.


One characteristic, the tooth-etch, was  almost  significant. Generally, a p-value of at most 0.05 is necessary to suggest that the difference in averages is  not  due to chance ; that it is a  real  difference. A 5% likelihood of being due to chance is not bad, but you really want something like 1% (p-value=0.01) or lower. If you get a p-value of 0.0001, you;re golden!


The ;Tooth-Etch; for the control was 0.233, and the biofortified lettuce got 0.989, with a p-value of 0.057 ; slightly higher than the 0.05 cutoff. Either there was no difference and this is a statistical blip, or there could be a very minor difference and the test was not  powerful  enough to detect it. Maybe there was a wide distribution in the tooth-etch ratings given by the taste-testers? Perhaps there is a slight difference, but they would need more than five expert tasters to pin it down.


It would make sense that if the lettuce has more calcium that it could be a little chalkier, but they didn;t really notice it. Besides, if five discerning palates can;t tell the difference, can any of ours?


They also broke it down to look at several difference transgenic lines, and the only significant differences were that one line was slightly sweeter, and another line had a slightly better   umami  taste. This could be due to the gene being inserted in different locations (and affecting other genes), or being turned on to different levels in those plants. For all practical purposes biofortifying lettuce does not change the way it tastes ; particularly the bitterness. You can have your calcium and eat it too. The Bitterness Barrier has been broken!


The one thing I think was missing from this research was that there was no bioavailability test. Although increasing the calcium content of carrots resulted in more bio-available calcium, that was a different species and a different tissue. Biofortification is a relatively new concept, so what we need in this field are more lines of evidence that it works in many contexts. It is highly likely to work, but a small-scale bioavailability study would be a good idea to verify that the lettuce helps you absorb more calcium.


Nevertheless, this study shows that not only can we enhance the content of important nutrients through genetic engineering, but we can also precisely verify that we;re maintaining the eating quality of the produce. Parents will still have the same old issues with getting their kids to eat ;yucky; veggies, but at least it won;t be any worse than before. Besides, if those veggies can be made to pack a stronger punch, one that is verified through nutritional research, maybe parents might feel like redoubling their efforts to make salads rather than giving up and reaching for Flintstones and other pills that might not do much good.


The research is part of the commercialization process for this lettuce, so it seems we will likely see it come to market in the coming years. I will be interested to see how people respond to it, and whether it helps with nutrition at the same time as helping people to understand that it;s not whether it is modified but  how  it is that really matters. Would you try an enhanced lettuce if you knew it would help you meet your nutrient needs?


Reference:


Park, S., Elless, M., Park, J., Jenkins, A., Lim, W., Chambers IV, E., &amp; Hirschi, K. (2009). Sensory analysis of calcium-biofortified lettuce  Plant Biotechnology Journal, 7  (1), 106-117 DOI:  10.1111/j.1467-7652.2008.00379.x


*If you like what you read, please consider voting for us in the Ashoka Changemakers contest, the deadline for voting is October 28th!  For details on this quick and painless process, go here.  Thanks!













Document Number: 7046 



 Biofortified on Changemakers 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 9 September 2009 


This afternoon, I polished off  my entry  into the  Ashoka Changemakers GMO ;Risk or Rescue;  contest  , with minutes to go before the deadline. I was going to submit my entry last night, but what I had written on the site;s system disappeared when I tried to publish it. So I had to start all over, this time writing it out in Word  first  . It would have been nice to know the character limit of the ;describe your idea; section beforehand, which led to the catastrophic disappearance.


Anyhow, please consider registering at the changemakers site and voting for my entry. The number of votes to beat is 33 votes, I know way more people read this site than that! As opposed to the hiccups that the publishing process experiences on changemakers,  registration  takes less than a minute and is pain-free. So get to it!


My entry is below the fold.


The text-only entry boxes eliminated my formatting, so here it is as I would like to have shown it:


Biofortified is an independent group blog for plant genetics and genetic engineering (GE). By posting news, discussing research, debunking myths, and inviting the input of guest experts and especially readers, our knowledgeable writers are helping to bring a new standard of communication to agricultural biotechnology.  Check us out!   What makes your approach innovative?  Group science blogs have been tried and tested, but this is the first one for plant genetics. The site is currently written on a volunteer basis by two graduate students and two professors, and features posts written by guest experts. This gives the public an opportunity to learn about GE, ask questions, and give their own input.  There are many resources on the internet where people can find factual information about GE crops, but Biofortified is the first forum of its kind to encourage dialog on this important topic, and to bring scientists into an open online forum where they can talk about the issues that they find important. To our knowledge, no other organization is making such a dedicated effort to discussing genetic engineering on the web.  Finally, our blog mascot, Frank N. Foode is going to be a big hit. As he travels the country and the world in search of plant genetics adventures, he gives us a personal connection to the genetics of the foods we eat. No one seems to be able to resist getting their photos taken with him!   How will you sustain your solution?  Maintaining the site is inexpensive, something that a small fundraiser can take care of each year. But we have big plans for extensive information resources and new media approaches, which will take time to put together. This will become easier as Biofortified adds members in the future. The blog is not yet a year old, yet conversation is starting to build up and people are taking notice.  It is important also to keep people interested in a resource, and to create a community where people feel that they can be open, honest, and are entertained enough to keep coming back. In the near future, we plan to release the first in a series of videos to not only bring some science to the publics computer screens, but also into their kitchens. Most people have all the basic tools to learn about their food right at home, and with Frank N. Foode as their cooking guide, they can see that science can be fun and delicious!   What will be the impact of your solution?  Three authors live in the United States, and one in Australia. As time goes on, we will be adding more writers across the world, to help add to the varied global perspectives we talk about on the blog. We talk about more than just the science  theres also the politics, social impact, environmental issues, economic considerations, and more. So we have the potential to reach people around the English-speaking world on a wide range of issues connected to this technology.   Genetic engineering is not a ;  RISK or RESCUE  ;, it is a RESCUE  with  RISKS. All plant modifications have risks, including traditional breeding, and we need to encourage public dialog that recognizes this fact and puts this technology in the proper context without resorting to black-and-white false dichotomies. If we can help people realize just this fact, we will have already moved the debate forward in a positive manner.  This is just a taste of some of the reasons why we think this effort is worth your vote. Stick around the comments section in the final week of the Changemakers contest to hear more!  Thanks


I included a few images in the contest entry, and here they are for posterity:


The banner image, of course.


Frank N. Foode representing the plants.


Anastasia, Frank, and myself when we all met at  Maize Genetics  .


In my entry, I might have let slip some information about a secret project I am working on with Frank, so in the coming week look forward to hearing more about it. Indeed, each day until the contest closes, I will post one good reason to vote for this blog in the Changemakers contest. There was really not enough space in the contest to adequately explain why something like Biofortified is a great idea worthy of votes, so I will use their comment system to help voters decide. In the meantime, we have until 4 pm EST on September 16th,  so get out there and vote!


(By the way, I know that online contests invite their own sort of shenanigans, please lets keep it clean and only register/vote once per person.)













Document Number: 5818 



 Biofortified on the Alfalfa EIS 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 25 January 2011 


Yesterday, the comment period for the Genetically Engineered Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ended. Next to sugar beets, perhaps no other GE crop has received the kind of regulatory attention that this one has. Consequently, Anastasia and I decided to submit a joint comment to the USDA with Biofortified.org;s name attached to it. There has been much discussion as of late on this blog,  spearheaded by Anastasia  , about the issue of  coexistence  .  While hyperbole about ;kissing your organics goodbye;  and meaningless distinctions such as   ;the first GE perennial  field  crop;  (first perennial is papaya) are abound, some interesting things are actually going on.


In December, the USDA  held a meeting  with several stakeholders, and the transcript of this meeting  can be found here  . There are several ideas being floated around, and some familiar names. I;ll have more to say on this meeting later. But one statement struck a chord, and that was that there wasn;t enough time for discussion between the meeting and the end of the Alfalfa comment period. Of course, let;s ignore the fact that GE crops have been grown for 14 years, and that Alfalfa was first deregulated years ago. There has been plenty of time for discussion, but I guess no one has been trying to make this discussion happen in a productive manner until now. Kudos to the USDA for getting things going, though it be in the 11th hour for this particular transgenic crop.


The Alfalfa EIS  for the first time  gives an additional option of a coexistence plan that carries with is some geographical restrictions. To make sure that people could find it, they extracted the geographical restriction proposal  so everyone could find it easily  . When I read it, I was pleasantly surprised at how they divided states into different tiers, with no restrictions for the alfalfa in most states, and increasing restrictions depending upon the presence of non-GE growers and seed producers nearby.


While some were calling for  shrill rejections  of anything smacking of ;co-existence; whatsoever, Whole Foods on the other hand,  publicly supported  this proposal. Also see the  Food Safety News  article about it. Some company sources seem to not be pleased by the geographical restrictions,  perhaps threatening to sue  the USDA if adopted. Maybe it is a good compromise, as  Calvin &amp; Hobbes  once said, because it ;leaves everyone mad.;


When I thought about the geographical restriction idea, there were some things I liked about it, such as the potential to allow the crops to be grown in most places, while minimizing the impact to non-GE seed producers. For export markets, keeping confidence in the non-GE status of seeds and hay is important, particularly when the importing nations have not yet approved the transgenic events being grown here in the US.


There are also things  not  to like about it. For instance, 5 mile distances imposed do not take into account the different conditions from one location to another. While I understand that 5 miles is being chosen to make it beyond the range of the typical honeybee, as  Anastasia demonstrated  this overlooks existing research on rates of actual cross-pollination. drawing a 5-mile boundary around fields that are to be protected from any and all bees gives one grower inordinate rights to restrict the growing practices of others around them. I do not know what distances would be appropriate to require for such regulations if enacted, but when I read the language of the proposed rules closely, I noticed two things: treating pollen as an aggressor, and giving only one class of farmer the ability to halt the activities of another. I don;t have strong feelings over the trait or the proposed deregulation options, but given that this Alfalfa EIS if accepted has the potential to impact the regulation of many other GE crops down the road, I decided yesterday I wanted to whip up a quick comment.


Anastasia and I discussed these issues over the phone, and we both agreed to send in a joint comment. I wrote and submitted it as a PDF by email, and asked for confirmation that it was accepted just to make sure it was. (So far, no word back) Feel free to  download and look at it in that form  , or keep reading below. In the future, perhaps there will be more time to write draft comments and get more names attached to it.


So without further ado here comes Biofortified;s first comment on a pending Environmental Impact Statement!


Biofortified.org Comments on the Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa Events: Final Environmental Impact Statement (December 2010) (Document ID APHIS-2007-0044-12532)


Biofortified.org is an independent group website devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about agriculture, especially plant genetics and genetic engineering. Karl Haro von Mogel and Anastasia Bodnar are the two Executive Editors, and this represents their opinions with regard to the proposed deregulation of Glyphosate-Tolerant Alfalfa.


We feel that although we do not have strong opinions about these transgenic events in particular, that this Environmental Impact Statement merits comment due to its focus on the important issue of coexistence between Genetically Engineered (GE) and non-GE forms of agriculture.


Pollen as an aggressor?


In debates over unintended admixture of GE and non-GE crops through cross-pollination, it is often suggested that the source of the pollen bears responsibility when this occurs. Opponents of GE crops vociferously argue that the farmer growing (or the organization that created) a GE crop should be held responsible when unwanted cross-pollination occurs. The argument is that if a non-GE farmer loses an economic premium via the presence of transgenes above a certain threshold, that this presents an undue economic harm. But we can easily envision potential future situations where this would result in the opposite of what might be intended by such a perspective.


Genetic engineering has the potential to make crops such as wheat and peanuts that are no longer allergenic, which can benefit people who are sensitive to these foods. But in these cases, cross-pollination from non-GE peanuts and wheat would not only cause economic harm to the growers of hypoallergenic specialty varieties, it could also be dangerous for consumers allergic to the proteins in the non-GE varieties. If you take the perspective that the source of the pollen is to blame, then you must conclude that non-GE wheat or peanuts must be responsible for any harm caused to such hypoallergenic varieties.


Issues of cross-pollination are not exclusive to debates over genetic engineering. In California, there are currently seedless mandarin orange farmers that are complaining about cross-pollination from nearby citrus groves. These particular mandarins produce seedless fruit without pollination, which fetches a price premium several times higher than mandarins with seeds in them. However, if a different variety of citrus trees is grown nearby, and bees bring pollen from these other varieties while visiting the mandarin flowers, the mandarins will develop seeds and lose their value. As a result, the mandarin growers are trying to prevent beekeepers from being able to operate nearby to protect their price premiums. Who is responsible in this case? Although it is more complicated as there are three parties instead of two, it does illustrate that we clearly need a wider discussion of the issue of cross-pollination within and without genetic engineering. Unless we can answer the question of how different citrus growers and beekeepers can coexist in California, we cannot answer the question of how to have long-term meaningful coexistence of GE and non-GE crops. What ethical principles we derive must apply broadly in many different situations.


Geographical Restrictions


The USDA has proposed as one of its deregulation options the possibility of restricting the growing and seed production areas of GE alfalfa to reduce the possibility of unwanted cross-pollination from GE to non-GE alfalfa seed supplies. Geographic restrictions may help maintain the ability of both seed systems to coexist. For those concerned about exporting non-GE alfalfa to nations that have not approved the GE varieties, it could also help maintain confidence in its non-GE status by those export markets. However, we foresee a problem with how the rules are being proposed that needs to be addressed.


According to the EIS, farmers growing GE alfalfa for hay or for seed cannot grow within certain distances of non-GE alfalfa fields:


In Tier III states GT alfalfa for forage cannot be planted in counties where seed is grown (based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture).


And


GT alfalfa seed production will be limited to the geographic areas in Tiers II and III where the grower can maintain isolation distances of 5 miles between GT alfalfa and conventional alfalfa.


The problem with this as it is worded is that it puts the responsibility for isolation entirely on one party. While this may at first make intuitive sense, lets suppose that in a Tier II or III state, a particular region has an abundance of GE alfalfa being grown for forage or for seed, and no non-GE alfalfa is being grown nearby. Lets say that all non-GE alfalfa fields are greater than 5 miles away, or are in another county. There would be no conflicts in this situation, which we believe is what is intended. However, should just one non-GE alfalfa seed producer or forage grower decide to start planting amongst the GE alfalfa growers or seed producers, a problem arises. However, if such a conflict arose it would be the established GE alfalfa operations (and not the encroaching non-GE alfalfa) that would be considered in violation of the rules and would need to shut down. This means that as the proposed regulations are worded, GE alfalfa growers and seed producers are afforded a second-class citizen status next to non-GE growers. Perhaps the USDA intends by the first quoted passage above to define the non-GE seed-production counties by the 2007 census alone, or change it with future censuses  which would have different implications for coexistence in either case. But it would take just one non-GE alfalfa forage field to shut down or cause a GE alfalfa seed production operation to move, and that sets a troublesome precedent.


Responsibility on both sides


It takes two gametes to make a seed. Likewise there are things that both GE and non-GE farmers can do to foster coexistence, as well as the USDA.


Both GE and non-GE farmers must share responsibility for unwanted cross-pollination. There are sensible strategies that the farmers can employ such as buffer strips and alternative flowers for bees to visit that they will prefer over alfalfa should unwanted flowering occur, for example. Genetic barriers to reproduction between GE and non-GE varieties can also be employed by breeders on both sides to limit successful pollinations. Unilateral freedom to operate and expect only your neighbor to change their operation must be resisted in either case. Communication between neighboring farmers is paramount.


The USDA can play a large role in this. While some question the USDAs authority to regulate GE crops in anything other than an all-or-nothing approach, the USDAs role in extension is clear and unambiguous. Improvements in extension and outreach education can help make coexistence work. We would go so far as to say that coexistence cannot work without adequate extension to prepare farmers for such conflicts as they may arise.


Conclusion


We appreciate being able to have the opportunity to comment on the deregulation of Glyphosate-tolerant alfalfa and can be contacted at contact @ biofortified.org if you would like to discuss our comments with us further.


Sincerely,


Karl Haro von Mogel


Anastasia Bodnar


Executive Editors, Biofortified.org













Document Number: 3928 



 Biopharma 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 28 February 2008 


Biopharma is such a strange word. To me it sounds sort of sci-fi, evoking images from the 1950s of a future where everything will be high-tech but beautiful and simple at the same time. Of course, not everyone has such positive thoughts about this potentially dangerous yet potentially lifesaving application of technology.


;  Scientists Worry Over GM Drug Crops  ;, posted on Environmental Graffiti, briefly covers the news that crops engineered to express pharmaceutical proteins will be field tested this growing season, concentrating on the Union of Concerned Scientists; reaction. Apparently UCS is taking their typical anti-tech stance, asking the USDA to require all such crops to be grown in greenhouses or underground. I was not able to find any record of UCS;s recent comments.


I;d like to defend myself, as a scientist. I refuse to believe that any scientist or biotech company would purposefully release a dangerous plant into the food supply. Even if you think scientists and biotech companies are unethical, they certainly aren;t stupid. The first company to sell a biotech plant that;s actually dangerous would likely be burnt to the ground by activists before they had time to go bankrupt. While debates over biotech crops continue, no one has ever gotten sick from a GM plant, or any GMO. What I;ve read about proposed biopharma and industrial crops haven;t indicated that this will change.


For example, consider the Amflora potato, developed by BASF. This humble potato will be used to produce starch for industrial applications. Two types of starch are produced in plants naturally: amylose and amylopectin. Amylopectin is the starch that can be used in all sorts of industrial and food applications. Amylose is useful for other purposes, but hinders some of amylopectin;s properties. It must be removed in a process that takes energy, water, and money.


The BASF scientists simply stopped production of the enzyme that makes amylose with an antisense copy of the enzyme;s mRNA. This is the same method used in the tear-free onion. Basically, the antisense copy of the mRNA binds to the natural mRNA for the targeted gene before it can be translated into a protein. It;s very clever because no actual transgenes are needed. More details can be found at  BASF  and  BioPro  .


So, what;s the fuss? Pollen spread isn;t an issue because potatoes don;t reproduce by seed, and there are no native potato relatives in Europe for Amflora to ;contaminate; anyway. Even if a tuber makes it into the food supply, Amflora potatoes are completely safe to eat, although probably shouldn;t be eaten as a primary food source becasue they don;t have amylose, thus might not be a nutritionally complete carbohydrate. I don;t know of any type of wildlife that exclusively eats potatoes.


Amflora has been ready for years, but still faces regulatory roadblocks in Europe. The  European Food Safety Authority  declared Amflora potatoes to be safe back in 2005, but the European Commission is just now considering approving it for use, along with four of Monsanto;s insect and herbicide resistant maize varieties. According to  Farmers Guardian  , ;Public health watchdogs and environmental NGOs have voiced concerns, in particular relating to the BASF Amflora potato, which contains antibiotic-resistant marker genes. They fear that parts of the potato would be used to feed livestock, ultimately entering the human food chain and subsequently conferring resistance to antibiotics.;


There is absolutely zero evidence that horizontal gene transfer can happen between plants and bacteria in nature. It happens between different bacteria species all the time, but I think we all know that plants are very different from bacteria. It is  possible  for bacteria to acquire plant genes via horizontal transfer ; but only under specially optimized laboratory conditions and when particular genetic ;tricks; are used (comment if you;d like more information on the ;tricks;).  GMO Compass  has an excellent article on the safety of antibiotic resistance markers. They explain that two of the most common genes are for resistance to kanamycin and ampicillin. Natural bacteria in the environment already have genes for resistance to these antibiotics in much higher proportions than would ever be expected with horizontal gene transfer from transgenic plants. Regardless, ;kanamycin is now rarely prescribed in human medicine. Ampicillin is still used to treat certain infections, but since resistance is so widespread, treatment is usually combined with substances (beta-lactamase inhibitors), which take away the effect of the resistance genes.;


The particular antibiotic resistance gene in Amflora is to kanamycin. I wasn;t able to find statistics on rates of kanamycin proscriptions, but according to a 2007 transcript on the  House of Commons  website, ;there are no licensed products containing kanamycin in the United Kingdom and there are no records of kanamycin having been prescribed in the national health service in the last five years.; Despite all of these facts,  Greenpeace  and FoE insist that the resistance genes are dangerous. It seems that they would rather have water and energy wasted to extract starch from regular potatoes than back down from their agenda.













Document Number: 7105 



 Biotech in developing countries 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 14 February 2008 


The AP story ;Developing Countries Grew More Biotech Crops in 07; appeared in various outlets, including the  NY Times  . The study was conducted by International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit that is working to get biotech to the people who need it most. All farmers, especially the poor, can use biotech crops to decrease inputs and increase yields. According to the ISAAA executive  summary  , ;for the twelfth consecutive year, the global area of biotech crops continued to soar.; There was an increase of 12% from 2006 to 2007, resulting in a total of 282.4 million acres of biotech crops. Most interestingly, the increase in biotech hasn;t been solely in developed countries by big agribusiness.


Biotech crops achieved a very important milestone in 2007 with humanitarian implications  the number of small and resource-poor farmers benefiting from biotech crops in developing countries exceeded 10 million for the first time. Of the global total of 12 million beneficiary biotech farmers in 2007;, over 90% or 11 million were small and resource-poor farmers from developing countries; the balance of 1 million were large farmers from both industrial countries such as Canada and developing countries such as Argentina.


ISAAA goes on to explain the benefits individual countries have received from biotech crops, eliminating many misconceptions (below the cut, all monetary values reported in US dollars). The report also discusses the future of biotech crops, which I will cover in another post.  In India, ;more than 9 out of 10 farmers who grew Bt cotton in 2005 also grew it in 2006 and similarly for 2006 and 2007.; Indias Minister of Finance has said: It is important to apply biotechnology in agriculture  what has been done with cotton must be done with food grains. The success achieved in cotton must be used to make the country self sufficient in rice, wheat, pulse and oilseed production.


Bt cotton has increased yield by up to 50%, reduced insecticide sprays by half, with environmental and health implications, and increased income by up to US$250 or more per hectare, which has contributed to social benefits and the alleviation of their poverty. At the national level, increased farmer income from Bt cotton in 2006 was estimated at US$840 million to US$1.7 billion, production has almost doubled, and India, which used to have one of the lowest cotton yields in the world, is now an exporter rather than an importer of cotton; A study conducted in 2006 of 9,300 Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton households in 456 villages in India reports that women and children in Bt cotton households already have slightly more access to social benefits than non-Bt cotton households.


China;s story is even more remarkable. ;In 2007, Bt cotton was planted in China by 7.1 million small and resource-poor farmers.; Repeat planting of Bt cotton is 100%. ;Based on studies conducted by CCAP, on average at the farm level Bt cotton in China increases yield by 9.6%, reduces insecticide use by 60%;, and generates a substantial US$220 per hectare increase in income, which makes a significant contribution to their lives as income of many cotton farmers is less than US$1 per day.;


China has also planted about one quarter of a million Bt poplars and in 2006 started to commercialize an approved virus resistant biotech papaya (a fruit/food crop) which has been developed by a Chinese university and grown on approximately 3,500 hectares  a virus resistant sweet pepper and delayed ripening tomato have also been approved for commercialization. With the exception of some varieties of Bt cotton, all the biotech crops commercialized in China have been developed by Chinese state institutions with public sector funding.  China has the largest biotech rice program in the world. Chinas biotech rice is resistant to specific pests (insect borers) and diseases (bacterial blight) and is waiting approval after extensive field tests. Dr. Jikun Huang from the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP) estimates that on the average, biotech rice increased yield by 2 to 6%, and reduced insecticide application by nearly 80% or 17 kg per hectare. At a national level, it is projected that biotech rice could deliver benefits of $4 billion per year for China, plus environmental benefits that will contribute to a more sustainable agriculture and the alleviation of poverty for small and resource-poor farmers.


Farms in Argentina are large, much closer to US-style farming than India and China. RoundUp Ready soy is their most common biotech crop, which ;generated a significant increase in farmer income, worth approximately $20 billion in the decade 1996 to 2005, created a million new jobs, more affordable soybean for consumers, and significant environmental benefits, particularly the practice of no till for conserving soil and moisture which importantly allows double cropping of biotech soybean.;  Small and large farms in Brazil grow bioech crops, but widespread use has been delayed ;due to a cumbersome approval process, particularly the legal challenges from various interest groups, including Ministries within the Government.; A 2007 study used Argentina as an example to estimate the monetary loss to farmers due to the delays. The delay from 1998 to 2006 cost a total of $4.51 billion in lost benefits. The Brazillian government has recently committed $700 million per year for the next ten years to support biotechnology.  South Africa, ranked 8th in biotech acreage, is the only African country to commercialize biotech crops. Biotech maize, soy, and cotton plantings have increased every year since they were first introduced in 1998. South Africia has some larger farms, but the primary beneficiaries are subsistence farmers. Increased yields have lead some farmers to call Bt maize ;iyasihluthisa;, the Xhosa word for ;It fills our stomachs.; Along with improved yields, decreased inputs have increased farmers; income, ;boosting small shopkeepers, dressmakers and vegetable producers.; South Africa has the responsibility and privilege of sharing its expertise with biotech crops with the rest of Africa. ;South Africa is estimated to have enhanced farm income from biotech maize, soybean and cotton by $156 million in the period 1998 to 2006, with benefits for 2006 alone estimated at $67 million.;  European acceptance of biotech crops has been slow, but increasd to 8 countries in 2007 from 6 in 2006. ;Spain continued to be the lead country in Europe planting over 70,000 hectares in 2007, equivalent to a 21% adoption rate and a 40% increase over 2006.; The collective acreage of Bt maize in France, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany, Slovakia, Romania, and Poland increased over 4-fold from 2006 to 2007. Repeat planting rates are 77%.  I;d like to leave you with the most striking quote of the report. The quote is from Richard Sitole, the chairperson of the Hlabisa District Farmers; Union in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. He has seen biotech deliver 25% to 40% higher yields, leading to an increase of income and quality of life. ;I challenge those who oppose GM crops for emergent farmers to stand up and deny my fellow farmers and me the benefit of earning this extra income and more than sufficient food for our families.;


The report is entirely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a U.S.-based philanthropic organization associated with the Green Revolution; Ibercaja, one of the largest Spanish banks headquartered in the maize growing region of Spain; and the Bussolera-Branca Foundation from Italy, which supports the open-sharing of knowledge on biotech crops to aid decision-making by global society.













Document Number: 2037 



 Bizarre argument against GE wheat 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 14 August 2009 


This is a first. While browsing the news recently, I came across this article in Farm Weekly, an Australian site:  GM silver bullet could shoot farmers in foot.  In the short article, a representative from  Network of Concerned Farmers  , Julie Newman, says that conventional wheat farmers need to be protected ; from being outperformed by genetically engineered wheat. I have to post the whole thing because I can;t figure out what to leave out:


THE introduction of a Genetically Modified (GM) wheat variety with frost tolerance could potentially flood the world wheat market and drastically lower its price and profitability, according to Network of Concerned Farmers WA spokesperson Julie Newman.  Our competitors will actually fare much better if we bring in GM wheat, because we can grow frost-tolerant crops now but they cant because of the cold snaps, she said.  If you invent a GM wheat variety that has frost tolerance, it will open up all of the rich farming area in Russia and the Ukraine, and there will be a major glut of wheat on the world market.  It would almost double global production and that means our wheat would be worth a fraction of the price.  She said a clear set of rules needed to be established to ensure non-GM farmers were protected and retained their right of choice to not grow it.  The reason you grow a crop is because you want to sell it, but if you cant sell it, why grow it?  Theres not much point growing GM wheat if it cant be sold, because you will make a loss.  Now that wouldnt be so bad if it only affected the growers who choose to grow it, but the losses will also be forced upon the other farmers who dont want to grow it.  Bringing in GM wheat will force losses on everyone who grows conventional wheat.


Let me get this straight: Julie Newman is worried that if a variety of wheat is genetically engineered to resist frost, then previously wheat-free northern areas would be able to grow this staple. And this is bad?


According to Newman, an increase in wheat production worldwide is a bad thing not because it will lower the price of wheat ; it is bad because it will lower the price of  non-GE wheat  . Lowering the price of GE wheat is ok, but if it so much as drops the price per bushel one penny ; it;s infringing on our rights!


This doesn;t make any sense whatsoever. I have read it no less than ten times, and I still cannot understand her reasoning. If you were to improve wheat to be more frost-tolerant through conventional breeding, that would also pose the same ;threat; of increased production and depressed prices. This would make it more difficult for other wheat farmers to economically choose wheat as a good crop to grow. It would not force farmers in non-frosty places to grow the frost-resistant wheat, any more or less than those farmers would be forced to grow a genetically engineered equivalent. There is no change in the ;right; not to grow the improved wheat whatsoever.


Faced with lower prices, wheat farmers may choose to grow something else to stay profitable. Note the key word:  Choose  . If a wheat farmer  really  wants to grow wheat when it is no longer profitable for them, they can do that, conventional or otherwise. But as the spokesperson for an anti-GE organization, the remedy for this future issue is to prop up local conventional wheat farmers as a special category to keep them afloat. No, not to prop up  all  local wheat farmers, only the conventional non-GE ones.


Take it out of context of the anti-GE argument, such as with the hypothetical conventionally-bred frost-tolerant wheat I mentioned above, and it is absurd. Or how about another thought-experiment: Let;s say someone finds a fertilizer or growing method that boosts yield ; and some farmers don;t feel like using it. Should they be granted price supports to keep them in business while other farmers produce more? Or if a futuristic advanced organic production system produced twice as much yield as conventional farms, would it make any sense to subsidize farmers that just don;t feel like making the switch?


Under the surface of this plan there are several real issues at play. This is coming from an Australian organization, founded by 8 farmers, half of them who grow wheat. (I could find no information on total membership, if there are any more members than these 8.) And Newman is worried that farmers in Ukraine and Russia will start to produce a lot more wheat and drive Australian farmers to something else. (Or to GE wheat) It is difficult to tell what kind of rules Newman is talking about. She may be arguing for a government subsidy to elevate the price of Australia-grown wheat to combat increased production in other countries. This is pretty standard international politics when it comes to agriculture. Or it may instead be a suggestion for some sort of tariff, ban, or other way of blocking the  slightly-more-than-hypothetical  wheat from Asia from depressing the Australian market.


But this is coming from a group of farmers that is opposed to genetic engineering, so it takes two special twists in addition to the international issue. The first is that the support must be for non-GE wheat only. As the wheat farmers who founded the organization probably do not plan to grow GE wheat themselves, it is a self-serving advocacy in addition to promoting their cause. And in this case they would be using the potential for another nation to flood the market as an excuse to specifically benefit non-GE wheat farmers.


The second twist is of a form that I have begun to recognize in the international discussions over GE wheat ; the tool of genetic engineering for crop improvement is being made a tool for international agricultural struggles that don;t necessarily have anything to do with genetic engineering  per se  . This is problematic because we need laws and regulations concerning GE crops to be based on scientific and ethical guidelines, not price protectionism. If it is necessary to support the price of local wheat in your country,  do it  and don;t drag this technology into that battle.













Document Number: 7291 



 Blogging the BIO Convention 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 19 May 2009 


Hello everybody. This morning I caught a red eye flight to Atlanta, Georgia. Although this trip has been almost three months in the making, I;ve been so busy getting ready that I have not had the time to give everyone the heads-up with a blog post. (Busy making time in my research, that is. Packing took one evening.) Today through Friday, I will be at the Biotechnology Industry Organization;s 2009 International Convention, representing Biofortified and blogging about it. Let me give you a few more details.


A few months ago, the Council for Biotechnology Information contacted me and invited me to be their guest blogger for the convention. They created  a news blog  to report on the agriculture-related talks and panels, and offered to cover my expenses to help them report on the conference. I;ve never been to the BIO conventions, which host presentations on more than just ag biotech issues. It would also give me the chance to promote the blog, get exposed to the biotech zeitgeist, and meet some interesting people.


It will also allow people who might not otherwise know much about what goes on at these conventions to learn all about it. That means you!


The CBI, however is an industry-funded nonprofit, and although they do not engage in any political lobbying, accepting their offer does present a potential conflict of interest. Would people still see me as an independent academic? Would I get dragged into some dirty politics as a consequence of going to the convention? Would this influence my opinion of genetic engineering subtly without my realizing it? After some consideration and talking to my adviser, former professors, (and family!) which you can read about on my personal blog, I decided to accept the CBI;s offer.


Here;s the summary. Although the CBI is covering my travel, hotel expenses, and some food, I am not getting paid to go to the convention or to write about it. I will be reporting on a whole host of talks on the CBI;s agbiotech@bio news blog, as their  guest blogger  . In these articles I will just be reporting the facts ; I;ll save my opinion for my own blogs. Full disclosure, of course, is part of our agreement (my terms) ; so I will put a note at the bottom of each post so that readers can take what I say about salt-tolerant crops with, well, a grain of salt!


Check out the CBI blog for the news, I will try to keep up with comments during the convention, and summarize and highlight a few things over here on Biofortified. I;ll also be doing some video interviews with panelists and anyone else I can grab. The CBI is letting me borrow a cute little Vado HD camera to do this. Frank N. Foode will also be there, I;ll see if I can catch him in one of the VIP areas. As media, I should have access.


I am thankful that the CBI has given me this opportunity to go to the BIO Convention, something which few second-year grad students are able to do. I am excited to attend the interesting talks and panel discussions, especially one on Thursday entitled ;Environment, Economy and Society: Plant Biotechnology;s Role in Advancing Sustainable Development.; I am committed to letting the facts and my values be my guides through the science and implications of biotechnology, as always, and I believe that my readers will be able to see this for themselves in what I write.













Document Number: 2741 



 Brazilian Brachialactone 


 by  David Tribe  on 29 August 2010 


Muck and Mystery: Brachialactone   About four years ago there was a flurry of commentary about Brazilian ag,   noted here  , when the   World Food Prize was awarded to them  .      From only 200,000 hectares of arable land in 1955, the Cerrado had well over 40 million hectares in cultivation by the year 2005. The phenomenal achievement of transforming the infertile Cerrado region into highly productive land over a span of fifty years, the worlds single largest increase in farmland since the settlement of the U.S. Midwest, has been hailed as a far-reaching milestone in agricultural science.    The Cerrado is an arid brush savanna stretching over 120 million hectares across central Brazil from the western plains to the northeastern coast. With soils characterized by high acidity and aluminum levels that are toxic to most crops, Brazilian farmers had long referred to the area as campos cerrados  closed land, with little promise for sustaining production. . .    The Cerrado region now provides 54 percent of all soybeans harvested in Brazil, 28 percent of the countrys corn, and 59 percent of its coffee. Cerrado agriculture has also diversified to include rice, cotton, cassava, and sugar. For all crops, average yields in the Cerrado are higher than in other areas, with harvests reaching 4.8 tons per hectare of soybeans and 11 tons per hectare of corn. In addition, the Cerrado supports 55 percent of Brazils beef industry.   And that;s on 1/3 of the land available. A recent article highlights the cerrado with  a focus on its contrarian approach  .    The increase in Brazils farm production has been stunning. Between 1996 and 2006 the total value of the countrys crops rose from 23 billion reais ($23 billion) to 108 billion reais, or 365%. Brazil increased its beef exports tenfold in a decade, overtaking Australia as the worlds largest exporter. It has the worlds largest cattle herd after Indias. It is also the worlds largest exporter of poultry, sugar cane and ethanol (see chart 2). Since 1990 its soyabean output has risen from barely 15m tonnes to over 60m. Brazil accounts for about a third of world soyabean exports, second only to America. In 1994 Brazils soyabean exports were one-seventh of Americas; now they are six-sevenths. Moreover, Brazil supplies a quarter of the worlds soyabean trade on just 6% of the countrys arable land.  No less astonishingly, Brazil has done all this without much government subsidy. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), state support accounted for 5.7% of total farm income in Brazil during 2005-07. That compares with 12% in America, 26% for the OECD average and 29% in the European Union. And Brazil has done it without deforesting the Amazon (though that has happened for other reasons). The great expansion of farmland has taken place 1,000km from the jungle. . .  Embrapa is short for Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuria, or the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. It is a public company set up in 1973, in an unusual fit of farsightedness by the countrys then ruling generals. At the time the quadrupling of oil prices was making Brazils high levels of agricultural subsidy unaffordable. Mauro Lopes, who supervised the subsidy regime, says he urged the government to give $20 to Embrapa for every $50 it saved by cutting subsidies. It didnt, but Embrapa did receive enough money to turn itself into the worlds leading tropical-research institution. It does everything from breeding new seeds and cattle, to creating ultra-thin edible wrapping paper for foodstuffs that changes colour when the food goes off, to running a nanotechnology laboratory creating biodegradable ultra-strong fabrics and wound dressings. Its main achievement, however, has been to turn the cerrado green. . .  When Embrapa started, the cerrado was regarded as unfit for farming. Norman Borlaug, an American plant scientist often called the father of the Green Revolution, told the New York Times that nobody thought these soils were ever going to be productive. They seemed too acidic and too poor in nutrients. Embrapa did four things to change that.  First, it poured industrial quantities of lime (pulverised limestone or chalk) onto the soil to reduce levels of acidity. . .Embrapa scientists also bred varieties of rhizobium, a bacterium that helps fix nitrogen in legumes and which works especially well in the soil of the cerrado, reducing the need for fertilisers. . .  Second, Embrapa went to Africa and brought back a grass called brachiaria. Patient crossbreeding created a variety, called braquiarinha in Brazil, which produced 20-25 tonnes of grass feed per hectare, many times what the native cerrado grass produces and three times the yield in Africa. . . Thirty years ago it took Brazil four years to raise a bull for slaughter. Now the average time is 18-20 months. . .  Third, and most important, Embrapa turned soyabeans into a tropical crop. . .Embrapa also created varieties of soya that are more tolerant than usual of acid soils (even after the vast application of lime, the cerrado is still somewhat acidic). And it speeded up the plants growing period, cutting between eight and 12 weeks off the usual life cycle. These short cycle plants have made it possible to grow two crops a year, revolutionising the operation of farms. . .  Lastly, Embrapa has pioneered and encouraged new operational farm techniques. Brazilian farmers pioneered no-till agriculture, in which the soil is not ploughed nor the crop harvested at ground level. Rather, it is cut high on the stalk and the remains of the plant are left to rot into a mat of organic material. Next years crop is then planted directly into the mat, retaining more nutrients in the soil. In 1990 Brazilian farmers used no-till farming for 2.6% of their grains; today it is over 50%.   Read on at the link for the full story at&nbsp;   Muck and Mystery: Brachialactone













Document Number: 551 



 Breeding, Biotech and Bulls 


 by  Matt DiLeo  on 9 July 2010 


I;ve been meaning to tell  this  story for some time. It;s a good example of how not all biotechnology is genetic engineering.


Traditional Breeding


In trad breeding, the breeder/gardener simply crosses two parents that show great (and complementary) traits, grows up the offspring, selects the best and repeats. It;s effective, slow, labor intensive and limited by the perception of the breeder. Most traits are also very heavily impacted by the environment, so each new genotype must be grown in multiple locations +/or multiple years to make sure the recorded phenotype is due to the genetics (not the environment) of the individual. Most of our crops were domesticated and refined this way (quite a success!). Modern breeding has additionally been refined by the development of various statistical techniques and crossing schemes that make the whole process more efficient.


Marker-Assisted Selection


MAS  relies on the development of ;markers; that co-segregate with traits of interest. Picture a chromosome: an incredibly long stretch of DNA with genes located occasionally along its length. You can develop molecular markers (e.g.  SNPs  or  microsatellites  ) that act as signposts along the whole length of the chromosome (where each of the signposts look different in each parent). Since sexual recombination moves DNA in big chunks, lots of the nearby markers will be moved with each gene. Statistical techniques can then be used to see which markers are associated with each trait. Since markers that are physically close to the gene along the chromosome are more likely to move with it during recombination (and since you know where on the chromosome each marker sits) you can narrow down where the gene that causes your trait is and then actually have a shot at identifying it! Or you can just use the marker to help make sure your gene moves where you want it to. This has been an extremely useful tool to complement trad breeding but in practice it;s often impossible to pin a trait on just one or two genes (e.g. human height, last time I heard, was associated with huge number of genes that together only explained a small amount of the total population variation ; even though it;s extremely  heritable  ).


Genome Wide Selection


In GWS, the breeder doesn;t even bother to try to identify which traits or genes a marker is associated with. She simply picks a population of her crop or livestock and measures each individual with huge numbers of markers. She uses statistics to see which markers are ;good; and which are ;bad; and decides how good future offspring are just by their combination of markers. New developments in biotechnology are making marker development and measurement absurdly affordable ; which makes phenotyping (growing and measuring offspring over multiple sites/years) the bottleneck in many breeding operations.


This is where it gets really interesting;


Even if the markers aren;t as efficient at recognizing ;good; offspring, you can more than make up for this with shorter generation times. A typical maize breeding operation will need to grow each generation in multiple sites in some representative climate (probably the Midwest) to see which individuals/lines are really the best. With GWS, you can ship the whole lot to some tropical location and grow three generations a year (picking the best in each round with markers)!


From what I;ve heard this is most advanced in the dairy industry. Artificial insemination (AI) has been a huge advance in animal breeding because dairymen can simply order semen from the best bulls in the country instead of keeping their own mediocre bulls on site.* Breeding elite bulls is BIG business. Currently 9 million Holstein cows in the U.S. are bred with AI from just 500 bulls!** Bulls need to get ;proved; to access this market. Traditionally, the quality of a bull was determined by seeing how much milk its female relatives produced (b/c milk quantity is what matters to dairymen). This process traditionally involved waiting for each individual young bull to grow to reproductive maturity, produce several rounds of daughters, let the daughters mature, mate them and then measure their milk production. This took years and cost about $50,000 per bull. Now a genetic marker test give you just as much information about a male calf the day it;s born for just $250!


Dairymen are really excited about this. There;s been talk of developing a marker certification system for dairy bulls for 20 years but only now is the technology cheap and effective enough to make it work. From what I;ve heard, the U.S. government now runs a certification program (  AIPL  I think;) that will assign official breeding values to any cattle DNA that a farmer sends in. I bet they;ll be a lot more farmers in the bull semen business now!


* I once worked with a guy who did dairy AI. I;m all for getting my hands dirty, but that doesn;t include anything that comes with gloves that go past your elbow;


** Hopefully the animal breeding community is as on top of preserving unique germplasm as the plant breeding community is.


Bernardo, R., &amp; Yu, J. (2007). Prospects for Genomewide Selection for Quantitative Traits in Maize  Crop Science, 47  , 1082-1090 DOI:  10.2135/cropsci2006.11.0690


Schaeffer LR (2006). Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle.  Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie, 123  (4), 218-23 PMID:  16882088













Document Number: 798 



 Breeding Tetanus Vaccines into Plants 


 by  Guest Posts  on 6 March 2009 


By Melinda Yerka


This is a painting done by Sir Charles Bell in 1809 of a soldier dying of tetanus. Doesn;t look too comfortable, hmm? Tetanus is a condition brought on when certain bacteria, called  Clostridium tetani  , enter deep puncture wounds, such as the proverbial rusty nail, or in this soldier;s case, a dirty sword in battle. Once inside the wound,  C. tetani  bacteria produce the tetanus toxin, which then migrates to the body;s central nervous system where it causes tetanus disease, characterized by intense muscle spasms. 70% to 80% of the people who contract tetanus die. Unfortunately, many of these people today are newborn infants and their mothers. Infection by  C. tetani  bacteria occurs in these cases when unclean instruments are used to cut umbilical cords or remove a fetus from the mother;s womb during live birth or abortion. If the mother had been immunized against tetanus toxin, she and the infant (who would be born with some of its mother;s immunities) would have survived.


You may wonder why the mother was not immunized when vaccines against tetanus have been readily available for more than a generation. In fact, it is because vaccinations are far less prevalent in poor countries than in wealthier nations such as the United States and much of Europe. Furthermore, despite growing humanitarian interest in providing vaccines, the infrastructure of many developing nations is not sufficient to safely synthesize, transport, or store them. Lack of pharmaceutical companies, efficient transportation systems, refrigerated warehouses, and knowledgeable physicians all play a role in the continued fight against tetanus. Nevertheless, progress has been made since the early 1980;s, as depicted below in a graph from the World Health Organization (WHO).


On the left  y  -axis is the number of tetanus cases per year from all around the world. The blue bars represent the number of cases for each year listed on the  x  -axis, from 1980 to 2007. On the right  y  -axis is the percent of the population that has been immunized against tetanus via the DTP3 vaccine for each year. The blue line represents the percent of people who ;officially; received the vaccine, and the red dotted line represents the percent of people who WHO and UNICEF estimate actually received it. Note the sharp decline in the number of tetanus cases between 1980 and 1995. This is largely due to a tremendous humanitarian undertaking by UNICEF to stamp out the disease. However, even as recently as 2007, nearly 20,000 cases per year still occur. Clearly more work remains to be done.


A novel approach to vaccination has been suggested since the mid-1990;s when genetically engineered plants began to gain rapid adoption on farms. Genetic engineering;s first really big commercial success came in the form of incorporating herbicide resistance by way of a human-created transgene into crop plants. As a result, a farmer could sow (for example) soybeans resistant to a particular herbicide, and then when weeds became a problem throughout the year, (s)he could simply spray that herbicide. All of the plants in the field  except  her/his soybeans would die; hence, the birth of much simplified weed control. But then came a leap of insight: why not breed vaccines into plants, too? Seeds do not require refrigeration to transport and store, nor a pharmaceutical company to produce them.


Researchers in Europe studied the possibility of incorporating a gene from  C. tetani  bacteria themselves, bearing resistance to the tetanus toxin, into plants. A series of feasibility studies have been conducted and their results were published by Tregoning et al. in 2005 in the European Journal of Immunology, volume 35, pp. 1320-1325. The title of their paper was ;  Protection against tetanus toxin using a plant-based vaccine.  ; In it, they report transforming the chloroplasts of tobacco plants with a gene that codes for a fragment of a protein from  C. tetani  that can elicit an immune response. In other words, biotechnology was used to produce a vaccine against tetanus  inside  tobacco plants. Tregoning et al. then immunized mice via a nasal spray (previously shown to be the most effective means of delivery) with a protein extract from transformed tobacco plants, and subsequently subjected them to a lethal dose of tetanus toxin. All mice that received the plant-based vaccine survived, while all mice that did not receive the vaccine died.


Their results are shown in the graph below.


On the y-axis is the amount of tetanus antibodies (abbreviated Anti-TetC Ig) in the mice;s blood samples. On the x-axis are the different groups of mice in the study. The Tet x1 group received the tetanus vaccine once; the Tet x2 group received it twice, the Tet x2 + CT group received it twice in addition to a cholera adjuvant designed to elicit a stronger immunity response to tetanus; finally the control group did not receive a vaccine. Where a star is above a particular group of mice;s result, it means that the average performance of that group was significantly different than the average performance of the control group. Four mice were tested in each group, and as you can see, every mouse that received the nasal spray made from the transgenic tobacco plants survived, while every mouse that didn;t died.


While it is unlikely that such transgenic tobacco plants will be grown in Africa or Southeast Asia anytime soon (no tests have yet been conducted on humans), the implications of this work are nevertheless far-reaching. They constitute the first clear proof that plants can be used to confer resistance to tetanus in mammals, and continue to push open the door that will hopefully, one day, lead to equal access to basic health care around the world.


Melinda Yerka is a graduate student studying Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics at UW-Madison. When she;s not growing weeds in the greenhouse for her research, she;s plucking weeds in her organic community garden plots.













Document Number: 962 



 Bridges to Sustainability: People, Planet, Possibility 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 27 July 2010 


Climate change is the ultimate threat multiplier that will make other problems such as agricultural productivity worse.  This is one of the conclusions at a panel called ;Trusting Climate Science; here at the  Aspen Environment Forum  , sponsored by the National Geographic and the Aspen Institute.


I am experimenting with liveblogging from the meeting. Lets see how it goes.


The first panel I attended featured  Andrew Revkin  ,  Peter Huybers  ,  Mohan Munasinghe  , moderated by  David Brancaccio  .


;The pace of sea level rise is uncertain; says Revkin. It is a distraction to argue about the pace when we know that it is a real problem.  It is like arguing about a bus rolling backwards down a hill in SF as to whether it is going 3 or 4 miles per hour.


;Ultimately it is human beings and their fate that concerns us;, says Munasinghe. ;The planet will persist, but will we? Already we see billions of people affected, with 300,00 deaths a year. The poor have least to do with the problem yet they will suffer the most.; He argues that we need to look at ways to reduce emissions. There is not enough carbon space left to let the poor to grow out of poverty. Poverty will kill people long before climate change. Those of us who have enjoyed the benefits of carbon emissions must decide what we can give up to give those people a chance. We need an approach to change our lifestyles. IT has to be done now.


Revkins did a series in the NYT 2000 called ;  The Climate Divide  ;. The wealthy are already working to insulate themselves from climate risk.


We need an adaptation safety net- insurance policies that will be used to help areas that are most in danger. Nations need to put money aside each year for this insurance.


When queried, most of the audience felt that their standard of living is better than that of their grandparents. Few felt their grandchildren would have a better standard of living than they have today. Those sentiments reflect a reality that our standard of living has peaked, argues Munasinghe.


In honor of  Steve Schneider  , a climate scientist who passed away last week, Revkin reminded us that although we manage risk at a personal level very well, we fail miserably globallye. For example, we buy fire insurance even though our house is not on fire and there is a low probability it will catch on fire. In contrast globally, we know we have some funky wiring, yet we are not buying insurance.


Questions from the audience: Can democracy address these issues effectively? Revkin recalls an interview with McCain a number of years ago. McCain said that democracy will have difficulty addressing these issues and in fact now McCain has dropped out of the entire debate. Huybers struck a hopeful note saying that democracy may take longer than a dictatorship to address these problems, but ultimately we will pull together and make the right decisions.


One questioner brought up the issue of large corporations using the California proposition process to put issues before the public. How can we deal with this? Revkin answered with the fact that their are 100 fold more lobbyists surrounding climate change than legislators. The public needs to know the forces shaping these things- it is not simply good science. Eg carbon sequestration is better funded because of the coal lobby.


Several of the panelists remarked on the success of South Korea in addressing global climate change. For example, S. Korea managed to use a large chunk of their financial stimulus package to fund green energy projects whereas other governments used only 10% of their stimulus budgets for this. One of the reasons that S. Korea is successful is that they see the green economy and sustainability is the way of the future. Revkin said that S. Korea has a larger portion of their GDP invested in science and technology than most other countries. S. Korea is a rising center of excellence.


We need to focus less on risk and more on opportunity. We need to have conversations across interdisciplinary boundaries and engage social scientists so that we can understand social movements and better affect change.


What brought down the Berlin wall? It was young people taking advantage of opportunity. The checkpoint was open for a certain period for people to cross, hundreds of young people crossed, the border guards were afraid to shoot. It was unpredictable and it shows that their were opportunities and that we need to invest in finding these opportunities.













Document Number: 2581 



 Bt cotton and suicides in India 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 November 2008 


The idea that GMOs are causing people to commit suicide is very compelling. But is it true?


A study released by  IFPRI  (International Food Policy Research Institute) in October says there is no connection between Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India. IFPRI ;seeks sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty;, so it makes sense for them to investigate any possible links between Bt and farmer suicides.  Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence  examines every aspect of the problem, concluding that farmers in India do have very real issues pressing upon them, but Bt is not to blame for their choice to commit suicide.


The report is through, but written in language that lay people can easily follow. I encourage you to read it for yourself. To me, the most interesting part was titled ;The Bt Cotton Controversy: The Institutional Context;. This section listed the actual causes of farmer distress, and once we identify the real problems, we can start talking about real solutions. The biggest problem seems to be education. Farmers have access to new technology but little if any information on how to use it to maximize benefit.


Even with the yearly increases in adoption, production, and yields, Bt cotton has had its share of controversy. Farmers lack of information on growing conditions, pesticide use, the importance of planting proper seeds, and the earnings to be expected from using this technology seem to be behind the controversy shrouding Bt cottons performance. More specifically, four factors or issues seem to have dominated the Bt cotton debate;


The first issue is the widespread distribution and use of spurious seeds. Inclusive of the technology fee, in the absence of regulations, Bt cotton (hybrid) seeds were initially sold at a price equal to five times that of the local hybrid varieties; This prompted a booming market for spurious seeds, which were sold at much lower prices. However, these seeds were mostly a mix of Bt and non-Bt cotton as well as seeds of unapproved varieties. Mostly sold by local traders, the seeds were targeted to farmers trying to save on seed costs. The germination rate of these seeds was inconsistent and often resulted in crop loss and disappointment for many farmers;


Another factor, which has helped the sale of spurious seeds, is the confusion related to the large release of approved Bt cotton varieties by the government of India in recent years; The lack of agriculture extension and dissemination of knowledge about these new varieties from the government has left farmers solely dependent on the companies for information regarding these varieties (SEMC 2007). The spreading adoption of Bt cotton has been driven mainly by demonstrations from farmers who have had success cultivating it (Ministry of Environment and Forests 2003a). Very few agriculture extension services were provided and were located in distant places (Rao and Suri 2006). The seed and fertilizer company agents have been the sole interface between the technology and the farmers (Shridhar 2006). Faced with choosing among the numerous brands of Bt cottonseeds released between 2004 and 2005, farmers were practically gambling on the seed they used (Stone 2007).


Third, the high use of pesticides even with Bt cotton seems to have played a role (SEMC 2007);The higher price paid for Bt cottonseeds is justified by the reduction in pesticide use since the plants themselves guard against bollworms. But this does not mean a total elimination of pesticide sprays. To have maximum yield results from Bt cotton, pesticide sprays should be optimized and targeted to the secondary pests that used to be covered by the wide-spectrum pesticides used before Bt cotton.


However, farmers, lacking knowledge about the requirements for Bt cotton, followed their own spraying schedules; This indiscriminate spraying led to development of resistance in the bollworm and hence pest infestation returned, lowering the yield from Bt cotton in these regions; However, the situation has improved according to a more recent report (ASSOCHAMIMRB 2007), showing that Bt cotton farmers have largely reduced pesticide consumption, compared with conventional hybrids.


Lastly, the controversy has been fueled by the lack of consistent public information on the performance of Bt cotton (SEMC 2007). Many studies have been published by various institutes and cited one after the other by the media or selectively by opponents or proponents to Bt cotton. However, there has been no visible public effort toward a comprehensive and synthetic assessment of the effects of Bt cotton in the field. The proliferation of reports supporting both sides of the argument has contributed to the public confusion on the use of genetically modified crops among educated readers. Yet, as shown in the next section, a comprehensive review of the literature shows a convergence in the empirical evidence on Bt cotton, progressively dismissing any controversy on the observed productivity and income effects of the technology.


While quite a few science blogs (such as Counterknowledge  Prince Charles and Indias GM Genocide  ) and scientific media sources (including New Scientist  GM cotton in the clear over farmer suicides  ) reported on the paper, I can only find one popular media source that reported on it (The Guardian  Indian farmer suicides not GM related, says study  ). Other media sources (such as The Daily Mail  The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops  ) continue to spread rumors based on claims made by Greenpeace and Prince Charles. These sources don;t even attempt to present information based on peer-reviwed data, and seem to encourage rampant speculation. People are still talking about ;terminator seeds; and ;  fish tomatoes  ; even though neither has ever been on the market. We talk about media bias in politics, but this bias is far worse and rarely discussed. Even worse, the same people, the same media sources and NGOs that spread the rumors, ask why we have seen no biotech crops that directly benefit the consumer. What corporation would invest in developing a crop that has been rejected before it existed? What government would invest resources in such a project? It;s time to clear away the speculation and start to concern ourselves with the facts.













Document Number: 4018 



 But, how safe is it? On transgenics, cisgenics, and mutants. 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 2 May 2008 


Good news from Africa ; Scientists and crop researchers at Kenyas Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) developed the new wheat seeds over the past decade. Through a process called mutation plant breeding, they applied radiation-based techniques to modify crop characteristics and traits. In 2001, KARI plant breeders released  Njoro-BW1  , their first mutant wheat variety. It is drought tolerant, moderately resistant to rust (a fungus), has good yield, and good flour quality. Kenyas plant breeders soon will release a second mutant wheat variety, code-named  DH4  , which shares most of the same good qualities of  Njoro-BW1  . [  Golden Wheat Greens Kenyas Drylands  ]


Traditional breeding encompasses all plant breeding methods that do not fall under current GMO regulations.As the European legal framework defines GMOs and specifies various breeding techniques that are excluded from the GMO regulations,we use this framework as a starting point, particularly the European Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment (European Parliament, 2001). Excluded from this GMO Directive are longstanding cross breeding, in vitro fertilization, polyploidy induction, mutagenesis and fusion of protoplasts from sexually compatible plants (European Parliament, 2001).  It is indeed good news that Kenyan farmers have these lines of wheat with such improvements over unimproved varieties. However, radiation based so-called  mutation plant breeding  could have unintended changes in the genome. This technique, widely used in both organic and conventional crops, literally bombards the seeds with radiation. The seeds are allowed to germinate, and interesting mutants are used to create new lines. The problem is that multiple mutations can occur in the same seed, and some of those mutations may go undetected.


A February report entitled   Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion   from the National Institute of Health in Portugal indicates that this plant breeding tool may not be the best idea. The last few sentences of their abstract sums it up:


We  found that the improvement of a plant variety through the acquisition  of a new desired trait, using either mutagenesis or transgenesis,  may cause stress and thus lead to an altered expression of untargeted  genes. In all of the cases studied, the observed alteration  was more extensive in mutagenized than in transgenic plants.  We propose that the safety assessment of improved plant varieties  should be carried out on a case-by-case basis and not simply  restricted to foods obtained through genetic engineering.


Transgenesis is the genetic modificat   ion of a recipient plant with one or more genes from any non-plant organism, or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant. This includes gene sequences of any origin in the anti-sense orientation, any artificial combination of a coding sequence and a regulatory sequence, such as a promoter from another gene, or a synthetic gene.  Trying to regulate GM or non-GM as broad categories are impossible, because each resulting plant variety is going to have its own quirks. If  DH4  and  Njoro-BW1  have been extensively tested for unwanted alteration in gene expression and subsequently released for general use, then they are reasonably safe (remember, nothing is definitive in science). Similarly, if transgenic plants such as   Sub1A-1  rice have been tested and released, then they too can be used without worry.


However, if plant varieties mutated with radiation are not adequately tested before release, then we might all have something to worry about.To my knowledge, only Canada requires testing of these crops. We cant even assume that traditional breeding by cross pollination is 100% safe because of natural mutation and new combinations of genes and alleles. Tomatoes, potatoes, and celery all naturally produce some nasty toxins. Weve mostly bred them out, but there have been cases where the toxins appeared at higher levels through traditional breeding. These plants have much higher probability of danger for consumers than transgenic plants, but dont have to be tested at all under current regulations in the US or EU.


Intragenic or cisgenic plants are our best opportunity for safe enhancement of food crops (cis- means same). This is a form of genetic engineering that uses the plants own genome as a source for new traits instead of other non-related organisms (has also been called GM-lite). To learn more about the idea, please see  www.cisgenesis.com  .


Cisgenesis is the genetic modification of a recipient plant with a natural gene from a crossablesexually compatibleplant. Such a gene includes its introns and is flanked by its native promoter and terminator in the normalsense orientation.Cisgenic plants can harbour one or more cisgenes, but they do not contain any transgenes.  Some people, including myself, beleive that  cisgenic crops should be regulated differently from transgenic crops  that express proteins that dont normally occur in that species. The applications of cisgenics are more limited than transgenics, but still there is a lot to be done. A great example of cisgenics is gene silencing, which can be used to  inactivate unwanted genes  , such as those that cause toxins. Examples that are currently being researched are  less carcinogenic tobacco  and  rice that can more easily form hybrids  . All of the benefits in KARIs mutated wheat could have been accomplished with cisgenics.


JR Simplot is a company that is particularly interested in cisgenics, and has produced a lot of literature that essentially says that  Monsantos way of creating new plant lines is not the right way  . I think theres room for both, but agree that cisgenics are inherently safer. I especially like the idea that cross pollination between cisgenic plants and wild varieties wont be a problem, since these things could have all happened naturally anyway. The idea of cisgenics has been around for quite a few years now, but scientists need to talk with the public about it, so the public can talk to their government representatives, so the representatives can go about  getting the regulations changed  .


Images from   Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis  .













Document Number: 5901 



 Can we coexist? 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 17 March 2011 


With  religious wars  around the world erupting almost constantly, you might be feeling grateful that you live in a country where there is separation of church and state. But dont rest too easy, another conflict is brewing- this time in agriculture.


Twenty years ago organic farmers in our area began growing specialty sunflowers to sell for cut flowers. Although most of the pollen from organic sunflowers does not travel further than 3 meters, some of it can travel up to distances of 1000 meters, which can cause problems for growers of certified sunflower seed. If stray organic pollen should land on a sunflower grown for seed and hybridize with it, the resulting seed will no longer be purebred, reducing the value of the crop. This is the reason that sunflower seed growers in the valley were concerned about gene flow from organic sunflowers.


The certified seed growers and organic flower growers came to an agreement.


The seed growers gave the organic growers sterile seed that gave rise to flowers with no pollen- thus eliminating the risk of gene flow. This compromise offers a good example of how discussions among neighbors can lead to mutual benefits. California farmers grow 350 recognized crop and livestock commodities under a variety of farming conditions, often on adjoining fields. Good communication and common sense is key to peaceful coexistence. Can we apply these principles to all crop production methods;GE, organic, and conventional?


According to some in the organic community we can and we must. Setting a threshold for acceptable pollen drift (as the National Organic Program Standards has done for pesticide drift- and here it is important to keep in mind that some pesticides are toxic to humans and other animals whereas GE alfalfa pollen is not), will foster coexistence and address the concerns of organic growers who deserve assurance that their markets will not be affected by small amounts of pollen flow. Others in the organic community, say no, GE and organic production methods cannot coexist.


Journalist Dan Charles addressed these issues in a recent National Public Radio  story about afalfa genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide RoundUp  . The story is timely because the U.S. Department of Agriculture;s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service recently announced that it will allow American farmers to plant genetically engineered alfalfa, which is widely used as feed for dairy cows and horses.


Weeds are a major limitation of crop production globally, as they compete for nutrients and sunlight. Many are also toxic to animals so forage that is contaminated with weeds can be problematic for the farmer and her cows. One method to control weeds is to spray herbicides that kill them. Many of the herbicides used over the last 50 years are classified as toxic or slightly toxic to animals and humans (classes I, II and III). Some newer herbicides, however, are considered nontoxic (class IV). An example of the latter, the herbicide glyphosate (trade name Roundup), is essentially a modified amino acid that blocks a chloroplast enzyme (called 5-enolpyruvoyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase [EPSPS]) that is required for plant, but not animal, production of tryptophan. Glyphosate has a very low acute toxicity, is not carcinogenic, breaks down quickly in the environment and thus does not persist in groundwater.


Some crop plants have been genetically engineered for tolerance to glyphosate. In these herbicide-tolerant crops, a gene, isolated from the bacterium  Agrobacterium  encoding an EPSPS protein resistant to glyphosate, is engineered into the plant. Growers of herbicide-tolerant crops can spray glyphosate to control weeds without harming their crop.


Although herbicide-tolerant crops do not directly benefit organic farmers, who are prohibited from using herbicides, or poor farmers in developing countries, who often cannot afford to buy the herbicides, there are clear advantages to conventional growers and to the environment in developed countries.


One important environmental benefit is that the use of glyphosate has displaced the use of more toxic (classes I, II and III) herbicides. For example, in the Central Valley of California, most conventional alfalfa farmers use diuron (class III) to control weeds. Diuron, which also persists in ground water, is toxic to aquatic invertebrates (EXTOXNET ; EXTENSION TOXICOLOGY NETWORK 1996). Planting of herbicide tolerant-tolerant alfalfa varieties is therefore expected to improve water quality in the valley and enhance biodiversity (STRANDBERG and PEDERSON 2002). Switching from Diuron to glyphosate in alflafa production is predicted to have environmental benefits as measured in environmental impact and likely health benefits for farmworkers (FERNANDEZ-CORNEJO and MCBRIDE 2002).


One drawback to the application of herbicides is that overuse of a single herbicide can lead to the evolution of weeds that are resistant to that herbicide. The evolution of resistant weeds has been documented for herbicide-tolerant traits developed through selective breeding, mutagenesis and genetic engineering. To mitigate the evolution of weed resistance and prolong the usefulness of herbicide-tolerant crops, a sustainable management system is needed. Such approaches require switching to another herbicide or mixtures of herbicides or employing alternative weed control methods (COMMITTEE ON THE IMPACT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY ON FARM-LEVEL ECONOMICS AND SUSTAINABILITY and NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 2010). Implementation of a mandatory crop diversity strategy would also greatly reduce weed resistance. Newer herbicide-tolerant varieties will have tolerance to more than one herbicide, which will allow easier herbicide rotation or mixing, and, in theory, help to improve the durability of effectiveness of particular herbicides.


Most  forage experts  believe the  economic issues related to pollen flow  between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered crops can be resolved peacefully without resorting to steps that are extraordinary or expensive. Just as our neighbors managed to do 20 years ago.













Document Number: 1684 



 Coexistence takes conversation 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 20 January 2011 


As described briefly in my  last post  , Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is trying to find a regulatory solution to the plague of lawsuits regarding coexistence of biotech and organic. While there are some positive aspects to the proposed partial deregulation, there are better ways to ensure that all farmers get to grow what they want.


First, there already exists  case law  to solve problems between individual farmers. The two current big lawsuits (  sugar beets  ,  alfalfa  ) aren;t about individual farmers, though, they are carefully orchestrated efforts by special interest groups. Anyway, as I understand it, if two neighboring farmers can;t work out things on their own, the case law is clear. Hopefully if I have it wrong someone with relevant expertise will stop by and comment.


When things move from one person;s land to another person;s land, that is trespassing. Every person has a responsibility to keep their things to themselves, using reasonable methods to control their things. Every person also has a responsibility to protect their things from harm, using reasonable methods to protect anything that might be harmed by outside forces (like things from your neighbor moving into the area).


You thought your neighbor was difficult!


&quot;Hero car&quot; by Rasmin via Flickr.


Let;s consider an example far, far from agriculture. Let;s say that John is a stunt man that specializes in intense fiery scenes. He has developed a company that does all kinds of neat stunts on his multi acre property, things like flying cars on fire. Next door, Jane has her own company. She makes speciality blanks for firearms, also for the movie industry. She has all sorts of interesting blanks, including red and green tracers that can really light up a scene.


One day, John;s fire gets a  little  out of control. Some tongues of flame leap over the property line and set a shed on Jane;s property on fire. The shed explodes, causing damage to both Jane;s and John;s property. They end up in court, where Jane is suing for the price of a new shed and to replace all the gunpower stored in there.


Who was at fault? Obviously, John;s fire trespassed onto Jane;s land so he should be held liable. However, perhaps Jane didn;t safeguard her gunpowder shed adequately . The judge would consider the reasonable precautions that should have been taken by John to control the fire and by Jane to protect her gunpowder, and look at what precautions were actually taken, if any. If it turns out that John took every reasonable precaution and Jane didn;t, then the judge would rule that John only owes a portion of the cost of the shed and gunpowder. If it turns out that Jane took every reasonable precaution and John was lax, then the judge would rule that John owes Jane for the full cost of the shed and the gunpowder inside.


The thing is, there are two people involved here. Neither John nor Jane can on their own 100% prevent any trespass. If both of them take reasonable precautions, though, they can both avoid trespass and avoid going to court. What they should have done way before the incident is take time to discuss precautions.


Coexistence takes conversation


Farm fence via Free Foto.


To get back to farming, just like John and Jane, two neighboring farmers must both take reasonable precautions to prevent trespass of their property (including pollen and chemicals) and take reasonable precautions to prevent trespass onto their property, especially if something on their property could be damaged by trespass. Obviously, when it comes to pollen, a fence isn;t going to cut it. There are many things that farmers can do cooperatively to avoid getting to that courtroom that don;t require the USDA to tell them where, when, and what they can plant.


The exact methods that would make coexistence of organic and biotech (and non-biotech conventional) lawsuit free will vary by crop and location. Methods that are needed for one crop are unnecessary for others. Methods that work in one situation/location won;t work in others. Neighbors have to get together and discuss how to solve the problem of coexistence creatively. They have to enter into the conversation knowing that any trespass will harm both of them. They have to earnestly work together to find mutual solutions.Will this eliminate lawsuits? Of course not. But it would definitely help in the majority of situations.


Before I go any further, I should mention that farmers are already taking the time to have conversations about coexistence. Many are already finding creative solutions that allow both to farm in the ways they wish and to be profitable. Here;s one example by  Pamela Ronald  :


Raoul discusses another example in our book  Tomorrows Table  . On his organic farm, they were growing beautiful sunflowers to sell for bouquets at the farmers market. Unfortunately, the pollen from the organic crop was contaminating fields of conventional sunflowers that were being grown for seed. The pollen flow from the organic crop rendered the seed crop impure and therefor reduced the value of the seed crop.  This is America so you would expect that the conventional farmer would sue the organic farmer. But no! The farmers talked to each other and came up with a solution. The conventional growers gave the organic grower some sterile sunflower seeds. Problem solved. The organic growers here in the Valley now grow sterile sunflowers for their bouquets.


What the USDA can do to help


Instead of adding one-size-fits-all regulations that restrict farmers; ability to make choices, the USDA can encourage more of these conversations to take place. In many cases, farmers can find their own solutions, as the sunflower farmers above did. But sometimes situations can be complicated and could use the expertise of an agronomist. The USDA should increase funding for agricultural extension and make sure to hire extension agents who would be able to mediate discussions about coexistence and provide ideas on how to reduce trespass.


There are so many ways to reduce pollen flow, some easy, some difficult. Distance is pretty easy; one or both neighbors could simply grow a different crop as a buffer. Perhaps, in some situations, it would be appropriate for a biotech farmer to grow their  refuge  along their property line with an organic neighbor. Perhaps the border between the farms could be set aside as wildlife habitat under  CRP  . A little more difficult is using time as the barrier, offsetting planting dates so that one crop will have finished shedding pollen before the neighbor;s plants become receptive to pollen. The timing has to be exactly right, which could be where an extension agent would come in handy.


In the case of alfalfa, which after all is what started this whole conversation about coexistence, farmers can harvest their alfalfa before the flowers become receptive to pollen. Penn State has a great  resource page  about when to harvest alfalfa. Of course, that;s not an option for farmers growing alfalfa for seed, but keeping seed pure can be pretty complex even when biotech isn;t involved, already requiring special distances and barriers to stray pollen.


The USDA should focus on sound science and use the expertise of agronomists to help encourage coexistence. And the organic industry groups need to join as helpful forces, cooperating with farmers and extension agents to help find solutions to coexistence in specific situations. Blanket regulations can be useful in some situations, but not here. I hope that Secretary Vilsack and others working on coexistence come to realize that.













Document Number: 7659 



 Changemakers wants to know what you think of GMOs 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 7 September 2009 


A few weeks ago, I got a message from the folks at Ashoka Changemakers ; earlier this summer they started a contest, one of many that they host, to spur some original thinking to help see our society out of the debate over genetically engineered crops. It is called  GMO Risk or Rescue? Helping Consumers Decide  . Here;s what their contest is about:


The debate over the future of our food supply is heating up. Everyone is weighing in on the moral, environmental, and nutritional effects that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) will have on our society, but how do we really know what;s on our plate?


This summary is well-written and gets everyone in the right mindset to offer up an idea no matter their point of view. The Welcome Letter goes into more detail:


WHAT;S ON YOUR PLATE?  Advances in food science and technology have changed dramatically in the last decades. Often food consumers voices are not heard in the debate. Yet, no one is more important in the business of food than consumers. How do we know what;s really on our plate? And how do we demonstrate that we have the power to make and demand better choices? We invite our Changemakers community to speak up, challenge each other, and develop ideas and solutions that will have an impact on the world. This competition is about finding the best solutions that educate consumers about what they;re eating, and the effect their food choices will have on the environment and society.   PERHAPS YOUR  local gardening association is collecting and preserving seeds to ensure the integrity of our food supply. Or perhaps you;ve spearheaded an awareness campaign advocating GMOs as the answer to climate change and malnutrition. The future of our food supply is at stake, and your ideas could change the way we connect with what we eat.


Again, they did a very careful job in wording everything to appeal to everyone who has something to say on this topic. And the proverbial carrot on a stick to encourage entries is a conversation with Michael Pollan, amongst other things.


The winners will be selected by the Changemakers online community  meaning you!  The three tiers of prizes are:     The top 20 entries with the most votes will win a social media training session with Ashoka.     The top 3 entries with the most votes will receive an enhanced social media training session and will be featured in a one-page ad in the Stanford Social Innovation Review.     The grand prize winner will win a conversation with the best-selling author of The Omnivore;s Dilemma and In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan (www.michaelpollan.com).     The Latin American entry with the most votes will receive a round-trip ticket to anywhere in South America, courtesy of Gol Airlines.


All winners will be announced on September 23, 2009.


Tomorrow is actually the last day to make an entry, so apologies on the short notice if this appeals to you. Actually, there is not much competition so far, with only a few entries in the contest. These entries all take an anti-GE stance, some are quite bad. For example, one redefines food to be that which is not genetically modified (There is no food that fits this definition). The brilliant marketing plan for this one is called ;Murder by Food.; Come on readers, you know you can  offer up some better ideas  than that! Even overnight.


I will be making an entry into this contest in the next day, as soon as I can winnow my notes down to something more readable. But for the moment, I wanted to comment about the contest, and perhaps one of the reasons why the entries are all anti-GE, some extremely so. Perhaps it has something to do with this banner image:


I don;t know about you, but I don;t want to eat those tomatoes! Sure they are red, shiny, and glistening with dew, but there;s some evil scientist putting black liquid in with a syringe! I do not want to eat India Ink in my salsa just as much as the next food blogger. And of course, the image bears no resemblence to genetic engineering. Unfortunately, the news media has latched onto the food-with-syringe-of-evil image as a visual description of genetic engineering, and it is really unfortunate that Ashoka Changemakers decided to use this image as the banner for their site. Visitors to the site who are anti-GE would consider the contest to be a safe haven for speaking of genetic engineering in terms of  Murder  , and pro-GE visitors would think, oh great, another anti-GE site.


Since the contest winner is decided by whomever has the most votes from registered community members, this has the added effect of discouraging pro-GE entries because of the doubtful prospects of getting a fair hearing from registered users.


I sent them a message and they are sincere about the neutrality of the contest, and it is unfortunate that this mistake may have affected the tenor of their effort. I was hoping to see if they would be willing to


change the image to something more accurate or descriptive before I advertised the contest on Biofortified, pointing them to the rotating images on the top right of the blog as examples. Something like this transformed rice plant growing in a petri dish would be much better than the Deadly Drano Nightshade pictured above.


Finally, the title  Risk or Rescue  , also sets up a problematic dichotomy. Genetic engineering is  either  a RISK  or  a RESCUE. The correct response is that genetic engineering is a RESCUE  with  RISKS. As in all plant modification, whether through breeding, polyploidy, wide crosses (with poisonous wild relatives), genetic engineering carries risks of unintended consequences, sometimes less risk than other, ;more traditional; methods. Talking about risks related to genetic engineering has to be put in the larger context of all food risks, and if we are to make any progress in this  debate  we have to shed what is inaccurate, and recognize how the ways people conventionally approach contentious issues often carries an inherent biasing structure that partially dictates the outcome. The black-and-white Either-Or approach to this question is part of the problem.


I can say no more at this time, otherwise I would be writing my entry on the blog! Check back soon for updates.













Document Number: 970 



 Chaotic UN decision making part of the human welfare problem 


 by  David Tribe  on 20 September 2010 


Daily Caller, September 20, 2010  Not so pro-Bono


An op-ed in Sundays New York Times about the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by rock singer Bono (yes, you read that right) was naive and misguided. &nbsp;The minimal successes at improving the health and wealth of the poor he cited have been vastly overshadowed by negative policies and actions by UN agencies.


Underlying the U.N.s deficiencies is the inability of its leaders to apprehend how their own flawed policies prevent the achievement of their ambitious Millennium Development Goals for 2015, which include cutting hunger and poverty in half, giving all children a basic education, reducing infant and maternal mortality by two-thirds and three-quarters respectively, and reversing the spread of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. &nbsp;Chemicals regulation and water policy offer just two examples, among many.


Since the cheap and effective insecticide DDT was effectively banned worldwide at the UN-sponsored 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, insect-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue have been on the rise. &nbsp;In fact, the huge toll of diseases spread by mosquitoes caused some public health officials to rethink DDTs use. &nbsp;In 2006, after some 50 million preventable deaths, the U.N.s World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed the use of DDT to kill and repel malaria-causing mosquitoes. &nbsp;At the time, Arata Kochi, the World Health Organization official in charge of malaria said, We must take a position based on the science and the data. &nbsp;One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. &nbsp;Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.


But policies based on science and data enjoy a short half-life at the United Nations, and last year, with a notable absence of fanfare, WHO reverted to endorsing less effective methods for preventing malaria. &nbsp;In May 2009 the WHO and the UN Environment Program announced that their goal is to achieve a 30 percent cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner.


As incompetent and anti-social as the UN has been on DDT, it is really drowning when it comes to water issues. &nbsp;Water is in increasingly limited supply in many parts of the world. &nbsp;Shortages make irrigation of crops difficult or impossible and hinder economic development; excessive water extraction lowers ground levels and exacerbates rising sea levels; and poor water quality makes populations vulnerable to water-related diseases, such as cholera, dysentery, viral hepatitis A and typhoid. &nbsp;Some 1.1 billion people still lack access to an adequate supply of drinking water and some 2.6 billion do not have basic sanitation.


Ironically, UN policies and programs themselves prevent the development and use of important tools that could help to conserve water, especially in poorer regions of the world.


Irrigation for agriculture accounts for roughly 70 percent of the worlds fresh water consumption  even more in areas of intensive farming and arid or semi-arid conditions  so the introduction of plants that grow with less water would allow much to be freed up for other uses. &nbsp;Especially during drought conditions  which currently plague much of Europe, Africa, Australia, South America and the United States  even a small percentage reduction in the use of water for irrigation could result in huge benefits, both economic and humanitarian. &nbsp;Gene-spliced, or genetically modified (GM), crop varieties can accomplish this, and are widely recognized by agricultural scientists and policy makers as critical to meeting future water shortages.


During the past decade, however, various UN agencies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), have created major regulatory obstacles to partial solutions from plant breeding.


Gene-splicing offers plant breeders the tools to make old crop plants do spectacular new things. &nbsp;In more than two dozen countries, farmers are using gene-spliced crop varieties to produce higher yields, with lower inputs and reduced impact on the environment. &nbsp;Plant biologists have identified genes that regulate water utilization that can be transferred into important crop plants. &nbsp;These new varieties are able to grow with smaller amounts or lower quality water, such as water that has been recycled or that contains large amounts of natural mineral salts.


Where water is unavailable for irrigation, the development of crop varieties able to grow under conditions of low moisture or temporary drought could both boost yields and lengthen the time that farmland is productive.


But research is being hampered by resistance from activists and discouraged by governmental over-regulation  including by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the FAO/WHO UN agency that sets international food standards, and by onerous, unscientific regulation of field trials under the Convention on Biological Diversity (the Biodiversity Treaty). &nbsp;In spite of the scientific consensus that gene-splicing is essentially an extension, or refinement, of conventional (but less precise and less predictable) techniques of genetic modification, both entities have established requirements for the products of gene-splicing (whether plants or food derived from them) that no conventionally-modified product could meet.


The UNs lack of coherence and consistency is bizarre. &nbsp;The UNs Food and Agriculture Organization calls on one hand for greater allocation of resources to agriculture, and then makes those resources drastically less cost-effective by gratuitous, unscientific over-regulation of the new biotechnology. &nbsp;The Secretary-General of the UNs World Meteorological Organization announces that integrated water-resources management is the key to achieving the Millennium Development Goals of securing access to safe water, sanitation and environmental protection, while an alphabet soup of other UN agencies are making virtually impossible the development of gene-spliced plants that can grow with low-quality water or under drought conditions. &nbsp;The most ambitious goal  to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by 2015  certainly cannot be accomplished without innovative technology. &nbsp;But that, in turn, cannot be developed in the face of UN-based bans and excessive regulatory barriers.


If Bono were aware of any of this, he might be singing a different song.


Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution. &nbsp;He was the founding director of the U.S. FDAs Office of Biotechnology and is the co-author of To Americas Health: A Proposal to Reform the FDA.


Henry I. Miller, M.D.  434 Galvez Mall  Hoover Institution | Stanford University  Stanford, CA 94305-6010  U.S.A.













Document Number: 557 



 A 21st Century Cheerful Guide to Better Health from GMOs 


 by  David Tribe  on 1 April 2011 


A little bit of regular harm does you a lot of good.


If we are going to biofortify foods with extra doses of beneficial chemicals that are not essential nutrients, such as resveratrol found in grapes (see  A GM wheat that prevents Alzheimer;s disease  , extract below) or with polyphenols that are found in berries, it behooves us to understand what they do to us.


Over at  The Whole Health Source  there is a well researched story that spells out the latest developments on why many berries, grapes, wines and juices containing polyphenols are good for you. In a word: it;s  hormesis  . Find an excerpt below:   Polyphenols, Hormesis and Disease: Part II  In the last post, I explained that the body treats polyphenols as potentially harmful foreign chemicals, or ;xenobiotics;. How can we reconcile this with the growing evidence that at least a subset of polyphenols have health benefits?   Clues from Ionizing Radiation   One of the more curious things that has been reported in the scientific literature is that although high-dose ionizing radiation (such as X-rays) is clearly harmful, leading to cancer, premature aging and other problems, under some conditions low-dose ionizing radiation can actually decrease cancer risk and increase resistance to other stressors (  1  ,  2  ,  3  ,  4  ,  5  ). It does so by triggering a protective cellular response, increasing cellular defenses out of proportion to the minor threat posed by the radiation itself. The ability of mild stressors to increase stress resistance is called ;hormesis.; Exercise is a common example. I;ve written about this phenomenon in the past (  6  ).   The Case of Resveratrol   Resveratrol is perhaps the most widely known polyphenol, available in supplement stores nationwide. It;s seen a lot of hype, being hailed as a ;calorie restriction mimetic; and the reason for the ;French paradox.;* But there is quite a large body of evidence suggesting that resveratrol functions in the same manner as low-dose ionizing radiation and other bioactive polyphenols: by acting as a mild toxin that triggers a hormetic response (  7  ). Just as in the case of radiation, high doses of resveratrol are harmful rather than helpful. This has obvious implications for the supplementation of resveratrol and other polyphenols. A recent review article on polyphenols stated that while dietary polyphenols may be protective, ;high-dose fortified foods or dietary supplements are of unproven efficacy and possibly harmful; (  8  ).   The Cellular Response to Oxidants   Although it may not be obvious, radiation and polyphenols activate a cellular response that is similar in many ways. Both activate the transcription factor Nrf2, which activates genes that are involved in detoxification of chemicals and antioxidant defense**(  9  ,  10  ,  11  ,  12  ). This is thought to be due to the fact that polyphenols, just like radiation, may temporarily increase the level of oxidative stress inside cells. Here;s a quote from the polyphenol review article quoted above (  13  ):   We have found that [polyphenols] are potentially far more than ;just antioxidants;, but that they are probably insignificant players as ;conventional; antioxidants. They appear, under most circumstances, to be just the opposite, i.e. prooxidants, that nevertheless appear to contribute strongly to protection from oxidative stress by inducing cellular endogenous enzymic protective mechanisms. They appear to be able to regulate not only antioxidant gene transcription but also numerous aspects of intracellular signaling cascades involved in the regulation of cell growth, inflammation and many other processes.  It;s worth noting that this is essentially the opposite of what you;ll hear on the evening news, that polyphenols are direct antioxidants. The scientific cutting edge has largely discarded that hypothesis, but the mainstream has not yet caught on.   Read the rest at  The Whole Health Source  .  ;-  Related stories from the GMO Pundit Archive:   May 12 2006:  A GM wheat that prevents Alzheimer;s disease?   ;avoid the alcohol intake of wine (and risks of cancer and car accidents) and eat a new GM wheat instead. It is now possible to get the grape chemical resveratrol in a new GM wheat, which should provide the health benefits of red wine without the bother. Grain Biotech Australia, an agbiotech company based in WA , has developed an experimental GM wheat containing resveratrol that protects against cardiovascular disease despite a high-fat diet. This might be away to avoid the side effects of indulging in red wine to gain the benefits of the resveratrol.   June 12 2009:  More about the French paradox   May 9 2007:  Organic Food Is Not Healthier- It;s Opinion, Built on Partial Information, Built on Weak Data   March 29 2009:  Cooking causes organic vegetables to lose phytochemical advantages  and  The antioxidant capacity and polyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegetables after domestic cooking













Document Number: 499 



 Chez Panisse with Michael Pollan 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 26 January 2010 


Chez Panisse by ian_ransley via Flickr.


We just got back to Karl;s parent;s house from Berkley, we;re trying to unwind, but I think it;s going to take a while! Dinner with Michael Pollan and Karl (and Frank, of course) was a really wonderful experience. The conversation was fast paced and fabulous, covering the map from science journalism to specific details on certain genetically engineered traits to the deliciousness of local produce. All my nervousness was for naught, as Michael is extremely nice. He listened to Karl and I blab about science very politely, even with interest. Hopefully we weren;t  too  enthusiastic. I really hope that we opened long lasting lines of communication. Time will tell. It is obvious that there are a lot of people hoping for Micheal;s attention, including the fan boy that came up to him as we were leaving, so I can only hope that we left at least a small positive impression. Ok, now for the important part; the food!


I wasn;t sure what to expect from  Chez Panisse  because I found reviews that went to both extremes. I was trying to not have expectations that wouldn;t be met ; but it was fabulous. I know, it seems weird that a genetic engineer would be a pro-local foodie, but there it is. I;d of course heard of Alice Waters before and all the hype around her restaurant, and I was very excited to experience it for myself, particularly with such a knowledgeable dinner partner.


I so very much wanted to run around snapping pictures to share on Biofortified, but kept myself under control, which unfortunately means I have no photos to share. The ones you see here are courtesy of nice people on Flickr who did not control their urges to take photos and who post their photos with a  share and attribute license  .


Chez Panisse Caf kitchen, by emptyhighway via Flickr.


We ate in the Caf, which is supposed to be a bit more casual than the restaurant. I felt comfortable in a nice sweater and jeans with heeled boots. The decor was a little cramped, but felt homey, with wood and bricks and warm colors all around. My favorite part was the open kitchen. It had huge bowls of fresh, local kumquats (which I gushed over, so Michael had the waiter bring me some) and other beautiful fruits on the counter which looked stunningly fresh among all the warm colors.


The food was fabulous ; you may stop here if you don;t want to hear about the deliciousness! I hope I can do it justice.


I was actually happy when I found out we;d be in the Caf, because I wasn;t quite sure if they;d accommodate a vegetarian in the restaurant ; it has an ever changing set menu that;s heavy on local meats and seafood.


Michael ordered the olives to start, which were so delicately flavored with rosemary, unlike every over-salted olive I;ve had before. The crusty sourdough bread was just perfect. We shared a delicious bottle of organic mixed white with from Oregon with our appetizers, recommended by our gracious and knowledgeable server.


Garden salad by sleung via Flickr.


For an appetizer, I chose the Garden lettuce salad, which was just lettuce. It;s funny, normally I;d be very disappointed with a lettuce only salad, but the baby greens really shined with a light vinaigrette that was barely detectable. For my main, I had one of the starters: Pizzetta with wild mushrooms and gremolata. I;ve had better crust on pizza, but the mushrooms were very good and gremolata is apparently the perfect pizza topping! It;s a sort of pesto made of garlic, parsley, and lemon zest ; a perfect balance to the earthy mushrooms. I don;t know what kind of cheese was on the pizzetta, it was very mild. Don;t let the diminutive name pizzetta fool you, it was large enough that I only ate half.


Michael had the Cannard Farm rocket with pecorino and pine nuts followed by the Fried petrale sole saor with sweet onions, pine nuts, currants, polenta, and spinach. Karl was adventurous with the Blood orange, red onion, and black olive salad with olio nuovo followed by the Cattail Creek Ranch lamb leg with artichokes, turnips, and anchovy salsa verde. Who would have guessed that oranges and olives would be a great combination? Karl said the lamb was very mild, the mildest he;d ever had. The turnips were surprisingly delicious, while the artichokes weren;t stellar, he said, but he still ate them all.


The best part of the meal, unsurprisingly, was dessert. After the meal, we were brought A bowl of Churchill-Brenneis Orchard Kishu tangerines and Flying Disc Ranch Barhi dates with a pot of fresh mint tea. Karl and I didn;t order these, and I didn;t see Michael order these, perhaps it;s his typical end to a meal and they just bring it? The tiny tangerines were so cute, and the fresh dates were like chocolate. Karl and I still decided to have dessert, because when would we get another chance to have dessert at Chez Panisse with Michael Pollan? I ordered the Passion fruit-tangerine sherbet with citrus compote and a coconut tuile while Karl had the Meyer lemon cream puffs with huckleberry coulis. He liked the cream puffs, but I think my tangerine sorbet far surpassed it (it tasted like a fancy version of Moose Juice from Universal Studios Orlando).


All together, the meal lasted almost three hours. I feel honored to have shared the time with someone who has such an important voice for agriculture and food, as well as my good friend Karl.


Stay tuned for a post from Frank, with a group photo of the four of us!













Document Number: 6984 



 Chlorofilms! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 15 May 2009 


Earlier this year, I heard about a plant science video contest called  Chlorofilms  . Supported by a grant from the American Society of Plant Biologists, (ASPB) they wanted to encourage people to produce informative and entertaining plant science videos and organize the best of them on one website. Their deadline was in early March, and I was busy getting some of my videos ready to be entered when they extended the deadline to April 15th. This was good, because up until they announced the extension, there were very few videos entered in the contest. As a result, over 60 videos were entered for their first contest!


This morning, I received a  press release  from Chlorofilms ; They have chosen their winners and I;m counted among them!


Here is the press release:


ChloroFilms announces video contest winners  15 May 2009  Chlorofilms announced today the winners of its competition for new plant biology videos on YouTube. Over $8,000 in cash prizes were awarded in this first competition, which promotes the creation of fresh, attention-getting and informative videos about plant life. Grand prize winner (with $1,000 cash prize) is Ela Lamblin of Vashon, WA, for her entry entitled ;Fertile Eyes;. The video, a collaboration with Anna Edlund, combines music, dance, sensual imagery and puns to tell the story of pollination and fertilization in plants in an unforgetable way. First prizes ($500 cash awards) go to Daniel von Wangenheim of Cologne, Germany for his entry ;fantastic vesicle traffic;; Kris Holmes of Rochester, NY for his entry ;La Bloomba;, Burkhard Schulz of Purdue University of his production ; PSI ; Are my soybeans wearing different genes?; and Mike Wilder of Portland, OR, for his video series ;The Carnivorous Syndrome in 3D;. In addition 15 Second Prizes ($250) and 16 Honorable Mentions ($100) were awarded.  ChloroFilms is a nonprofit collaborative project started by Dr. Daniel Cosgrove at Penn State University with initial funding by the Education Foundation of the American Society of Plant Biologists with additional support from the Botanical Society of America and the Canadian Botanical Association. With the help of volunteers at colleges and unversities around the globe, ChloroFilms is working to combine video and internet and social networking technologies to promote a greater appreciation and understanding of plant life and to make the best plant biology videos easy to find from its website at ChloroFilms.org.


No, I didn;t get 1st place, but I got something just as good ;  two second places  for  both  of my entries! (Series  1  ,  2  ,  3  .) I;m rich! Oh, I;ll just squander it on plants, seeds, and garden tools anyway;


I guess this means with the  award I won  for my graduate program;s recruiting video last fall, I;m a three-time award winning producer.  I like the sound of that.


I would of course like to thank my camera dudes and editors Dick Geier and Clark Thompson, my adviser Shawn Kaeppler, and the stars of the Fields of Study series: Bill Tracy, Molly Jahn, Mike Casler, and Ken Vogel. Not to mention all the other folks who helped out, listed in the credits.


Anyway, enough about  my videos  , let;s take a look at the winners.


Here is the grand prize winner, with a creative and almost  Green Porno  -like artistic style. Don;t worry, that link is safe to click through at work and with kids around. (Besides, if Nature is offensive to you the problem is with you.) Feast your eyes on Fertile Eyes.


And here are the first prize winners.


Fantastic Vesicle Traffic:


LA BLOOMBA:


Are my Soybeans Wearing Different Genes?


(And yes, this is exactly what it is like working in a plant science lab, complete with flashing dark lights.)


And the first place for the series category, The Carnivorous Syndrome in 3D, Part One:


Part Two:


And Part Three:


Congratulations to all the winners!


It sounds like Chlorofilms may be hosting a second contest this fall, if that is the case I will be sure to let everyone know. I sure hope so, because one of the videos I;m working on this spring will be quite stunning and I;d like to see how far it goes.













Document Number: 4126 



 Choose meat and other foods by levels of microbial contamination? I;d like to see that! 


 by  David Tribe  on 22 November 2010 


Whole Foods safety sucks but they care   21.nov.10  barfblog  Doug Powell  http://www.barfblog.com/blog/145226/10/11/21/whole-foods-safety-sucks-they-care-%E2%80%A6


I bought a turkey yesterday for Thursdays Thanksgiving food orgy  15 pounds at $0.68 per pound at Dillions supermarket in Manhattan (Kansas).  We usually dont go anywhere because the town is more serene with the students gone, and we host a dinner for various international stragglers with nowhere else to go.  At least I didnt have to go to Whole Foods. Terrible food safety and so insufferable.  For the past couple of weeks, Whole Foods has been pushing their turkeys like some form of food porn crack, and repeating the following statements as mantra:


No antibiotics  ever  No supplemental growth hormones*  No animal byproducts in feed  *Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones when raising poultry


Whole Foods lets birds suffer if they are sick, and follows the law by not using hormones. Should sick animals be deprived antibiotics? Wouldnt that go against animal welfare standards? I dont see how this is the basis for an advertizing campaign. Federal regulators may want to have a look, seeing as they cracked down on Tysons BS claims that they didnt use antibiotics in poultry production that no one else used.  Whole Foods does have a bunch of homespun tales about turkeys raised by farmers the way our grandparents did it. Apparently society has learned nothing about food production over the past 60 years?  Whole Foods also has a thing against modern technology like freezing, and says it only sells fresh birds  big cross-contamination problem  I bought fresh birds a couple of times in the 1990s, and concluded they were overpriced and sucked. Same with fresh pasta. Some things are meant to be preserved using technology.  But this marketing is aimed directly at the consumers pocketbook.  It just makes sense that the more care and time that goes into raising the turkeys, the more they will cost.  Good for you if people will pay.  The Chicago Tribune reports that Whole Foods is also piloting a new humane meat-rating system in the South and scheduled for national expansion early next year. If the six-step, color-coded labeling system works as planned, it could allow American consumers at many supermarket chains unprecedented levels of specificity when it comes to choosing meat to match their principles.  Id really like to be able to choose meat and other foods by levels of microbial contamination. American retailers will market anything to make a buck, but why not reward those producers, processors and retailers who consistently deliver food that doesnt make people barf.  Developed by the Global Animal Partnership, a nonprofit group made up of farmers, scientists, retailers, sustainability experts and animal welfare advocates, the rating system aims to address growing consumer concerns over the way animals are raised for food. It could also, not coincidentally, boost sales for certified farmers and participating stores, likely to include another unidentified major national retailer and restaurant group in the coming year, according to the nonprofit.  Its six-step approach establishes baseline standards for all meat sold in the store, while offering producers an opportunity to achieve higher ratings as their animal welfare standards improve based on the program;s benchmarks.  So, for example, the highest rating (5+, colored green) would go to a chicken that, among other things, had been bred, hatched and raised on a single farm, lived year-round on pasture covered with at least 75 percent vegetation and had legs that were healthy enough to support it by the time it reached market weight.  And the lowest rating (1, colored yellow) would reflect adherence to several dozen baseline provisions about feed, antibiotics and treatment, but also a provision that the animal must not have been caged or crowded.  The Whole Foods folks could have learned something from those studying restaurant inspection disclosure and the use of colors or grading schemes. I also expect absolutely no verification that the system communicates to shoppers what was intended.  ;We get an enormous amount of questions from customers who want to know everything about the meat and animals, really detailed questions,; said Anne Malleau, global animal production and welfare coordinator for Whole Foods Market. But the program is also aimed at customers who don;t want the gory details so much as assurances that their ;food has been humanely produced,; Malleau said.  Although the company has no set formula for pricing GAP levels, it did share some examples from an Atlanta-area store that started rolling out the program in 2009. Grain-fed rib-eye steak rated a Step 1 costs $14.99 lb., while local grass-fed rib-eye, rated Step 4, costs $15.99 lb. And Canadian bone-in pork chops rated Step 1 cost $6.99 lb., while local bone-in pork chops rated Step 4 cost $7.99 lb.  Who pays that? And relying on auditors? You have heard of Peanut Corporation of America and DeCoster eggs and dozens of other outbreaks. Anne, who used to go to the University of Guelph and even hang out with the folks in my lab (above, right, exactly as shown) I want microbiologically safe food. Thats something Id pay for.


http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/142784/10/06/26/whole-foods-still-sucks-food-safety  http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/11/a-bird-for-every-budget/  http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/140868/10/02/15/safe-food-food-doesnt-make-you-barf-dont-it-make-your-own-definition  http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/blog/138113/08/05/01/court-says-tyson-chicken-antibiotic-claims-must-stop  http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/11/our-turkey-farmers-2/  http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-1114-meat-ranking-20101115,0,4256344.story  http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2010/11/our-turkey-farmers/


See   earlier posts on  E. coli  in spinach.













Document Number: 9176 



 Cisgenics- Transgenics without the Transgene 


 by  Kevin Folta  on 20 September 2010 


Recently at the International Horticultural Congress in Lisbon, Portugal, a workshop was dedicated to transgenic crop biology and its integration with public perception. As mentioned in previous posts, the central theme is to placate the misinformed public opinion by using clever technologies to circumvent traditional unfounded criticisms of biotechnology.


Dr. Franz Krenz was the first speaker of the session. His focus was in describing what have been known as   cisgenic  technologies, or the moniker sometimes applied to allele-specific marker assisted selection,   precision breeding  .* Dr. Krenz and colleagues have adopted a very strict interpretation of what cisgenic means. By his definition, a cisgenic plant contains regulatory regions and protein-coding regions from the  same species,  shuttled by biotechnological means. There are no bacterial genes for resistance, no viral promoters, no other genic sequences. Corn to corn, rice to rice, quince to quince. It would be like moving a gene that controls eye color from one person to another to another to make their blue eyes brown.  Homo sapiens  to  Homo sapiens  . Nothing fancy.


In plants naturally-occurring beneficial gene variants are quite common, yet oftentimes occur in unimproved species with limited commercial potential. Specific gene variants confer resistance to disease, variation in flowering time and production traits like fruit size and yield. These have been described in many horticultural and agronomic crops. To breed these traits into existing lines using traditional crossing methods might take decades, depending on the crop. For example, apple scab prevention requires 20-30 sprays per season, sprays that weigh on the environment, the farmers bottom line, and place more chemicals into consumer products. For a long time science has searched for a solution. In 1946 scientists identified natural resistance to scab in  Malus floribunda  , a wild apple relative. The gene was identified years later.


Back in the 50;s, crosses were made, and the resistance to scab moved to new commercial lines- along with &gt;30,000 other genes that were potentially inconsistent with commercial apple qualities. This phenomenon of   linkage drag  means that you cant easily just breed in a single desired trait, that you bring the rest of the non-commercial qualities along for the meiotic ride into subsequent generations. To get the apple-scab resistance gene into plant lines with commercial apple potential took almost fifty years!


Imagine if that single beneficial gene could be picked up and moved to a new line without all the deleterious genetic baggage? Certainly modern transgenic technologies could do (and did) just that. Yet to survive the non-scientific onslaught of anti-transgenic interests, scientists had to work around the traditional means of transgenic technologies to make it acceptable. Over the last decade, scientists have isolated that one beneficial gene, and only that gene, and moved it alone to commercial plants.


The process took a few years rather than five decades and the cost to achieve this and deregulate was about 6M instead of ten times that and many scientist careers. Dutch consumers do find this form of genetic engineering acceptable, as it provides a healthy product with less chemical intervention and lower environmental impact. Plus, it is apple genes into apples. We do that already with crosses.


Still there are opponents to the technology, but most of their their weak arguments disabled via these techniques. Unfortunately, the end product is the same, maybe even less effective, than if traditional transgenic approaches were used, and it takes a lot more time and money to make it happen.


This is just one example of how scientists are cleverly working around warped public perception problems to solve real issues, and enhance sustainable production. Cisgenics will be at least a stop-gap solution in the European Union until public education and perception refocus real problems in sustainable agriculture. For now, the practices of cisgenics may be the central means of introducing traits to plants that can benefit the consumer and environment without the lengthy breeding process, and most of all without raising the ire of those that seek to stop transgenic technology.


*Precision Breeding has also been used to refer to marker assisted selection (MAS), which is a tool for checking the results of breeding experiments, not a type of genetic engineering.













Document Number: 4512 



 Climate change and links to food insecurity underlined by events in Russia, including a ban on wheat exports. 


 by  David Tribe  on 8 August 2010 


2nd UPDATE: Wheat Prices Hit 2-Year Highs Following Russian Ban ; WSJ.com   THE WSJ is reporting that wheat futures prices soared Thursday to their highest levels in two years after Russia said it would ban grain exports due to a severe drought, a move that heightens concerns about global supplies of the grain and the possible impact on food prices.   It reports that September wheat futures at the Chicago board of trade were up the exchange-imposed daily limit of 60 cents at $7.85 3/4 a bushel in late trading, an 8.3% rise and the highest level since Aug. 29, 2008. U.S. wheat futures have gained nearly 85% from a nine-month low in June on expectations that demand for U.S.  wheat will increase.













Document Number: 1175 



 Co-existence isn;t easy 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 29 December 2010 


Closed tomato flower by Rupert Brun via Flickr.


Imagine that you own a small business selling heirloom seeds. Your most important (and profitable) seeds are from a special open pollinated tomato variety that you painstakingly bred under over the past decade by hand crossing other heirloom varieties and selecting the best of their offspring. These tomatoes are everything a tomato lover dreamed of ; the perfect red color, soft yet firm texture, sweet yet flavorful taste, and they have high yields to boot.


You;ve carefully transitioned your farm to organic and received your organic certification last year, so your seeds are in even higher demand than usual. Last year, you had far more requests for these special seeds than you could meet, so this year, you planted hundreds of tomato plants, planning to harvest all the seeds to dry and sell the following year to your tomato-hungry customers.


The weather is perfect, the flowers are maturing and about set pollen; and disaster strikes.


What;s the disaster? It could be any number of things. Farming is risky. There could be a few cold nights that cause the pollen to die before many fruits are pollinated. There could be a sudden flood that washes away half or more of the plants and stresses the rest. There could be a plague of locusts that destroy the plants. There could be an outbreak of a rare virus that affects the young fruit;


Or it could be your neighbor.


There are countless situations where neighboring farms can negatively affect each other. Even if everyone is as careful as can be, accidents happen. Here are just four examples to consider.


Missprayed pesticides 1


Pesticide being applied to tomato plants, image from the North Carolina State University Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology.


While you;ve transitioned to organic, your neighbor hasn;t. He;s having a heck of a time with spider mites on his plants and uses  Orthene  spray in an attempt to stop them from decimating his crop. Unfortunately, he risks spraying on a windy day. As soon as you see the sprayer, you run over to stop him, but the damage is done. Orthene has been sprayed over half your plants. Orthene is not an allowed substance according to  US organic certification standards  . If you;re in the United States, you;ll keep your organic certification, because you didn;t use the pesticide and your separation distance between your field and your neighbor;s was more than adequate, providing he doesn;t spray on a windy day. Still, you wonder if you should tell your customers about this incident. You wonder if there;s any legal action you can take against your bumbling neighbor for his improper pesticide use.


Missprayed pesticides 2


Your neighbor has a pretty nasty weed problem. You;ve tried to convince him to use a cover crop to keep weeds down between seasons, but he;s set in his ways. The conventional seed dealer in town convinces him to use the long-lasting herbicide  Bromacil  to wipe out the weeds. That;s not a problem, because you have planned for appropriate distances between his fields and yours. He decides to go all out and hire a plane to spray his field, but the pilot is a little young and accidentally sprays a few rows of your tomatoes. Now, not only do you now have a non-approved pesticide on your land that can stay in the soil for as long as two years, you have dead tomato plants. You;re fuming, of course, and have to figure out who to hold accountable.


Unfortunate hybrids 1


Bee pollinating a tomato flower by oceandesetoiles via Flickr.


Imagine that your neighbor also grows tomatoes. You notice that there are unusually large numbers of pollinators moving from his field into yours. You begin to grow concerned that your flowers are being fertilized by his pollen. You know that many of the resulting seeds won;t be of your special variety but a hybrid between yours and your neighbors. You might still be able to sell the seeds, but you know that the resulting plants won;t be what your customers expected. The taste may be different, the color may be different, many other traits could be affected. If you sell them without telling your customers what to expect from the seeds, especially your repeat customers, you know they;ll give you bad reviews and your business could decrease dramatically. If you tell your customers what to expect, you know you need to lower your seed prices, because the seeds are no longer for your special variety. Either way, you lose financially and your reputation suffers. You start to wonder if you can sue your neighbor for damages.


Unfortunate hybrids 2


You notice pollinators moving from the neighboring field into yours. In this scenario, your neighbor isn;t another farmer but university land ; an experimental farm ; where researchers from the state university grow who knows what. You heard a rumor that they;re growing GMOs over there so you investigate further by asking a friend in the ag department. Sure enough, you find out that there;s a researcher working on virus resistant tomatoes who has a permit to plant in the field this year. She had mesh cages over her plants and then released bees inside them so the plants could be pollinated. Usually the cages are secure, but for whatever reason, some of her cages were knocked over. The bees escaped, went looking for more flowers, and yours just happened to be the closest. The researcher;s experiment is ruined, and your plants may have been pollenated with her pollen!


Whose fault is it?


These are just four of many possible situations where a neighbor could affect a neighbor. In some cases, blame is clear, while in other cases, there really isn;t anyone to blame but the accidental forces of nature. Even when blame is clear, it;s not always easy to determine the damages, if any, owed to the person who has been harmed.


These neighborly problems aren;t even isolated to farms. The interactions between nature and humans are everywhere. What would you do if your neighbor;s unkept yard produced dandelions that blew into your yard? Can you sue him for the cost of the effort it will take you to remove the dandelions from your yard? What if your neighbor;s dog spreads kennel cough to your dog? What if your neighbor;s potato salad at the community picnic sickens everyone who tasted it?


At least when it comes to farming, there needs to be protections for both farmers who are the victims of an accident and who those who are the accidental perpetrators. There also need to be regulations that are reasonably written so farmers who are the victim of an accident don;t loose certification for speciality labels like organic.


Update: This post of hypotheticals was inspired by two very real recent events. First, in the US, the USDA is currently under discussion of GE alfalfa and how to find ways for  co-existence of GE and non-GE alfalfa  . Second, a farmer in Australia allegedly had his organic certification taken away due to GE canola volunteering on his land and  plans to sue his neighbor  . While there are certainly some issues of co-existence with any crops (GE, organic, or otherwise), it is clear that the zero acceptance policy of many proponents of certified organic farming with respect to genetically engineered crops is going to be the biggest problem for co-existence for a long time. There is hope though, as expressed by Secretary Vilsack in his  Open Letter to Stakeholders to Urge GE and non-GE Coexistence  . He concludes:


The rapid adoption of GE crops has clashed with the rapid expansion of demand for organic and other non-GE products. This clash led to litigation and uncertainty. Such litigation will potentially lead to the courts deciding who gets to farm their way and who will be prevented from doing so.  Regrettably, what the criticism we have received on our GE alfalfa approach suggests, is how comfortable we have become with litigation  with one side winning and one side losing  and how difficult it is to pursue compromise. Surely, there is a better way, a solution that acknowledges agriculture;s complexity, while celebrating and promoting its diversity. By continuing to bring stakeholders together in an attempt to find common ground where the balanced interests of all sides could be advanced, we at USDA are striving to lead an effort to forge a new paradigm based on coexistence and cooperation. If successful, this effort can ensure that all forms of agriculture thrive so that food can remain abundant, affordable, and safe.













Document Number: 51 



 Colony Collapse Disorder 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 10 June 2008 


Colony Collapse Disorder has been in and out of the media since 2006. With conspiracy theories and non-science abounding, it can be hard to separate truth from fiction.


Dr. Diana Cox Foster  of Penn State  spoke  at Iowa State about her work with CCD. She has been studying bees for 20 years and heads a diverse team of researchers working to solve the mystery. She said that there there are quite a few ;theories; that her team disagrees with.


In particular, she said that CCD is not caused by the rapture or the Russians. She puts cell phones and genetically engineered crops in the same category, choosing instead to focus on legitimate leads. She says that there are many reasons why their group is not looking into these as possible causes, but one reason sticks out: some Amish and organic beekeepers whose hives are isolated from genetically engineered crops, many pesticides, and cell phones in the case of the Amish have experienced CCD, while some conventional beekeepers have not.


In other words, there isn;t a common thread connecting colonies that have collapsed.


Despite the fact that scientists like Dr. Cox Foster have spoken on the lack of legitimacy of these theories, people continue to write about them, such as this  example  from the always creative Global Research. I won;t pick the article apart due to time constraints, but wanted to show the range of views. A lot of mainstream articles have less extreme views, but few if any make an effort to debunk the incorrect theories. Instead, they reinforce them! Karl over at Inoculated Mind has a nice  post  summarizing some issues with the cell phone and GMO theories that;s over a year old. If only the reporters would research as he did.


There is abundant evidence that the Bt protein Cry1Ab doesn;t affect non-target insects. A  meta-analysis  from Jan 2008 of 25 independent studies found ;that Bt Cry proteins used in genetically modified crops commercialized for control of lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively affect the survival of either honey bee larvae or adults in laboratory settings.; A  meta-analysis  from May 2008 of a public database found no significant effect on type or number of arthropods in Bt and non-Bt crops. They did find, as have many others, that various types of insecticides decreases the type and number of arthropods.


A quick lit search did come up with a June 2008 study that showed  decreased learning ability  in bees that were force fed syrup containing very high concentrations of Bt that are not found in the field. This data might indicate the need for more research on bee physiology, but doesn;t mean that Bt isn;t safe for bees in the field.


Now that we know what it;s not, I;ll share with you what Dr. Cox Foster thinks are the most likely causes and solutions;


An almond grove via Klausesbees (which incidentally may be the same one that Dr. Foster used in her presentation).


First is simple stress. When they are working on a specific crop, bees don;t have many dining options. Instead of having wildflowers or even another crop such as strawberries under the almond trees, the grove is a virtual pollen desert when the trees aren;t in bloom. Other crops used to be grown with hedgerows separating smaller farms, but these have been all but eliminated as farms are consolidated. This type of agriculture is what led to bees being trucked across the country to keep up with crop flowering.


Bees did not evolve in the conditions of being moved from state to state, feeding on one type of plant one day to something entirely different the next. A related problem could be the sugar and corn syrups that bees are fed before the crops bloom, just because bees haven;t evolved with this as a food source. The stress of the move and of the ever changing food sources might be too much to bear. The solution to this would be to have areas set aside for wildflowers that would both encourage natural bee hives and serve as a food source to local cultivated bee colonies when the local crops are out of season.


Second is a combination of mites, viruses, and other diseases. Dr. Cox Foster and her associates have sequenced DNA samples from bee hives and found a variety of surprising things, including Aspergillis fungus and the parasite Leishmania.  Israeli virus  (IAPV) correctly predicted collapsed hives more than any other factor. The virus is transmitted by Verroa mites (shown here in a photo from the USDA ARS). When bees are stressed, they are especially susceptible to mites which in turn makes them susceptible to disease. Royal jelly from China, used to feed prospective queen bees, was also found to contain IAPV.


Also contributing to susceptibility is the decrease in genetic diversity among bee hives. One possible solution to the problem is breeding or engineering resistant bees. For example, Arizona beekeepers who have Africanized bees haven;t experienced CCD. Another solution is to develop ;biocides; which would be like a medicine to help the bees fight off mites and disease. Vaccines aren;t an option because bees don;t have an adaptive immune system. Beekeepers who irradiate box components before placing a hive inside have had some success, because irradiation kills mites and bacteria.


Third is pesticides, less likely, but still under consideration. Researchers found copious residues of miticides (which some beekeepers apply to bees or to boxes) and other pesticides in the bee wax that beekeepers buy and place in new hives. Use of  formic acid  , considered a natural substance because it is produced by some species of ants, is widespread and may play a role in increasing bee stress and susceptibility to disease. Bees are affected by a wide range of insecticides, which obviously could play a role. However, there is no common pesticide reside in colonies that experience CCD.


Another hive related possibility is a little more difficult to understand and quantify. Some commercial beekeepers try to get a lot out of their hives. One practice that Dr. Cox Foster questions is too-frequent hive ;splitting; because it leads to bee stress. I was also able to find some ruminations on the net that the large  cell size  used by commercial beekeepers to encourage bee growth may also encourage mite infestations, but couldn;t find any actual data on the subject (anyone need a summer project?).


After her presentation, Dr. Cox Foster shared these links that include more information and info on how individuals can help:  The Pollinator Partnership  ,  Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium  , and  The Status of Pollinators in North America  . Another source is the USDA Agricultural Research Service, who has multiple fact sheets, including  Colony Collapse Disorder: A Complex Buzz  .


One last thing I;d like to share before I end this post ; bees are not the only pollinators out there. Of course some aspects of agriculture would have to change if we were no longer able to cart bees across the country, but it wouldn;t be the end of agriculture as some people have said. A Slate article from 2007 called Bee Not Afraid  explains  . Much of the information in the article matches things that Dr. Cox Foster said in the course of her lecture and in the Q&amp;A session that followed.













Document Number: 3171 



 Community Contest #1 and more! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 10 October 2010 


Hi everybody! Frank N. Foode here. Biofortified is workin; on building its community of editors, contributors, and readers with the new  profile  system. We;re also coming up on our first Biennial celebration on the 31st of the month, making this an exciting month for talking about plant genetics. Plus we;ll have more to say about our own  Rally to Restore Sanity  in the debate over genetic engineering, and if that was not enough, there will be opportunities for everyone to be able to win fabulous prizes ; and I;m going to tell you about your first chance!


The first Biofortified Community Contest is on, and it will be a contest for the best comment or comments. That;s right, just by writing  just one  awesome  comment that contributes to the discussion here, you can win a prize! It could be about some of the many things we talk about on the blog such as the science, politics, social and philosophical issues, personal beliefs, or a collection of helpful links that you have scoured the internet for.


Here are the rules:


Anyone can nominate someone for this contest, but must link to at least one comment (can be several) by that author.  You may nominate yourself!  Editors (and me) are ineligible for the contest ; but contributing authors can get in on the action.   Comments can be from any date in the past, present,  or future  . They can be comments on posts or in the forum.  In order to accept the award, comment author must be registered, fill out at least some of their profile, and have a picture uploaded for their avatar. (Profile can be done after the winner is announced. Picture need not be a human photo ; how about a cool plant?)  The winner(s) will be judged on how awesomely smart, cool, funny, and productive their comments are. We want to reward people that help elevate the discussion and give them a special status in the community.  Nominations will close on Friday October 15th at midnight Pacific Standard Time. (End of the day, not the beginning!)  Winner(s) will be decided by Biofortified;s editors, and will be announced on the 17th of October.


What do you win, aside from  eternal glory  ? Why, some genetically engineered blog schwag.  Get your farmer;s market groove on with your very own Biofortified Canvas Tote!


Let;s see, celery, kale, parsley... um what;s this stick of butter for?


It comes complete with an embroidered shopping list pocket with an elastic pen loop so you can check things off as you shop. (Note: Veggies, shopping list, pen, and Frank not included.) Be the first to own it, and take it down to your local Whole Foods to show off that  you  are a part of the discussion. (While we do not know for sure if the cotton bags are made from genetically engineered varieties, it is more likely than not.)


If you don;t win this time around, don;t despair because as soon as it is over we will have a second one, with a special twist. And finally, if the debate about genetic engineering makes you feel like wielding a knife, we will also have the first annual Frankenfood Carving Contest coming up later this month as well!


Nominate your entries in the comments below. (Due to the fact that multiple links can get your comment caught up in our voluminous spam queue, we recommend making nominations while logged in.) If you have been nominated, filling out your profile right away will help your chances of winning. And you can also second nominations and root for those whom you think really deserve to win! Good Luck, and remember it;s not too late to make a winning comment!













Document Number: 6060 



 Community Contest #4: Feel the Love 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 5 April 2011 


Howdy doodie all you foodies, Frank N. Foode here with a brand new Community Contest for y;all!


Gosh, it has been too long since our last contest in November, the first annual  FrankenFood Carving Contest  ; and I have a bit of a confession to make: I forgot to announce the winner! While several fantastic pumpkins were carved, one entrant thought outside the jack-0-lantern varietal box and went with a Spaghetti Squash. Still  Cucurbita pepo  , but hilariously carved and lit up! I think this is what I looked like when I read what Andy Kimbrell said way back when. Check out the head splitting, string-vomiting action!


So our third community contest, the carving contest goes to  GregH  , who is also an undergrad horticulture and finance major with quote a collection of plants listed on his profile page. Is that  popping sorghum  as well? Coolness. Greg wins an embroidered cotton canvas shopping bag (complete with custom pocket with a pen-holder), along with a Norman Borlaug commemorative coin! Maybe belated but just in time for farmer;s markets in the spring, no?


Back in October, I really jumped on this community contest concept, probably too many at once, and the winner of our  second contest  also got lost in the shuffle. They found out that they won by email, mind you, but all of you need to know as well. The theme for this contest, if you recall, was to nominate someone you  disagree  with. And for being a thoughtful and courteous commentator we have awarded the victory bag to the one and only  Bernarda  ! This is what Anastasia had to say in her nomination:


[Bernarda] has contributed greatly to conversation by bringing new perspectives and presenting them in a non-argumentative way. I feel that a lot of times we all just talk past people we disagree with, which is frustrating and unfruitful. But with Bernarda, particularly on the Miracle Plants: Fallacy or New Frontier post, I think were not talking past each other any more but actually having some real discussion.


Isn;t that what we;re here for? I;ll keep to one contest per month from now on, but hey I;m just a plant ; so please remind me at the end of the month if I forget! Give a round of congratulations to our  winners  , and on to contest number 4!


Community Contest #4: Feel the Love


There have been lots of discussions here lately, and in the last couple of months, we have had some great posts and comments on the topic of coexistence between genetic engineering and organic/non-GE farming. I don;t know about you but I would like to see more of this! Each community contest has a special theme to it, and I would like this to be the theme for our fourth contest. Here are a list of posts that touch on the topic of coexistence to get you thinking about who deserves your nomination:


Coexistence isn;t easy


Vilsack looks for solution on Coexistence


Coexistence takes Conversation


What the Heck is Alfalfa Anyway?


Biofortified on the Alfalfa EIS


Organic Infighting over GE Alfalfa


Can we Coexist?


Here are the rules for contest #4:


Anyone can nominate someone for this contest, but must link to at least one comment (can be several) by that author.  Editors (and me) are ineligible for the contest  but contributing authors can get in on the action.  Comments can be from any date in the past, present, or future. They can be comments on posts or in the forum.  Preference will be given to comments discussing Coexistence ; but awesome comments that do not fit this description will also be considered.  In order to accept the award, comment author must be registered, fill out at least some of their profile, and have a picture uploaded for their avatar. (Profile can be done after the winner is announced. Picture need not be a human photo  how about a cool plant?)  The winner(s) will be judged on how awesomely smart, cool, funny, and productive their comments are. We want to reward people that help elevate the discussion and give them a special status in the community.  Nominations will close on Saturday April 9th at midnight Pacific Standard Time. (End of the day, not the beginning!)  Winner(s) will be decided by Biofortifieds editors, and will be announced on Monday the 11th.


Prizes


Biofortified just got a wonderful stack of books that we thought you might enjoy reading. So for this contest, the winner gets to choose either a Biofortified canvas bag as usual, or one of any of the books listed on our new  Community Contest page  . Some titles include:


Denialism  , How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens our Lives, by Michael Specter.   The Conscientious Gardener  , Cultivating a Garden Ethic, by Dr. Sarah Hayden Reichard   Empty Pleasures  : The Story of Artificial Sweeteners from Saccharin to Splenda, by Dr. Carolyn de la Pena   Tomorrow;s Table  , Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, by Dr. Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak


There are a whole lot more books on our list a ; little something for everybody,  so check em out  . And if we get a good turnout for this contest we might be forced to give more away! So remember, comments made up until the last minute count ; so there;s still time to put in a fantastic comment and earn the love of your peers!


http://www.biofortified.org/2011/01/vilsack-looks-for-solution-on-coexistence/













Document Number: 2253 



 Comparing apples to apples 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 December 2009 


John Reganold and Anastasia at Cafe Beaudelaire in Ames, IA. Frank was waiting in the car, anxious to go pick up Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak from the Des Moines airport.


John Reganold  , Regents Professor of Soil Science and Agroecology at Washington State University, recently presented a lecture at Iowa State. I have to admit, a professor of agroecology automatically raises my skeptical eyebrows, but I;d previously read Dr. Reganold;s 2001 letter in Nature:  Sustainability of three apple production systems  , which was about some pretty solid research, so I was really looking forward to his talk. In this letter, Dr. Reganold and his colleagues showed that organic, conventional, and integrated (aka a mixture of organic and conventional techniques) were each viable methods of farming, each with their own benefits.


During this visit to  Sustainable Agriculture Colloquium  at Iowa State, Dr. Reganold talked about comparing organic and conventional methods, of course! According to Dr. Reganold, indicators of sustainability include: adequate yields of high quality, economics, environmental impact, and social justice, among others. He said that we need to judge all farming systems, including organic and conventional, on the same indicators.


One indicator of successful farming practices that Dr. Reganold said needed to change is our fixation on yields. Using yield as a measure of agriculture leaves out many factors, including soil, water, and other environmental effects. It also leaves out the human effect. Conventional agriculture, and much of organic agriculture as well, has a very carefree attitude towards social justice. At first, the organic movement did have a strong social responsibility component, but this has become watered down as organic produce and products have become more popular. There are examples of change, though, such as  IFOAM  (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) which is currently working on new employee standards and product labeling, according to Dr. Reganold. He said, ;farms aren;t sustainable if they don;t pay their workers enough for them to get health care and save for retirement.; Choosing yield as the sole indicator also doesn;t take into consideration the nutritional quality of the resulting crops.


Nonetheless, yield is a pretty useful indicator. He brought up quite a few studies* that had undertaken the complex task of comparing the yields of organic and conventional methods, concluding that yields of the two systems are comparable. Many of the sustainable ag students, including me, had never heard of many of the studies he mentioned, such as the 1990 paper  The comparative productivity of organic agriculture  by  Gerald Stanhill  , which was a meta-analysis, and  Organic agriculture and the global food supply  by  Catherine Badgley  . I;m looking forward to reading them when finals are over.


Dr. Reganold, while encouraged by these studies, was clear in pointing out that every situation is different. For example, soil types vary widely. Some soils do well with no-till, while others do not. ;The best farming method is site specific;, he said. Organic farming is a major player in sustainable agriculture, but no one method is  the  solution. There is no one method that will ;feed the world;. Instead, creative integration of methods is key. The biggest issues right now are synthetic fertilizers and pesticides ; which can be replaced with integrated farming systems. ;We;re arguing GMOs versus organic when there is so much ground in-between that is bigger and we are missing it big time;, Dr. Reganold said.


* Dr. Reganold started to bring up the recent report  Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use  as one example of how organic farming is more environmentally friendly with regards to pesticides, but an audience member beat me to questioning his reliance on this report. He clarified that Bt has decreased insecticide use and that Round Up Ready has increased herbicide use, and said that all herbicides are not created equal, which seemed to me to be an accurate analysis of the report.


Note: Any errors in this review of Dr. Reganold;s talk are unintentional. If you were there and see that I;ve misquoted or misrepresented what he said in any way, please let me know in the comments.













Document Number: 6349 



 First Global Conference on Biofortification 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 9 November 2010 


In a few moments, talks at the First Global Conference on Biofortification will begin. Up first: the keynote address The Future of Food by William J. Garvelink, the US Government Deputy Coordinator for Development Feed the Future: Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. Then, a panel discussion on the  Importance of agriculture for addressing malnutrition  . If you have any questions regarding biofortification, let me know in the comments and I;ll try to find the answer and address it in a later post. Follow the conference on Twitter  #biofortconf  .


Even before the talks get started, the posters here display some exciting research. For example, B.B. Singh, an agronomist who splits his time between Texas A&amp;M and an Indian university, has developed  60 day cowpea  .  The short maturation time of these special legumes means that they can be integrated into existing rotations in India, the US, and Africa, without the loss of any of the staple grain crops. They can be planted right into the stubble of the previous crop, provide about 1.5-2.5 tons of high-protein beans that can be cooked into a variety of traditional dishes as a substitute for beans such as chickpeas, soybeans, or lentils. They have a mild taste and high levels of iron and zinc. The bean plants can be used as fodder for animals and the plants fix nitrogen so less fertilizer is needed for the next crop. Other benefits include disease resistance and low water requirements.


Dr. Singh has been successful in his work to help Indian farmers integrate the cowpea into their wheat and rice rotations, and hopes to get farmers in Texas and the American south using cowpea as well. This work is particularly important for two reasons. First, in India, while legumes are an important part of the diet, increased demand for rice and wheat has decreased the number of acres where legumes are planted, causing an increase in price and reduction of protein in the diets of many Indians. Second, soybeans do require a reasonable amount of water, and as rainfall becomes more variable, the US supply of the legume will decrease.













Document Number: 3704 



 Contaminated 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 23 September 2008 


A lot of people (including me!) are concerned with the possibility of genetically engineered crops spreading their pollen to nearby fields and to wild relatives. I covered some physical and genetic ways to prevent this in  Gene flow, IP, and the terminator  , but we all know that 100% exclusion of unwanted pollen is impossible (at least for now).


So, what happens when a farmers field or wild plant population is contaminated with a transgene? Can they be decontaminated? What about gene flow from non-transgenic crops? Strangely, none of the people concerned with transgenic gene flow seem to be concerned about non-transgenic pollen from modern cultivars, which is a much bigger problem. I use contaminated in quotes because nature doesnt see the distinctions we see. Transgene or not, wild or cultivated, all go into a big mixing pot to be stirred by random mating and natural selection.


If we are to be concerned about transgenes, we must consider the actual effects that those genes might have, and how those genes might act within a population. There are three types of effects an escaped transgene could have on wild populations:


1) Some transgenes are expected to have a negative effect on the fitness of wild plants. For example, a gene that dramatically increases the size and number of fruits produced by a plant is desirable from an agricultural perspective, but will likely have detrimental effects on a wild plant, because the plant would have less resources to devote to other needs like herbivore defense and drought tolerance. These types of genes will not persist in a wild population.


2) In contrast, some transgenes are expected to have a positive effect on the fitness of wild plants. For example, a gene for herbivore resistance, such as that found in crops engineered to produce the insecticidal Bt toxin, would help cultivated and non-cultivated plants escape damage from susceptible herbivores. These types of genes will be selected for and thus persist in a wild population.


3) Finally, some transgenes are neutral, expected to have no effect on fitness of wild plants. For example, if a wild plant acquires the gene for glyphosate tolerance, but is never sprayed with this chemical, its fitness will presumably be unaffected. These genes may persist in a wild population at low levels. Since we are talking about one gene, its actually very easy to breed it out of a population. We just need to know which plants have the gene and which ones dont, then keep only seeds from plants that dont have the gene. This will take one generation if the plants are tested before fertilization, or a few generations if the seeds are tested. Some transgenes are easy to see, while others require a DNA test. For example, plants contaminated with a hypothetical transgene encoding for color could be identified by sight and removed. Plants contaminated with a transgene that isnt easy to see can be screened for the suspected gene with PCR, a relatively easy process.


Gene flow from all cultivated plants to wild relatives is a much larger problem than transgenes. Wild populations are generally in genetic equilibrium, such that the population has just the right balance of alleles for each of its genes to ensure maximum survival and the ability to adapt to changes in the environment. When pollen from cultivated plants fertilizes plants in wild populations or landraces, only 1/2 of the genes in the resulting plants are wild. If enough of the plants are fertilized with cultivated pollen, genetic diversity in future generations can be seriously decreased. With a decrease in diversity, the population is less able to survive changes in the environment. Rice in Asia has been severely affected by non-transgenic gene flow, so much so that it is difficult if not impossible to find wild rice plants that do not contain some genes from modern cultivars.


A specific example of confusion about the problem of gene flow can be found in the movie The World According to Monsanto which can be found on YouTube. Starting at the end of part  6 of 8  and through half of part  7 of 8  , the movie discusses contamination of maize landraces in mexico with transgenes. They say that farmers plants are becoming monsterous due to transgenes. They say that transgenes will insert themselves into different places in the genomes of the farmers corn, which is less than scientifically accurate, to say the least.


Natural transposons found in many organisms can jump, inserting themselves into new places in the genome, but transgenes dont have this ability any more than normal genes do (they dont). Its hard to say what is causing the monstrosities but Id wager it has a lot more to do with the combination of highly different genomes that havent had contact for decades or possibly even hundreds of years. I dont know what else to say, except that the interpretation of gene flow presented in the movie is overly simplistic and ignores a lot of the bigger issues associated with loss of biodiversity. Blaming genetic engineering is easy, but doesnt help solve any problems.


Note ; Im only discussing the gene flow part of the movie in this post, so please hold your horses if you have comments on the rest of it. If you have particular parts of the movie youd like to discuss, let me know in a comment.













Document Number: 457 



 Contest #1 Winner and Contest #2 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 17 October 2010 


Hi everyone, Frank N. Foode here bringing you the results of the first Biofortified Community Contest!


Both  Pdiff  and  MaryM  were nominated in the  comments of the contest announcement  ,and it was a tough choice. Both have been providing superb input and support in comments and in the forum. So who won?


The winner of Community Contest #1 goes to a person who has been helping out for a long time (in corn years) with providing links, digging up sources, and helping to populate our list of  GE companies  , for example. They helped  dig up  an obscure article that undermined a persistent myth about soy allergies and GE crops, all while being friendly and funny. And that person is none other than  MaryM  !


So congratulations Mary, your very own Biofortified Schwag Bag will be on its way for you to fill with groceries, carry your lunch in, or hold while snoopy dancing! Give her a round of applause!


Community Contest #2


With contest #1 now over, it is time to announce the beginning of contest #2. This will be the same as contest #1, but with a twist. One of the things that we want to see here is healthy disagreement. C;mon, you don;t have to be a genetically modified organism to know that some of the things we talk about on Biofortified can lead to some heated arguments. Words flying everywhere, food rights breaking out in local cafeterias, crops getting ripped out of the ground ; almost anything can happen. So there may be some disagreement about what are the best  seeds  to plant, I think we can all  cultivate  our ideas together. So the twist to our second comment contest is, you need to nominate a comment that you  disagree  with.


Here are the rules for contest #2:


Anyone can nominate someone for this contest, but must link to at least one comment (can be several) by that author.  Editors (and me) are ineligible for the contest  but contributing authors can get in on the action.  You must nominate someone that you disagree with. Tell us why you disagree with them, but also why you believe that the comment(s) they made deserve(s) notice. Did they point out something you didn;t think of, or state their case in a logical, civil, and productive way? Did they change your mind about something, or give you some new ideas?   Comments can be from any date in the past, present, or  future  . They can be comments on posts or in the forum.  In order to accept the award, comment author must be registered, fill out at least some of their profile, and have a picture uploaded for their avatar. (Profile can be done after the winner is announced. Picture need not be a human photo  how about a cool plant?)  The winner(s) will be judged on how awesomely smart, cool, funny, and productive their comments are. We want to reward people that help elevate the discussion and give them a special status in the community.  Nominations will close on Wednesday October 27th at midnight Pacific Standard Time. (End of the day, not the beginning!)  Winner(s) will be decided by Biofortifieds editors, and will be announced on the 29th of October.


The winner will receive their very own Biofortified canvas tote bag!


You know, with all this fiber I really don;t think you need the Metamucil.


It comes complete with an embroidered shopping list pocket with an elastic pen loop so you can check things off as you shop. (Note: Veggies, shopping list, pen, and Frank not included.)


Nominate your entries in the comments below. (Due to the fact that multiple links can get your comment caught up in our voluminous spam queue, we recommend making nominations while logged in.) If you have been nominated, filling out your profile right away will help your chances of winning. And you can also second nominations and root for those whom you think really deserve to win! Good Luck, and remember its not too late to make a winning comment!













Document Number: 324 



 Corn syrup myths 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 25 January 2010 


There are a lot of myths out there about high fructose corn syrup. While there are plenty of reasons to avoid consuming too much corn syrup (and all sugars), that;s no reason to spread rumors.


Have any commonly held beliefs about corn that you;d like to know more about? Let us know in the comments.


Myth: Huge amounts of the sizable US corn crop go to HFCS production. Here;s an example that sums up this idea from  Grist  : ;The Big Corn People began to grow so much royally-subsidized GMO corn that they turned it into millions of gallons of high fructose corn syrup.;


It;s true, a portion of the US corn crop is used for HFCS production. It;s also true that corn syrup is cheap because the corn industry receives subsidies. But there;s a lot more to this story.


How is corn used?


Most of the US corn crop is used for animal feed. In 2006-2007, 5.6 billion bushels of corn were used for animal feed, 2.1 billion for exports, 2.1 billion for ethanol, 753 million for corn sweeteners, 272 million for corn starch, 190 million for corn foods (tortillas, cereal, etc), and 137 for alcoholic beverages, according to Iowa State University;s  High Fructose Corn Syrup ; How sweet it is  (pdf).


It;s more than a little dishonest to blame the monocultures on HFCS, when so much of the crop is used for feed. Again, that;s 5.6 billion bushels of corn for animal feed versus 753 million bushels for sweeteners in 2007. We might also take a second look at ethanol.


Corn is used for so many things because it can be separated into fractions fairly easily. According to that same ISU Factsheet, a single bushel of corn (about 60 lbs) produces three primary products after wet milling:


1.6 lbs corn oil  13.5 lbs corn protein gluten animal feed  2.6 lbs corn gluten meal used for poultry feed, pre-emergent herbicide, and fur cleaner.


The remaining starch can then be used to produce one of three alternatives:


33 pounds of corn sweetener  32 pounds of cornstarch  2.5 to 2.7 gallons of ethanol or beverage alcohol


In other words, a bushel of corn can be used to make animal feed and either corn syrup  or  ethanol ; not both. Over the years, the percentage of the crop that;s gone for sweetener or ethanol has changed a great deal. According to  Table 27 ; US use of field corn, by crop year  (.xls), in 1991 7% of the corn crop was used to make sweetener, and 6.10% was used to make alcohol. In 2009, 5.78% of the corn crop was used for sweetener, while 35.82% was used for ethanol. Over the same years, the amount of corn harvested increased, so total corn syrup production did increase, but not much compared to ethanol.


If you;re looking to blame something for corn monocultures, it makes sense to turn first to animal products and then to ethanol; not to corn syrup.


How much does it cost?


Corn syrup is cheaper than sugar because of the climate in the US, tariffs on imported sugar,  and  because of corn subsidies. Sugar can be refined from two crops: sugar cane and sugar beets. Sugar cane is a tropical crop, and there aren;t many places in the US where it can be grown (see this  map  of US sugar cane acres in 2007 from the USDA to see just how few places). Sugar beets aren;t grown in many places in the US either (see this  map  of US sugar beet acres in 2007). Sugar cane and sugar beets both produce about 50% of US sugar, according to University of Florida Extension;s  Overview of Florida Sugarcane  .


Since there isn;t much sugar produced in the US, and due to the climate in the US we couldn;t produce much more even if we wanted to, we would need to import it from Brazil, India, or Europe. That could be a problem for locavores looking for sugar, but it;s definitely a problem for US sugar producers who want to stay competitive with producers overseas. Sugar producers have been successful in lobbying for high tariffs, so we don;t import much sugar. I don;t understand all the tariffs and other programs, but you can learn more at the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service;s  US Sugar Import Program  .


Since we can;t and don;t produce much sugar in the US, and there are trade barriers to importing sugars, it makes sense for food producers to look for an alternative sweetener. We have excellent climate and soils for corn (see this  map  of US corn acres in 2007), and it;s not that difficult to make sugar from corn starch.


More questions


I have to wonder if, in the absence of trade barriers, we would still have more corn syrup than corn sugar. Similarly, how much would the balance of sweeteners actually change if corn subsidies were removed? Since such a small amount of the crop is used to produce all the sweetener we need, I wonder if things would change much at all. Finally, even if we had enough sugar to meet consumer demand for sweet processed foods, would Americans actually consume any less total sugar than we do now? I think it wouldn;t change at all. As for what might change consumption of total sugars, we might consider subsidies on healthy (or at least healthier) foods and/or a tax on unhealthy foods and sodas. Here;s hoping.













Document Number: 2189 



 Precautionary Principles and the Cost of Caution 


 by  Guest Posts  on 27 May 2010 


by Clark Wolf, Director of Bioethics, Iowa State University


She felt terrible, with a horrible pain in her gut that cut like a knife, and nausea and fever to match. Usually stoic in the face of pain, my daughter was doubled over and gasping.


When we took her to the hospital, the doctor took one look at her and immediately ordered a scan. Within hours she was in the operating room to have her ruptured appendix removed. After the operation, the surgeon showed us pictures of the process, including a glossy photo of the inflamed appendix and the staple he had used to close off the end from which it had been removed. Almost immediately after surgery, my daughters fever diminished. Her post-surgical pain was minimal compared to the searing pain that brought us to the hospital in the first place. As I write this, she is still in the hospital where she will remain for a few more days. But the crisis is over and there is improvement by the hour. By the time you read this, she will probably be home again in her own bed.


In the  May 2009 issue  of Bioethics in Brief, I discussed the fear of novelty that often leads to skepticism about new technology. I urged that moderate skepticism may be appropriate if it leads us to logically weigh the risks involved in new technologies, and that caution may be appropriate when we are unsure how to evaluate the risks we face.


The other side of this equation, of course, is the benefit that technological advances bring. In my grandparents generation, people often died from a ruptured appendix, and surgery was a far less certain undertaking. Today, an appendectomy is a relatively minor procedure. When the surgery is uncomplicated, patients may leave the hospital within a day or so of surgery.


We are grateful for life-saving technologies when we experience their benefits firsthand, and people are typically much less wary of technologyincluding biotechnologywhen their most central interests hang in the balance.


The danger of adopting a technology that is unproven is the difficulty in weighing the involved risks. Since it is not possible to predict every eventuality, we may not understand how to weigh the risk until its too late. But the alternative danger the danger involved if new technologies are not adoptedmay also involve serious risks. We may not give proper weight to those risks until we experience the benefits first hand. Today as I write this, I am vividly aware of the benefits associated with the surgical technologies that saved my childs life.


Precautionary Principles


How should we evaluate unproven technologies? It is sometimes recommended that we adopt a precautionary approach. The precautionary principle offers a general recommendation that we should be cautious when risks are unknown. Those who dislike the principle often recommend it as a general, blanket condemnation of any new technology simply on the basis of its novelty. In a 2003  New York Times  editorial, Clyde Prestowitz memorably represented the precautionary principle as a recommendation that If we cant prove absolutely that [a new technology] is harmless, lets ban it. (Prestowitz, 2003) Stated in this way, the principle becomes an unfortunate decision criterion. It is  never  possible to prove absolutely that a novel technology is harmless. If we are entirely ruled by our fears we will miss the benefits that new technologies offer.


Often, these benefits can be measured in the same terms of life and death, happiness and misery that we may use to weigh risks and costs. Prestowitz is not a fan of the precautionary principle, so his statement of it is intended to make the principle appear ridiculous. While this may make a successful  rhetorical  point, his argument would have been more interesting and significant if he had re-presented the principle.


A more moderate version of the precautionary principle found its way into international law in the 1992  Rio Declaration  . That agreement states Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. (Rio Declaration, 1992, Article 15) If Prestowitzs statement of a precautionary principle is absurdly strong, so that it would prevent acceptance of any new technology, then perhaps the Rio statement is absurdly weak. Of  course  lack of full scientific certainty should not constitute a reason to postpone cost effective measures to prevent harm (or degradation). Empirical science never provides certainty. While one precautionary statement seems to rule out acceptance of any technology at all, the Rio statement is too weak to motivate caution even in cases where caution would be fully justified.


Confusion about the precautionary principle has resulted in the existence of opposing rhetorical camps. Some people reject the principle as obviously excessive while others extol it as a minimal and obviously justified principle for policy choice. If those involved in this discussion have different principles in mind, they may both be correct. But they are talking past each other.


Risky Decisions and New Technologies


I am overwhelmingly grateful to the people who developed and employed the surgical procedures that saved my daughters life recently. But the first time these procedures were used, the risks involved were unknown, and there must have been a reasonable expectation that they could fail. In the case of a ruptured appendix, the expected cost of doing nothing is high. Left to follow its natural course untreated, a ruptured appendix can be expected to lead to pain and death. In some cases, new technologies leave us with less dire alternatives than this. The cost of caution is often (though perhaps not always) less immediate and extreme for technologies in agricultural biotechnology.


The question whether we should chose to err on the side of caution or optimism will not be solved by reference to either of the simple principles articulated above. We need rationally to consider all of the risks involved in our choices, including the opportunity cost of proceeding with an abundance of caution. These costs are difficult to measure, since they are reflected in the foregone benefits that technologies might have brought. To see that these costs are very real, we would do well to consider the loss we would have experienced if past technologies had not been developed. In some cases, these opportunity costs are reflected in the lives of people who might have been positively affected by the adaptation of the new technology, even to the extent of dramatically extending the lengths of their lives.


References


Gardiner, S. 2006.  A Core Precautionary Principle  .  J. Pol.Phil.  14(1):33-60.


Prestowitz, Clyde. 2003.  Dont Pester Europe on Genetically Modified Food  .  New York Times  , January 25.


Stich, S. 1978.  The Recombinant DNA Debate  .  Philosophy and Public Affairs.  7(3) Spring 78, pp. 187-205.


Clark Wolf  is the Director of Bioethics and a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Iowa State University. He is a faculty member in the Graduate Program in Sustainable Agriculture and has a cortursey appointment in the Department of Political Science. He teaches and co-teaches a variety of courses, including Foundations of Sustainable Agriculture, Environmental Ethics, and Bioethics and Biotechnology. Clark gives and organizes thought-provoking talks to diverse audiences at Iowa State, including talks on biotechnology and intellectual property.*


Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the ISU  Office of Biotechnology  or Iowa State University.


Wolf, Clark.  Precautionary Principles and the Cost of Caution  .  Bioethics in Brief, a Publication of the Iowa State University Office of Biotechnology.  May 2010. Volume 12, Number 2.


* Biography composed by Anastasia Bodnar.













Document Number: 3320 



 Cotton like Candy 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 6 September 2009 


Or Cottonseed you can Eat thanks to Genetic Engineering.


A few years ago,  I read about  a research group that had used genetic engineering to remove a poisonous compound from cotton seed. Now, it seems, they are one step closer to making a positive impact on the availability of food for people in developing countries and beyond.  Time Magazine reports  that Dr. Keerti Rathore and his team, who made the development years ago have now moved on to field trials, a necessary step to test the resilience and effectiveness of the trait in real-world conditions.


RNA that Interferes


Let me tell you how this works. They used a technique called  RNA interference  , or RNAi. When plants (and other organisms we are finding) are infected with a virus that uses RNA as its genetic material, they defend themselves by chopping up the offending molecule. Cells use the double-stranded DNA as genetic material, and use the very similar single-stranded RNA to carry information from the genes to the rest of the cell for making proteins. But the RNA that these viruses use is double-stranded, like DNA. Since plants don;t use RNA as a double-strand, this gives them something different to detect and destroy, and that;s what they do.


An enzyme called Dicer detects double-stranded RNA and chops it up into little pieces, about 20 bases long, and a complex of enzymes called the RNA Induced Silencing Complex (RISC) uses those short pieces to destroy any other RNA molecules that come along that match the sequence of those short pieces. These short pieces of RNA are called Small Interfering RNA or siRNA.


The goal of RNA-based viruses, or retroviruses, is to make DNA from their RNA genomes, and insert this DNA into the host cell where it can be used to make more viruses. So in addition to knocking out similar genes, a similar complex of enzymes called RITS (RNA-induced Transcriptional Silencing) can also find any genes in the cell;s DNA that match the siRNAs and ;silence; them by attaching small molecules called methyl groups to the DNA. This tells the cell;s enzymes to skip over the likely viral gene, protecting the cell from becoming a virus factory.


Once cells evolved this amazing defense mechanism, they put it to good use in their own evolution. (This is assuming the defense mechanism evolved first.) Now cells had a way to silence  their own  genes if need be. So if a gene produces an RNA molecule that doubles-back on itself, along comes Dicer to chop it up. The small pieces of RNA that are made in this fashion are called Micro RNAs, or miRNA. Any genes that match the sequence of this miRNA are doomed to be turned off.


In general, all it takes to get this silencing effect is to have an otherwise normal-looking gene with part of the gene duplicated and turned the other way around. This forms a ;hairpin loop; (looks like a bobby pin) in the RNA that gene produces, because the reversed part of the sequence can come back around and hook up with the forward part of the seqeunce. Now people with experience in RNAi will say, hey, it;s not  that  easy, but that;s the basic idea.


Micro RNAs are very cool, and they are rising in importance in genetics. When I was touring grad schools in 2007, one professor in Illinois showed me a picture of two soybeans, one green and one yellow, and asked me whether I thought the yellow soybean was caused by a dominant or recessive gene.


I answered, ;Well, my first thought is that since the soybean lacks pigment, that it has a mutation in one of the genes in the pigment pathway that prevents the pigment from being formed, which is usually recessive.;


But I continued, ;However if it is caused by a Micro RNA silencing one of those genes, then it would be dominant.;  I was right  , the yellow mutant was caused by a Micro RNA, that turned off one of the pigment genes in the way I described above.


;Ah, I tried to trick you!; She said. I forget whether she was holding her fist in the air as if to say, ;foiled again,; but it felt like that.


RNAi makes things just as if the gene it silences isn;t even there, kind of like if the gene was mutated so that it didn;t work anymore. But cells usually have two copies of every gene, one on each paired chromosome. Some plants have more than two of each chromosome, so they can have more. Usually, if you mutate a gene so that it doesn;t work anymore, the normal working copy or copies will still do the job in its absence. Such ;knockouts; are therefore recessive, and you have to have every copy of the gene be non-functional to get your desired trait. Not with RNAi.


With RNAi, you usually only need one copy of the silencing gene, and it will turn off every copy of the target gene, and sometimes even similar genes in the same ;gene family.; Thus, MicroRNAs, whether natural or human-made, are dominant genes. One drop of miRNA does it.


The Gossypol Wall


Now let;s talk about the cotton. Cotton is grown for fiber, in fact every piece of clothing I am wearing right now is made from it. But sometimes, also, cottonseed is fed to ruminant cattle which can manage to digest it. But the rest of our farm animals, and us especially, cannot stomach it. That is because it contains a compound called  Gossypol  , which can cause low potassium levels and paralysis. (It can also apparently work as an effective male contraceptive; if you ignore the paralysis part.)


In the 1950s, researchers knew that cottonseed could be painstakingly processed to remove the poisonous gossypol, it made a suitable edible food. Cottonseed oil also finds its way into some foods today. So they decided that they would try to breed a gossypol-free cottonseed. By stacking up recessive nonfunctional or deleted gossypol genes in a cotton plant, they successfully made an edible cottonseed. The trouble was, it made a cotton plant that was itself  quite edible for pests!  Gossypol was necessary for plant defense througout the plant, so by knocking out the genes entirely it made a newly edible food that couldn;t be grown.


Fast forward fifty years to the work of Rathore et al. They realized that we have the technology to turn off the gossypol-making genes  only in the seed  , leaving the genes still working in the rest of the plant. Every gene has at least one promoter, a piece of DNA in front of it (or inside, and sometimes somewhere else), that tells the cell that there;s a gene there to express, and it also tells the cell when to express it. There are promoters that turn the gene on all the time, promoters that tell it to turn on only when a signal like an infection or insect attack is happening, promoters for stresses like drought, and promoters that turn the gene on only in certain tissues. Since all cells of the same plant have the same genes, the difference between each cell arises from which genes are being used and at what time.


Dr. Rathore and co. found a seed-specific promoter, one that turns on a gene only in the seed, and attached it to their RNAi construct that makes Micro RNAs. When they inserted it into a cotton plant and grew it, they found gossypol being produced in the leaves and stems as normal, and the compound was drastically reduced in the seeds. Success!


44 Million Metric Tons of Fun


What are the potential implications for this development? First, it opens up a huge potential source of food, particularly protein. From the 2006 article:


;Very few people realize that for every pound of cotton fiber, the plant produces 1.6 pounds of seed,; Rathore pointed out. ;The world produces 44 million metric tons of cottonseed each year. Cottonseed typically contains about 22 percent protein, and it;s a very high-quality protein.;  In all, about 10 million metric tons of protein are contained in that amount of seed, he said.


They did the math, and calculated that this is enough protein to meet the daily requirements of 500,000,000 people.  Half a billion  .


That;s almost 1/13th of the human population. Yeah, this could be a big deal someday.


Next, since cottonseed was considered mostly a waste product of farms, it now becomes a thing of value to the farmer. This means that cotton farming from the Third World to the New World can be more profitable.


Finally, this could also reduce the costs of processing cottonseed for oil and animal feed, which is fairly costly. Looks like  this patent  is going to be worth some money someday.


But the most important part in my opinion is what this means for farmers and other people in developing countries who will be able to directly benefit from additional food on the market. As cottonseed will compete against other commodities, it could also lower the cost of other foods at the same time.


The new development  reported  by Time Magazine is that since the research on this RNAi gossypol first came out, it has progressed from the greenhouse to full-fledged field trials. They found that it worked just as well in the field as in the greenhouse. There doesn;t appear to be a paper in publication yet, according to a Pubmed search, but when that happens I will be interested to find out more about how well it did.


The fact that they used RNAi also has other implications. If somehow, a mutant cotton plant was found that doesn;t produce gossypol in its seeds, chances are it would be a recessive mutation, as I explained above. If this was bred into a cotton variety and grown in a field it should work just fine, just like the genetically engineered one does. But if someone plants a normal, wild-type cotton field next to it, it could cross-pollinate the recessive gossypol-free plants. Since the genetics of seeds depend on both of their parents and not just one, some of the seeds on the recessive plants could have dominant genes in them, thus restoring the poisonous gossypol.


RNAi cotton would not have this problem. It would already have the same gossypol-producing genes as every other cotton, and would silence them all the same. Farmers could be confident that their cotton will produce edible seeds no matter what their neighbors grow.


Imagine a farmer in India with only a few acres that can now sell their once almost-worthless piles of cotton seed as a food commodity;  or maybe cook and eat them!


Failure Repealed


This news reminds me about The Union of Concerned Scientists;  recent report  , ;  Failure to Yield.  ; Rather, it reminds me about how limited in scope the report was, excluding everything but transgenic soybeans and corn from consideration. The author, Doug Gurian-Sherman,  explained that cotton was excluded  from the report because it was not enough of a food crop since it was grown for fiber and animal feed.


Failure to Yield  was motivated in large part by the global food crisis of the past few years. So we wanted to examine the ability of GE to address the challenges for   food  production given a growing global population, changing consumption patterns, and climate change impacts. For this reason, we decided to look at major GE food or feed crops in the United States, and this means soybeans and corn. We didnt include canola, an oilseed crop, because the acreage devoted to canola, about a million acres, is only 0.6 percent of the acreage devoted to corn and soybeans in 2008.   Cotton was excluded because it is primarily a fiber crop. Cotton seed meal may also be used as animal feed, and the plant itself as fodder in some places, but these uses are secondary to fiber production. In other words, we did not look at GE cotton because the report is intended to inform the solution of the global food crisis, not a global clothing crisis.


Har har. The first thing I thought of when I read this explanation was the 2006 paper, written long before the UCS report. I had no idea how far along the research was at the time, so this news brings the UCS report to the forefront again. Here we have a report purporting to analyze genetic engineering;s potential to aid in the global food crisis, yet totally ignoring the ways that genetic engineering can help people obtain more food (and protein in this case!) other than increases in yield. The above passage also makes several tenuous arguments to justify excluding increases in cotton (and canola) yield that Gurian-Sherman  admits elsewhere  are indeed real.


Bt cotton has been studied in developing-country settings but theres been less study of Bt corn. Yield increases can often vary from about 10 to 40%, and sometimes more.


So therefore, if this RNAi trait is included in Bt cotton, those 10-40% (  to 80% according to one study  ,  mentioned here  by Pam Ronald) yield increases in cotton can indeed contribute to the rising global demand for food. That is, yield increases after this genetically-engineered trait could already provide enough protein to feed half a billion people per year.


Nutty with a crunch?


This is a fascinating development, not only from a genetics perspective, or a food production standpoint, but also from the point of view of  cuisines  . According to Dr. Keerti Rathore, cottonseed ;tastes like chickpeas.; I wonder what kind of foods cottonseed will lend itself well to? Could we find a cottonseed masala, or see it one day floating in chicken soup instead of barley? Or would a cottonseed pilaf be more in order, with orzo, pecans, mushrooms, and sage?


Since cotton is also widely grown in the US, perhaps I might soon get to find out how toasted ;  TAMU nuts  ;* taste.


*TAMU stands for Texas A&amp;M University. Cute.













Document Number: 1358 



 Could We Please ;Restore Sanity; In The Discussion of Food/Farming? 


 by  Steve Savage  on 16 November 2010 


Last week I attended the San Diego version of the   Rally to Restore Sanity  . Im glad I did. Even in this Southern California bastion of political conservatism, there were at least 200 people meeting at  Dicks Last Resort  to watch the DC event and to encourage each other that we are not alone as people who dont like the hyper-partisan trend in politics. I actually haven;t seen any reporting on the main or local versions of this event that captured it;s spirit or age-diversity. I think maybe this sort of satire is a little too subtle for many people to understand.


Even so, I wish there was a rally or some other mechanism to ;restore sanity; in the discussion of   food   politics  .


Food Politics Are Not That Different


The Comedy Central team does a great job of pointing out the absurdity and imbalance in the world of cable news. They call them out for promoting irrational fear (both from the right and from the left). From my perspective as an agricultural scientist, there is a similar set of voices out there promoting fear about agriculture. These sources present the same sort of circus mirror view of modern agriculture that John Stewart described for other politics at the DC rally. In general politics, people carelessly throw around accusations of racism, or socialism, and compare people to Hitler. In food politics the equivalent emotive terms are things like   industrial agriculture  ,profit-driven and Frankenfoods. In neither setting are people being given balanced information.


These voices relentlessly demonize farmers in a way that completely misrepresents the kind of hard-working, risk-taking, environmentally concerned people I know them to be. They paint a monolithic image of farming as an environmental disaster with no recognition of the great advances that have been made. These voices also  demonize any corporate actors  even though these are the entities that have  invested  the billions of dollars necessary to give us any hope of feeding the world over the next few decades.


These voices generate continual, breathless predictions of impending disaster related to GMOs, even though no such thing has happened after nearly 15 years of deployment of that technology on billions of acres of farm land. There seems to be no statute of limitations when it comes to saying that the sky is falling!


Agriculture Has Problems and Challenges, But This Isnt Helping


As Stewart pointed out, sources of frantic hyperbole do not cause our problems, but they make it far harder to solve our problems. It is no real surprise that the industry with the largest, physical footprint (billions of acres) would have real environmental issues. What is not acknowledged by most of the fear purveyors is that we have learned  how to minimize or eliminate important problems  and made real progress. Now we should be talking about how to implement the best environmental practices on the hundreds of millions of acres of conventional farmland. We cant keep pretending that something like   Local   or Organic will ever be more than a small contribution to the overall challenge.


We need to discuss why not all farming is not being done in the best possible way. It is not because of some vast corporate conspiracy. It is not because we lack for family farms or responsible farmers. It is because we as a society do not monetize externalities (pay for the true environmental costs) in a way that would help farmers to afford certain changes. It is because we dont have  farmland lease structures  that make it practical for growers to make the multi-year investment that it takes to transition land into the sort of  drought proofed and pollution protected soils that are possible  . We can make some significant progress, but not by demonizing each other.


As with the rest of our national politics, the stakes are high. Feeding the world in an age of climate change while protecting the environment is a huge and critical challenge with major strategic, economic and moral implications. The topic deserves sane discourse, not alarmism and demonization. This is another sphere were we desperately need to Restore Sanity.


You are welcome to comment on this post or to email me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com


Rally poster image from  Cliff1066













Document Number: 6938 



 Current science for improving water stress resilience in plants 


 by  David Tribe  on 5 April 2011 


Two brief introductions about how to overcome stress damage in crops have appeared in this months ISB April 2011 newsletter, coming out of Virginia Polytech.


They cover manipulation of leaf pore (stomata) &nbsp;density and better triggering of plant stress responses:


Regulation of Stomatal Density by GTL1 Transcription Factor for Improved Water Use Efficiency  (pdf file)  Chan Yul Yoo, Paul M. Hasegawa, and Michael V. Mickelbart


A decline in global water availability and increased agricultural drought have resulted in significant reductions in crop production, which in turn has intensified research into more efficient water use in plants. Stomatal pore size or number (density) influences transpiration, CO2 uptake, and water use efficiency. Methods to induce stomatal closure reduce stomatal pore size, thereby increasing drought tolerance and, potentially, water use efficiency. However, this drought tolerance strategy usually results in a reduction in biomass and/or yield, due to reduced CO2 uptake for carbon assimilation, often referred to as yield penalty. Recently, we determined that the  Arabidopsis  GTL1 transcription factor negatively regulates water use efficiency through stomatal density control by which AtGTL1 transrepresses SDD1, a negative regulator of stomatal density.


Engineering Stress Tolerance in Cereals Using DREB/CBF Genes: Outcomes, Problems and Perspective  s (pdf file)  Sergiy Lopato and Peter Langridge


The dehydration-responsive element-binding proteins (DREBs), or C-repeat-binding proteins (CBFs), are among the first families of transcriptional regulators that are transcriptionally up-regulated by water deficit or low temperature. We recently demonstrated that constitutive over-expression of two wheat DREB factors in barley substantially improved survival under severe drought or cold. In a cyclic type of drought, expression of DREB factors under control of an inducible promoter may give some advantages by providing protection at the depth of the drought cycle when plants are under severe stress, and by accelerating the rate of recovery in response to rainfall events.













Document Number: 1132 



 Denialism at its best: Greenpeace was never opposed to the use of DDT for malaria control. 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 March 2011 


Patrick Moore  Rex Weyler Exchange about Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist


Rex Weyler announces to Patrick Moore that he is about to come out publicly with a critique of Patricks new book,  Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist  . Here is Patricks response:


RW: You make claims that have been refuted by the people you reference. This may be okay over a beer, but seems reckless in print. You say DDT was discontinued for use in malaria control by the World Health Organization and USAID. But surely you know that WHO and USAID representatives have already told George Monbiot that they never stopped using DDT for malaria control. (  A Charming Falsehood  , The Guardian). Why would you restate this, knowing that WHO and USAID have refuted it?   PM: I have provided you with a link to the UN media release titled,   Reversing Its Policy, UN Agency Promotes DDT to Combat the Scourge of Malaria  , UN News Center, September 15, 2006. Here is the link again where the WHO announces that it is reversing its policy to discontinue the use of DDT after nearly 30 years.


USAID made the same decision in 2006. This reversal stemmed from the negotiations towards the Stockholm Convention on toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals which, in the end, despite strong opposition from Greenpeace and WWF, provided an exemption for DDT use for malaria control.  I realize there is a major effort at Greenpeace to rewrite the history on this subject as I have been informed by a Greenpeace spokesperson in the UK that Greenpeace was never opposed to the use of DDT for malaria control. This has to be one of the most blatant examples of historical revisionism I have encountered. Of course there are other examples, such as their contention that I played a minor role in the early years etc. I hope you are not buying into that one. Anyway, if you trust George Monbiot as a reliable source then youll get a lot of things wrong, although on nuclear power, he has come a long way in his understanding. Have you noted that George has come out in favor of nuclear energy this week?  And who knows, maybe the WHO and USAID are also trying to cover their tracks. After all it does not look good that health and aid agencies were implicated in the unnecessary deaths of millions of people because they caved into political pressure against DDT in the 70s.


Update.  The historic record includes:


Ethical debate. BMJ VOLUME 321 2 DECEMBER 2000 bmj.com 1403


Doctoring malaria, badly: the global campaign to ban DDT The treaty on persistent organic pollutantsPOPswill be finalised at the United Nations Environment Programme meeting in Johannesburg, 49 December. One proposal is to ban DDT, still used by many countries for controlling the mosquitoes that spread malaria. It should not be banned, argue Amir Attaran and Rajendra Maharaj, specialists in malariology and also international development and lawthere;s no evidence that spraying with DDT harms anyone. The issue is not straightforward, says Richard Liroff, director of the World Wildlife Fund;s alternatives to DDT project; the treaty raises a series of equity challenges.


DDT for malaria control should not be banned Amir Attaran, Rajendra Maharaj


Last year, deaths from malaria in Africa reached an all time high. Next year they will probably do so again,claiming around a million children. Yet in this deadly upward spiral, political pressure is building at the United Nations Environment Programme to pass a treaty by the end of 2000 to internationally ban or restrict one of the world;s best antimalarial tools.  That tool is, of course, DDTdichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane. The campaign to ban it, joined by 260 environmental groups, reads like a who;s who of the environmental movement and includes names such as Greenpeace, Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), and (ironically) the Physicians for Social Responsibility.Together, they are demanding action to eliminate DDT and its sources. (Ref 1 International POPs Elimination Network.  Background statement and POPs elimination platform  .) (accessed 17 Nov 2000)


Balancing risks on the backs of the poor  AMIR ATTARAN,DONALD R. ROBERTS,CHRIS F. CURTIS and WENCESLAUS L. KILAMA  NATURE MEDICINE  VOLUME 6  NUMBER 7  JULY 2000 729


Data from the Pan-American Health Organization show a strong inverse correlation between malaria cases and rates of spraying houses (19591992) in South America, even after DDT resistance became widespread in the 1960s (Fig. 1). Here, cumulative cases represent the population-adjusted, running total of cases that exceed or fall short of the average annual number of cases from 1959 to 1979 (years in which World Health Organization strategy emphasized house spraying12). Cumulative cases increase considerably in later years, coincident with a sharp decrease in rates of spraying houses. This inverse correlation is readily understandable because it is so biologically plausible. For mosquitoes, DDT is a toxin, irritant and repellant all rolled into one chemical;   ;African countries in particular lack the resources to dispatch health experts to the treaty negotiations, and although it provides financial assistance, the United Nations Environment Programme has declined to assist with this, or even to provide a translator when French- and English-speaking diplomats meet to discuss DDT. The resulting lack of knowledge suffocates debate. At worst, threats are used, as Belize learned when the US Agency for International Development demanded that it stop using DDT. Such arm-twisting is as lamentable as it is effective.













Document Number: 9287 



 Details on the Dirty Dozen 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 30 July 2010 


As you may already know, the  Environmental Working Group  is a 501(c)(3) NGO with the goal of protecting ;kids from toxic chemicals in our food, water, air and the products we use every day;. One of their major efforts is the yearly  Shopper;s Guide to Pesticides  .


EWG gives  many many reasons  why they think you should use the guide, specifying that you (the consumer) should eat organic or at least choose the Clean 15 over the Dirty Dozen:


The 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables (the Dirty Dozen) are contaminated with an average of 10 different pesticides, with many tainting more than one type of produce. In contrast, the Clean 15, the 15 least contaminated fruits and vegetables, contain an average of less than 2. Eating organic food lowers pesticide body burdens as well. Research shows that concentrations of pesticides in childrens bodies peak during seasons that they eat the most produce, but fall to below detectable levels in just 5 days when they eat organic food.


The list of reasons has a lot of scary facts about how many pesticides detected on food, just how ;polluted; our bodies are from the things we eat, and explains how our government barely regulates pesticides. Near the bottom, EWG lets us know that despite the scary facts that the need to eat fresh produce outweighs any risk from pesticide residues. They also remind consumers of the importance of eating fresh produce on their  FAQ  page. Unfortunately, I;m not sure if anyone gets to that part, considering that media coverage of the Shopper;s Guide rarely mentions it, instead focusing on the scary facts (as in  ;Dirty dozen; produce carries more pesticide residue, group says  on CNN Health, which dismisses the silly government for thinking that small amounts of pesticides won;t hurt us).


The truth is, pesticides  are  scary. As EWG;s Amy Rosenthal says, ;Pesticides are designed to kill things.;


The devil, as always, is in the details.


We need the EWG


Before we get into those details, I;d like to say a few things about the Environmental Working Group in general, or really any group that does what EWG tries to do. EWG has the ability to provide a very important benefit to society. Government spending on science has decreased over the years, leaving most toxicity research to the companies that make the products being tested. Until we follow the wise leadership of India and develop a network of government certified independent testing labs, we;re all kind of left with less information than I;d prefer for many products we use every day. It;s not that I think every corporation is driven by people who choose profits over safety (on the contrary, they have to at least  think  their products are safe or suffer bad press or worse if people get sick) but results of corporate funded tests are often not made available to the public which leaves regulators with less info than they need to make good science-based decisions. Our system works fairly well (the grand majority of people get through life without health problems caused by things they can;t control other than their own genetics*) but it could always be better. EWG works to get information to regulators and presents a non-industry point of view, which is much needed. Unfortunately, despite their outwardly awesome intentions, some of the results are less than awesome.


Details, details


Danger, elephants. Taken by Adam Foster at Knowsley Safari Park in England. via Flickr.


In the materials accompanying the Shopper;s Guide, there are two details that are never discussed.


The first elephant in the room is dose. For any compound, from water to arsenic to ricin to organophosphates, there are amounts that are safe and amounts that are hazardous. There are amounts that will cause acute (immediate) reactions and amounts that will cause chronic problems after long term exposure. Are the amounts of pesticides found on produce enough to cause acute or chronic health problems? The EWG list does consider amount, but does not compare the amounts to EPA guidelines. The accompanying materials focus on the number of pesticides, not the dose.


The second elephant is the type of pesticides that were found on produce. There isn;t any weighting in the Shopper;s Guide of individual pesticides based on relative toxicity. This could be a problem because not all pesticides are created equal.  Organophosphates  , for example, are extremely dangerous because they affect  cholinesterase  , an enzyme that is essential for the human nervous system.  Glyphosate  , on the other hand, affects EPSPS, an enzyme that is only found in plants so human toxicity is low (surfactants and other ingredients in glyphosate containing herbicides may be dangerous in their own right, but EWG to my knowledge isn;t talking about those types of ingredients).


Careful consideration of dose and toxicity of pesticides on produce may mean a reordering of the list is necessary in order to truly keep consumers safe. It may also mean that many of the scary facts need some sober facts alongside to help us keep things in perspective. Let;s look at the methods that EWG used to make the list and at the original USDA data.


EWG;s Methods


I have to tip my hat to EWG for providing their methods on their website. I don;t know how many people look at it, but I certainly did! They provide justifications for not discussing dose or type of pesticide:


The goal is to include a range of different measures of pesticide contamination to account for uncertainties in the science. All categories were treated equally; for example, a pesticide linked to cancer is counted the same as a pesticide linked to brain and nervous system toxicity, and the likelihood of eating multiple pesticides on a single food is given the same weight as the amounts of the pesticide detected or the percent of the crop on which pesticides were found.


The problem is that, as strange as it may sound, there are safe amounts of pesticides. With the incredibly low detection limits that advanced methods provide us, we can expect many positive results that aren;t biologically significant. This is why the EPA bothers to determine tolerance limits for each pesticide (see below: The Data). The EWG continues:


The EWGs Shoppers Guide is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks but instead reflects the overall pesticide loads of common fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainties of the risks of pesticide exposure and gives shoppers confidence that when they follow the guide they are buying foods with consistently lower overall levels of pesticide contamination.


In other words, science-based risk assessment is bad because it;s complex? A less complex and unscientific method gives consumers  more  confidence than a science-based method? Perhaps, but this explanation of the method is a little too close to fibbing for my taste. Maybe we need to look deeper.


EWG looked at contamination in 6 different ways:


;Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides.; Assuming that the data was used properly, this is a good metric. It tells us how many of all the samples within a category had pesticide residues.  ;Percent of samples with two or more pesticides.; This metric might be useful if we are concerned about potential effects of consuming more than one pesticide.  ;Average number of pesticides found on a single sample.; This isn;t as useful as a median number of pesticides could be. If most of the samples contain 0 pesticides, the average would be lower than the median. If only one of the samples contains a very large number of pesticides, the average would be artificially high.  ;Average amount (level in parts per million) of all pesticides found.; Here;s where the science gets thrown out. The type of pesticide isn;t considered even though we know that some pesticides are dangerous at low doses while other pesticides are safe at much higher doses. The ppm of different pesticides should not be averaged unless they have similar toxic doses. No where on the Shopper;s Guide site is there a discussion of how the pesticide levels found in produce match up to EPA guidelines, or how those guidelines are created (in most cases the guidelines from the EPA are at least 10 times lower than the actual dangerous dose).  ;Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample.; This isn;t very useful either. Perhaps one sample was grown by a particularly zealous farmer who used more pesticides than she should. Perhaps the single sample was accidentally contaminated. Should the entire category of produce be condemned because of this single sample, out of hundreds of samples? Using the median number of pesticides for all of the samples make much more sense.  ;Total number of pesticides found on the commodity.; Again, this number could be based on one or a few samples which are not representative of all of the samples.


The Data


High speed capture of dye droplets by Derek Purdy. via Flickr.


Since 1991, the Agricultural Marketing Service (part of the USDA) has collected data on pesticide residues in food as part of the  Pesticide Data Program  (PDP) using pretty rigorous  methods  (pdf). In addition to this testing, the FDA tests domestic and imported food to ensure that pesticide residues are below the tolerance levels (FDA probably doesn;t test enough samples due to funding cuts but that;s another post). The results are compared to  tolerance levels  (maximum pesticide residue limits) that are set by the EPA (you can find the tolerance for each crop/pesticide/country combo at  Maximum Residue Levels  database). According to the  Latest PDP Findings of Interest to Consumers  (pdf), ;the vast majority of samples tested are well below the tolerance levels;. Specifically:


PDP tests high consumption foods using highly sensitive instruments to detect pesticide residues as low as 0.001 ppm, which is considered trace levels of residues. Residues detected in foods tested by PDP are reported in a great majority of samples below 1 part per million (ppm).


The USDA provides some comparisons to help us understand what 1 part per million is: 1 ounce of salt in a mountain of 62,500 pounds of sugar or 1 ounce of dye in 7,350 gallons of water.


The most recent  Annual Summary  of the PDP (pdf) contains data that was collected in 2008 and was released in December 2009. The Executive Summary tells us that 11,960 samples were analyzed, including fresh and processed fruit and vegetables (9,028 and 1,354 samples respectively), almonds, honey, corn, and rice (municipal drinking water is also tested). The positive pesticide residue detections were combined by food type; on average 1.6% of samples had positive residue detections. For fresh produce, positive samples ranged from 0 to 3.3% with an average of 1.9%. They go on to say:


For samples containing residues, the vast majority of the detections were well below established tolerances and/or action levels. Before allowing the use of a pesticide on food crops, EPA sets a tolerance, or maximum residue limit, which is the amount of pesticide residue allowed to remain in or on each treated food commodity. Established tolerances are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 180. In setting the tolerance, EPA must make a safety nding that the pesticide can be used with reasonable certainty of no harm and that residues at (or below) the tolerance are safe. The reporting of residues present at levels below the established tolerance serves to ensure and verify the safety of the Nations food supply.


To restate, the methods used to detect pesticides are very sensitive, but a positive sample does not indicate a problem unless the detected level is above the established tolerance level. ;A tolerance violation occurs when a residue is found that exceeds the tolerance level or when a residue is found for which there is no established tolerance.;


There were 60 samples that exceeded tolerance levels, making up 0.5% of all the samples (58 with 1 residue exceeding the tolerance and 2 with 2). There were 442 samples that had pesticide residues that don;t have established tolerance levels, making up 3.7% of all the samples (one reason why there isn;t an established tolerance level is that the pesticide in question isn;t labeled for use on the specific crop being tested). ;In most cases, these residues were detected at very low levels and some residues may have resulted from spray drift or crop rotations.; Starting on page 51 of 202, the results are presented in a table the includes the number of samples tested, the number of positive samples by pesticide type, the amount of pesticide detected, and the EPA tolerance for that pesticide. I encourage you to see the  report  for all the details. The actual data can be downloaded from the  Agriculture Marketing Service  , although sadly it isn;t in any sort of convenient format (I;m wrestling with the data right now).


Peaches


There do seem to be some discrepancies between what EWG says the USDA data says and what the USDA data says.


The EWG says ;more than 96 percent of peaches tested positive for pesticides;, and ;peaches had been treated with more pesticides than any other produce, registering combinations of up to 67 different chemicals.; That sounds pretty bad.


Table 3 of the 2008 USDA report lists the ;Number of Samples Analyzed and Summary of Results per Commodity; (page 34). According to this table, 616 peach samples were analyzed, with an average number of 130 different analyses conducted on each individual sample, resulting in a total of 80,184 tests done on the 616 peach samples. Of these tests, 2,155 were positive for pesticide residues, and 52 different pesticides were detected. While the number of positive detections out of all the tests isn;t the same as the number of positive samples out of all the samples, it is still interesting to know that only 2.7% of all the tests conducted on peaches were positive.


52 isn;t 67. 2.7% isn;t 96%. What;s happening here?


EWG didn;t use the most recent data. Instead, they seem to have combined data from 2000 to 2008. That seems very strange to me, considering that EPA regulations for allowed pesticide use and allowed pesticide tolerances have been changing over the years, becoming more strict. At least they didn;t include pre-2000 data, but still this isn;t the best way to find the information that consumers want. We need to know how many fruits and vegetables  today  are positive for pesticides, not all the fruits and vegetables in the past decade.


Even when we consider the fact that the EWG isn;t working with the best dataset, that still doesn;t answer how they decided that more than 96% of peaches were positive for pesticides. Hopefully the answer will be clear once I;ve looked at the USDA data myself.


If not scary ;facts;, then what?


I am definitely an advocate of using science-based approaches to farming that reduce input use overall, and of careful Integrated Pest Management strategies that use the safest possible solutions to any pest problem, only using inputs if other options have been unsuccessful, and using the safest possible pesticide whether that pesticide is natural or synthetic.


How do we encourage government to introduce regulation that will make this happen and how do we encourage consumers to care about this enough to talk to their elected officials?


The best course of action would be to present the information in a less agenda driven way. Provide the data along with the EPA guidelines, which would show that the great majority of produce is well within guidelines. There are ways to advocate for reduced pesticide use without alarming people unnecessarily.


.


* In the developed world, health problems caused by our own choices (bad nutrition, lack of exercise, smoking, and so on) dwarfs any problems that might be caused by normal use of household chemicals, plastics, foods, etc.


Note: A group called Alliance for Food and Farming, called an ;industry front group; by EWG has challenged the Shopper;s Guide, saying that it unnecessarily alarms consumers. I have not read any materials from AFF on this subject prior to writing this post to be sure that my comments were not based even subconsciously on their comments. I heard about the AFF response through the Iowa State Sustainable Agriculture Listserv, which led me to write a few responses about the Shopper;s Guide to the original poster which then were turned into this post. This year;s Shopper;s Guide came out in June 2010.













Document Number: 5545 



 Developing countries would not gain if they imposed bans on GM crop imports: the consumer loss to Asian and Sub-Saharan African farmers is far more than the small gain in terms of greater market access to the EU 


 by  David Tribe  on 26 October 2010 


Economic Impacts of Policies Affecting Crop Biotechnology and Trade


- Kym Anderson, New Biotechnology (in Press), full paper at  http://web.services.adelaide.edu.au/cies/publications/present/CIES_DP1012.pdf


Agricultural biotechnologies, and especially transgenic crops, have the potential to boost food security in developing countries by offering higher incomes for farmers and lower priced and better quality food for consumers. That potential is being heavily compromised, however, because the European Union and some other countries have implemented strict regulatory systems to govern their production and consumption of genetically modified (GM) food and feed crops, and to prevent imports of foods and feedstuffs that do not meet these strict standards.


This paper analyses empirically the potential economic effects of adopting transgenic crops in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. It does so using a multi-country, multi-product model of the global economy. The results suggest the economic welfare gains from crop biotechnology adoption are potentially very large, and that those benefits are diminished only very slightly by the presence of the European Union;s restriction on imports of GM foods.


That is, if developing countries retain bans on GM crop production in an attempt to maintain access to EU markets for non-GM products, the loss to their food consumers as well as to farmers in those developing countries is huge relative to the slight loss that could be incurred from not retaining EU market access.


Conclusions  From the above results it is clear that the new agricultural biotechnologies promise much to the countries willing to adopt GM crop varieties. Moreover, the gains from farm-productivity enhancing GM varieties could be multiplied ; perhaps many fold ; if 2nd generation biofortified GM varieties such as Golden Rice were also to be embraced. The estimated gains to developing countries are only slightly lower if the EU;s policies continue to effectively restrict imports of affected crop products from adopting countries. Importantly, developing countries would not gain if they imposed bans on GM crop imports even in the presence of policies restricting imports from GM-adopting countries: the consumer loss net of that protectionism boost to Asian and Sub-Saharan African farmers is far more than the small gain in terms of greater market access to the EU.8


The stakes in this issue are thus very high, with welfare gains that could alleviate poverty directly and substantially in those countries willing and able to adopt this new biotechnology. Developing countries need to assess whether they share the food safety and environmental concerns of Europeans regarding GMOs. If not, their citizens in general, and their poor in particular, have much to gain from adopting GM crop varieties ; and those gains will increase as climate change proceeds and requires adaptation by farmers to changes in weather patterns and in particular to increased weather volatility and higher costs of water for irrigation.


Unlike for North America and Argentina, who are heavily dependent on exports of maize and oilseeds, the welfare gains from GM crop adoption by Asian and Sub-Saharan African countries would not be greatly jeopardized by rich countries banning imports of those crop products from the adopting countries.


(George Gollin Professor of Economics, University of Adelaide, Australia)













Document Number: 719 



 It;s hard to dialogue; 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 27 October 2009 


Genetic engineering is just one of the many many parts of ag that are really really difficult to discuss. We all come to the table with our own biases, our own understanding of the way things ;should; be, based on our experiences, education, philosophy, religion; all of the things that make us who we are. While these individual characteristics are valuable and important, they can lead us to react inappropriately to people who have views that are different than ours. They can also cause us to be combative rather than receptive to proposals of dialogue.


One particular example of bias preventing dialogue is conspiracy theories involving ;big ag;. There exists these ideas that everyone who interacts with ;big ag; is somehow part of ;big ag;. People who subscribe to this view include farmers as part of ;big ag;, as described by  Nate Taylor on All Things Agriculture  :


You obviously have many issues with the current food system, and I do not disagree that there are many to go after, but including the farmer in that mix and then calling them Big-Ag because it is easy and people ;understand it; doesn;t help and creates divides. I am not Big-Ag and never have been.


There is a real interaction between farmers and ;big ag;. They buy products from and sell their crops to corporations that are considered to be part of ;big ag;. This doesn;t mean that the farmers are in cahoots with some master plan of ;big ag; or that their personal philosophies align with whatever people think ;big ag; stands for.


Whether it;s explicitly stated or not, there is a general feeling coming from opponents of ;big ag; that farmers are stupid, greedy, or malicious tools of ;the man;. Maybe the opponents of ;big ag; don;t mean to target individual farmers, ranchers, ag researchers, and others but it sure feels that way. I;ve seen quite a few farmers get angry at getting lumped with a concept that they don;t feel adequately represents them. The claims feel like attacks, and result in people wanting to fight back. It;s sad, because this isn;t a fight, or shouldn;t be.


Science bloggers like those of us here at Biofortified are often claimed to be part of ;big ag;, even when we are very forthcoming about exactly how we are funded, who we work for, etc. Like farmers, we do have an interaction with ;big ag; in that we read and analyze their research, and we may see scientific merit in their work. We might work with the UDSA currently or plan to in the future. We might currently or plan to participate in academic research that is funded by the USDA and/or agricultural companies. We might even end up with jobs at companies like Monsanto, Pioneer, or Syngenta. As bloggers, we might communicate directly with these companies in order to get information, as the saying goes, straight from the horse;s mouth. Like farmers, that interaction does not mean that our personal philosophies are aligned with whatever philosophies people think ;big ag; stand for. Also like farmers, when people  lump  us with the negative ideas that people have about ;big ag; or ;industry;, we get frustrated and sometimes we take it personally.


So here I;ll leave the abstract discussion and speak more personally. I am unfortunately too optimistic when it comes to people in that I expect people to be truthful, to be careful about what they say, to be observant of how their actions and words affect others, to not repeat information that they have heard with out at least a quick investigation. While I know these things aren;t universally true, I like to follow the moral ;treat others as you would like to be treated;. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that don;t reciprocate.


In a lot of cases, the attacks have been personal. I;ve gotten comments on my blog that include physical threats. I;ve been called a charlatan, a fraud, a shill (and those are the nice ones). I;ve been told directly and had it implied that I;m some sort of corporate zombie without an opinion of my own. I;ve been told that Monsanto is my puppeteer and that they are what;s really behind my blogging efforts and my small successes.


All of these confuse the crap out of me because I;ve always been as open and honest as I can. I admit when I;ve made mistakes and sometimes turn my position around 180 when more information presents itself. I;m not dogmatic or unreasonable. So, can you blame me when I am a bit defensive? Can you say I;m unreasonable when I strongly react to unfounded claims involving me, my co-bloggers, our efforts to nurture dialogue on a complicated subject? Sure, you can say it, but you wouldn;t be right.


Here at Biofortified, we;re honestly hoping to engage in dialogue. We honestly want to both learn and teach in a two-way conversation. The thing is, it;s not two-way unless  you  get involved. We may have been preaching to the choir, but it;s not because we don;t want other people in the church. So get on in here. Comment on posts, get involved in the forum. Write responses on your own blog and let us know about them so we can respond in kind. Let;s actually work to expand our own and each others; knowledge and world views. I;m ready. Are you?













Document Number: 9864 



 Do you support innovation in South Australian crop trials? Vote here. 


 by  David Tribe  on 2 December 2010 


We need to alert you all to the fact that a poll on GM crop trials in South Australia is open on the Stock and Land website at the moment. See the right side bar on      http://stage.sj.farmonline.  com.au/news/state/grains-and-  cropping/general/gm-trials-  extended/2013833.aspx  &nbsp;   I encourage you all to vote and also to encourage any like minded colleagues to vote as well. The poll question is do you support the GM crop trials is South Australia and currently the answers are 21.4% yes 78.6% no.  There have only been 146 votes so far though so it would be great if we could change those percentages around.













Document Number: 9069 



 Does that mean we win? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 25 November 2008 


Margaret Fulton, Australian food commentator, has brought the debate over genetically modified foods to a new low. Instead of focusing on any of the many valid problems of GM, she said:


They;re going to control the world. We thought Hitler was a bad fella ; these guys could show him a thing or two ; and they;re creeping up on us quietly without guns or anything like that, but the poison is there.


The longer the GM debate went on, the likelihood that someone would invoke the big baddie approached 1 and has now been met. The comparison just doesn;t make any sense.


Happily, the great GM debate is now over. According to Wikipedia, a corollary of  Godwin;s Law  is that ;once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically ;lost; whatever debate was in progress.;


That was easy. &lt;wipes hands&gt;


Ok, enough of the silliness, I won;t actually stoop to Ms. Fulton;s level. There are plenty of  real  issues to discuss.


While it is unclear in the extremely biased Australian Times  article  whether Ms. Fulton was referring to farmers who grew GM crops or to the companies selling them, I;m willing to bet it was the latter. Like many anti-GM activists, Ms. Fulton rails against big corporations selling the seed. Specifically, she demonizes them because they ;push the benefits;.


This is just absurd ; what corporation or person attempting to sell a product does not make claims about the efficacy of their product? If we truly thought that such behavior was bad, then advertising wouldn;t work and things like infomercials wouldn;t exist. Obviously they do exist, and I don;t see any activists crying out against all of the other corporations out there pushing products that may or may not do us harm. At least the GM seed on the market generally preforms as advertised, unlike many other products out there.


Anti-GM activists don;t like the idea of having a few corporations controlling too large a share of the world;s food supply, and I agree with them. However, I also don;t like the idea of having too few book publishers, too few automobile makers, too few restaurants. I think we;ve already figured out that monopolies are bad and some industries are getting terribly close. Why choose seed companies over all others to complain about, though? Farmers were already purchasing hybrid seed so there is no effective difference (more on this later).


So, if it isn;t advertising or corporations that activists have a problem with, what is the real issue with GM? Sadly, it;s really hard to tell. If we visit the Greenpeace  True Food  website, advocated by Ms. Fulton, the few points brought up in the  Questions and Answers  section are either vague, talking of unknowns and possibilities in true precautionary principle style, or they are misdirections. In some cases, there are outright lies, as is typical on this sort of site.


The quote that&nbsp; best emphasizes the propagandist nature of True Food is within the answer to the first question (emphasis added):


What is genetic engineering (GE)? ;Genetic engineers use viruses, bacteria and a device called a &ldquo;gene gun&rdquo; to  randomly  move genes from one organism into another.


Randomly? If I randomly moved genes from one organism to another, not a heck of a lot would happen. Of course, the genes are very carefully chosen, after much research, and much testing for safety, efficacy, expression levels, etc before being put into the organism of choice, then subjected to far more testing for safety, efficacy, etc ; not that any anti-GM literature would admit it. Using the word randomly implies that scientists don;t know what we;re doing, that we are incompetent, risking the lives of the masses. It implies that the products are untested. I would hope that any reasonably educated person would understand that this is far from the truth.


The answers to question number 2 are even more misleading (emphasis original):


How does it difffer [sic] from cross-breeding or other forms of biotechnology? The key difference is that  genes are moved between species  .


Perhaps these cross species transfers sound scary, but the problem here is a fundamental understanding of biology. If I take a paragraph from one book and insert it into another book, the original book hasn;t been fundamentally changed. The inserted paragraph may be out of context, but that;s why we test many different insertion sites (more on this later). Also, the DNA taken from one species isn;t simply injected into another. It must be ;translated; for optimum expression and combined with the appropriate promoter, just as we might edit a paragraph to better fit into the book we are moving it into.


This kind of manipulation has seen cow genes inserted into soy beans, moth genes into apples, rat genes into lettuce, spider genes into goats and even human genes into rice.


There is no rule that GM must take a gene from a different species. Cisgenics will only become more prevalent as we sequence more genomes and it becomes easier to work with in a species or genus. My research involves over-expressing a corn gene in corn and using genes from corn relatives within the same genus or related genera in corn to improve various nutritive properties. There are cases, however, where a gene from the same species won;t accomplish the desired result.


The moth gene was put into apples as a defense against fire blight (researchers are looking for genes within apples or related species that has the same effect). The goats produce a valuable spider silk protein in their milk. The human genes in rice prevent deadly diarrhea in children. I can;t find anything about cow genes in soy. And yes, rat genes have been put into lettuce, but it was never intended for release, only for research purposes, as the scientists  clearly stated  . The two main genes on the market (Bt and glyphosate resistance) are both from bacteria.


The GE industry is built on the premise that genes and their functions can be isolated, patented, spliced into an organism, and controlled.(1) However, several recent studies have called into question this simplistic view of the science of genetic engineering.


Genes can be isolated, patented, spliced, and controlled. The actual problem is where the gene ends up, and how expression of native genes may be changed. It is possible that the gene could be inserted into another gene, but that;s why we repeat the process many times and test the resulting organisms. Any that show abnormalities are discarded. Even better, microarrays enable us to see minute changes in gene expression. The complexity of gene interaction isn;t dismissed by scientists ; all of the minutia are considered during the development and testing process.


On to question 3 (emphasis added, and note that there is no GM wheat on the market, so including flour in this list is simply a lie):


Which foods are currently genetically engineered? ; GE ingredients may also be found in many  essential  processed foods such as bread, pastries, snack foods, baked goods, vegetable oils, margarine, flours, starches, sauces, fried foods, soy foods, lecithin, sweets, soft drinks and sausage skins.


Will someone please explain to me how soft drinks and fried foods are ;essential processed foods;? To whom are they essential!? How concerned about your health could you possibly be if you consider sweets and snack foods to be essential?


Instead of choosing a negative stance on GM, why not choose a positive issue to rally behind? Why not simply work for the cause of the ;slow food; and local food movements, which seem to have a lot more to do with the issues that activists claim to care about?


Truly, this makes no sense to me. The way to avoid GM (and, more importantly, to be healthier in general) is simple ; don;t buy processed foods, and don;t buy grain fed animal products (amusingly, I;m pro-GM but generally avoid processed foods, don;t eat meat at all, and do my best to only buy eggs and cheese from pastured animals, preferably local). This is common sense, and you shouldn;t need a True Food guide to figure this out.


Question 4 (emphasis original)


Who is behind GE foods?  Three multinational chemical companies  virtually control the entire Australian market in genetically engineered food: Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta. These companies also  produce toxic chemicals such as pesticides  . Their pesticide production is often the basis for producing GE food crops &mdash; seed is genetically engineered to become resistant to their commercial herbicide.


I too am not comfortable with herbicide resistant crops being produced by the same company that produces the pesticide. However, it does make sense in today;s congolomerized world. And, while the whole idea of herbicide resistant crops makes me uncomfortable as well, the herbicides in question are far less toxic than their alternatives. The amount of glyphosate used has increased but the use of others has decreased (most notably atrazine).


They go on to discuss controvercial actions of all three companies that are wholly separate from their seed production divisions. Obviously, Greenpeace doesn;t understand what a multinational company is. Greenpeace itself has many different departments and sub-organizations in each region of the world. Surely, it would be rediculous for us to put their anti-toxin activities in the same category as their ocean-protection activities. They are separate activities under an organization with the same name. There may be overlap, but I think it is clear that they are distinct.


While it is too easy to demonize Monsanto (because doing so doesn;t actually affect anything that most consumers buy), I don;t see any campaigns to boycott other Bayer  products  , from Advantage to Yasmin.


Sigh. I have to do some real world data analysis now, but I do plan to go through the rest of the questions on the True Food site. Really, it must be done ; these sites have been left to run rampant for too long, making false claims and scaring people. I really wonder about the motives behind the production of websites, books, guides, and such that spend so much time building up  straw man  arguments against genetic engineering.


As I;ve said before many times, there are real problems with biotechnology and with farming in general. Instead of wasting our time, let;s talk about the real problems both with biotech and the world ; we might actually accomplish something!


Hat tip to  Barf Blog  . Photo from  Cats That Look Like Hitler  (I was hoping for a fruit or vegetable that has been made to look like Hitler but alas was not able to find one).













Document Number: 7061 



 Does using GMOs really increase pesticide use? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 24 November 2009 


The  Organic Center recently released  Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years  by Dr. Charles Benbrook, agricultural economist and ;Chief Scientist; of the Organic Center. I can;t help but get the feeling that Dr. Benbrook started with a conclusion and found data to fit rather than starting with a general review then finding significant conclusions. It;s not that I necessarily have any specific problems with the information Dr. Benbrook presents, it;s just that I think he;s leaving some key ideas out of the report that should have been considered. There are also generalizations that just aren;t warranted. There are a lot of problems with this report, but I;m particualrly concerned with the way Dr. Benbrook fails, for the most part, to distinguish between different biotech traits, fails to distinguish and between different pesticides, and fails to consider non-biotech traits that could increase pesticide use.


First, all GMOs are not created equal. The two biotech traits currently on the market are herbicide tolerance and insect resistance (Bt). These traits are obviously very different, but most of the report just lumps them together as ;GE crops;, even though the report clearly states multiple times that Bt crops have reduced insecticide use. For example:


Bt corn and cotton have delivered consistent reductions in insecticide use totaling 64.2 million pounds over the 13 years. Bt corn reduced insecticide use by 32.6 million pounds, or by about 0.1 pound per acre. Bt cotton reduced insecticide use by 31.6 million pounds, or about 0.4 pounds per acre planted.


Why, then, does the report fail to distinguish between glyphosate tolerant crops and Bt crops when concluding:


For the foreseeable future, this study confirms that one direct and predictable outcome of the planting of GE corn, soybean, and cotton seed will be steady, annual increases in the pounds of herbicides applied per acre across close to one-half the nations cultivated cropland base. Farm production costs and environmental and health risks will rise in step with the total pounds of pesticides applied on GE crops.


What about Bt crops? What about nitrogen efficient crops? What about nutritionally enhanced crops? These don;t require additional pesticides of any kind when compared to non-biotech crops. If anything, the conclusion should read:


;this study confirms that one direct and predictable outcome of the planting of  herbicide tolerant  corn, soybean, and cotton seed will be steady, annual increases in the pounds of herbicides applied per acre across close to one-half the nations cultivated cropland base. Farm production costs and environmental and health risks will rise in step with the total pounds of  herbicides  applied on h  erbicide tolerant  crops.


Second, all pesticides are not created equal. There are huge differences between pesticides in toxcicity, target organisms, amount required, etc. Use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp herbicide, certainly does increase with glyphosate tolerant crops. The million dollar question is: does the use of glyphosate replace the use of other herbicides? And even more importantly, what is the relative impact of the herbicides used? The Organic Center;s report doesn;t actually address these questions.


The 2008 report  GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2006  (pdf) produced by  PG Economics  did answer these questions*. They used an index called EIQ (Environmental Impact Quotient) which was first described by Kovach et al in 1992 (to learn exactly how the EIQ is calculated, see the American Farmland Trust;s  explanation  ). The EIQ actually factors in how toxic a pesticide is as well as how much active ingredient is used. This report found (on page 60-61) that, in soybeans, the global impact has been:


In 2006, a 6% decrease in the total volume of herbicide [active ingredient] applied (10.1 million kg) and a 23.7% reduction in the environmental impact (measured in terms of the field EIQ/ha load)


Since 1996, 4.4% less herbicide [active ingredient] has been used (62 million kg) and the environmental impact applied to the soybean crop has fallen by 20.4%.


A similar global impact was seen in maize:


In 2006, total herbicide ai use was 8.3% lower (10.9 million kg) than the level of use if the total crop had been planted to conventional non GM (HT) varieties. The EIQ load was also lower by 10.8%  Cumulatively since 1997, the volume of herbicide ai applied is 3.9% lower than its conventional equivalent (a saving of 46.7 million kg). The EIQ load has been reduced by 4.6%.


It certainly seems strange that two different reports would have such vastly different conclusions.


Third, what about non-biotech herbicide tolerant crops? Breeding for herbicide tolerance doens;t require biotechnology at all ; breeders can simply rely on artificial selection (aka ;natural; plant breeding). For example, consider the Clearfield trait, resistance to the herbicide imidazoline. Clearfield is available in far more crops than glyphosate resistance, likely because it is not required to undergo any of the additional testing or regualatory hoops that are required for biotech traits. Crops available with Clearfield include sunflower, canola, corn, wheat, and rice. Because this is a non-biotech (non-transgenic, non-GMO) herbicide resistance trait, Clearfield crops aren;t tracked in the same way as Roundup Ready crops.


;This report deals only with GE HT crops; even though ;a market research firm recently estimated that non-GE herbicide-resistant crops were planted on roughly 6 million acres in 2007.; The thing is, if biotech herbicide tolerance was never invented, we;d just have many more acres of non-biotech herbicide tolerance. Using herbicide tolerant non-GE crops would result in all of the same effects that we see in GE herbicide tolerant crops. Additionally, improper use of herbicides of any type (in conjunction with herbicide tolerant crops or not) will result in resistant weeds. It is misleading to claim that side effects of herbicide use are due to genetic engineering.


If a person was truly interested in determining how novel traits affect herbicide use, that person would consider all types of herbicide resistance, instead of singling out just the ones created with a certain method.


In sum, these are the three main complaints I have with this report: failure to distinguish between different biotech traits, failure to distinguish between different pesticides, and failure to consider non-biotech traits that could increase pesticide use.


What are your thoughts?


*I already had a copy of the PG Economics report stored in  Papers  (iTunes for journal articles), but when I went to find the link for this post, I found that PG Economics has actually written their own rebuttal to the Organic Center;s report: Impact of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use:  US Organic Center report evaluation by PG Economics  (pdf). They cover far more specific issues than I did in this post ; I recommend it and the original PG Economics report as a counterpoint to the Organic Center report. No matter our personal beliefs, it;s always good to expose ourselves to many points of view.


Another viewpoint can be found at  Truth About Trade and Technology  , a non-profit farmer;s advocay group, where Illinois farmer John Reifsteck wrote  The Business of Farming  in response to the Organic Center;s report.













Document Number: 2511 



 Dr. Oz asks who can we trust when it comes to Genetically Engineered Crops? 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 7 December 2010 


Click  here  to see the Dr. Oz show on GE crops with yours truly.


I tried to provide a science-based perspective to the audience.


It was a tough go, though, because one of the other panelists (  Jeffery Smit  h, a former Iowa political candidate for the Natural Law Party with no discernible scientific or agricultural training) believes that eating GE crops causes infertility, organ damage and endocrine disruption. Of course, the scientific evidence for these statements is about as strong as saying that looking at carrots will give you brain tumors.


Can the audience glean that from the information presented on the show? I am afraid not.


What we do know is that after 14 years of consumption there has been not a single instance of harm to human health or the environment (  and many indisputable benefit  s).


I did my best to refute the worst ;woo woo pseudoscience; but it was difficult. I asked the producers (who were very nice by the way) to remove the scary graphics and bullet points but no luck. I argued that showing that stuff would tarnish Dr. Oz;s reputation and harm his viewers (who are now probably terrified- I can just imagine my mother-in-law taking note on all the ;points; made).


I had a chance to plug some great science-based, academic, non-profit sites (  bioforitifed,or  g,  ucbiotech.org  and  academicsreview.org  ) but all of my case specific examples (  reduced insecticide use in GE cotton fields  ,  enhanced biodiversity  ,  disease resistant papay  a,  Golden rice  ) were cut from the TV version. I guess the producers did not want to mix too much scientific evidence in there with the fantastical stuff.


The show demonstrates yet again that as scientists, we cannot dismiss the general anxiety about genetic engineering, and the distrust of science and scientists in general.


So how can we help the public understand the scientific process and learn to distinguish high-quality scientific research that has stood the test of time and can largely be relied on from simple assertions or unsubstantiated rumors?


This is one of the reasons Raoul and I wrote our  book  . We included a chapter describing how non-scientist can distinguish between fact and fiction. As an example of psedoscience riddled with conflicts of interests and errors, just take a look at Smith.


To ;demonstrate; that genetic engineering is dangerous, Smith cites the experiment of a seventeen-year-old student who fed mice genetically engineered potatoes. According to the referenced Web site, ; . . . [the mice] fed GM ate more, probably because they were slightly heavier on average to begin with, but they gained less weight.; In addition, ; . . . marked behavioral diff erences; were observed though, the boy admitted, ;these were ;subjective; and not quantitative.; Smith argues that this experiment demonstrates that GE food may have negative effects on the ;human psyche; and concludes that the boy ;has put the scientists to shame.; The implication is that the public can trust this experiment carried out by a student, unhampered by scientific training but not those of peer-reviewed research. Smith ignores the fact that this experiment conducted by a teenager was not subjected to the rigorous methods that are inherent to the scientific process.


In the case of the boy and the mice, I found that the reference given for the boy;s work was to another Web site, and that that web site referred to even another Web site (which is now defunct as far as I can tell). It turns out that the only documentation of this ;experiment; was a chance meeting with the boy;s mother, who was the source of the ;scientific information.; ;Mum Guusje is very proud of her son. . . .;


Why would someone cite a conversation with a boy;s mother as science? Either Smith lacks a basic understanding of the scientific process, or he simply does not care, or both (or something even more sinister;). But he should care; for this kind of deception only confuses and frightens people.


Most people would agree that a mother usually believes the best about her son. Therefore, a mother;s recommendation represents a clear conflict of interest in such a case. Studies tainted by such undisclosed conflicts of interests are a major concern in the debate about genetic engineering. If the only peer-reviewed data on the benefits of GE crops were supplied by parties whose primary concern is not the public good but private interest, then the public would have reason to question the integrity of the research (which is why I try to cite only non-profit peer-reviewed research). Similarly, if a person with a strong stance on the use of GE in agriculture is an employee of a for-profit biotechnology or organic industry, such employment should be disclosed because a conflict of interest may exist.


(Full disclosure: All the research in my lab is funded by non-profit sources. The salaries of Raoul and I are paid by UC Davis and government grants. Neither of us are paid by biotechnology companies or the organic industry).













Document Number: 6202 



 Hello From The World of Entomology! 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 30 January 2010 


My name is Joe and I;m going to be an occasional guest blogger here at Biofortified. The area I write about is going to be a bit different than most of the other writers on this website. Instead of writing about genetically modified plants, I;m going to spend a large portion of my time writing about genetically modified insects and insect pathogens.


It may seem odd to some that a blog that mostly focuses on controversies in modern agriculture would ask someone who studies insects to write on their site, but it;s not as counter intuitive as you think. Insects are a huge part of agriculture because they are our biggest competitors for food. One of the most common types of genetically modified corn, the various BT cultivars, were developed to fight the European Corn Borer,  Ostrinia nubilalis  , which is a tiny Crambid moth which burrows into the stalks of the plants and eventually kills them.


An entomologist writing for a site which explores the politics of Genetically Modified Organisms makes sense for another reason, and that;s because entomologists sometimes modify the genes of insects in order to do their work. Some of this occurs naturally, through the actions of  polydnavirus  particles some parasitoid wasps inject into their hosts to control the behavior, development, and immune reactions of that host. Sometimes it;s simple and artificial such as releasing insects sterilized with X-ray radiation in order to fight diseases and crop pests. Some of the things that entomologists work with aren;t necessarily insects but are used to control their populations. A great example of this is the modification of viruses as systems which are used to deliver pesticides directly to the insects rather than spraying the environment with pesticides.


What I hope to do is to use this site to educate the public about some of the GMOs you may hear about on the news, and I hope to make people realize that these are wonderful inventions that better humanity. New things are definitely a little scary at first, but education is the best way to overcome these fears.


Since this is my first post, let;s explore some really basic insect biology that might be necessary to understand parts of my posts. Insects go through two types of development: hemimetabolous, or incomplete metamorphosis and holometabolous which is commonly known as complete metamorphosis.


Here;s an example of hemimetabolous or incomplete development. The video below depicts the life cycle of a cicada which begins as an egg and then develops through a series of nymphal stages before maturing into an adult. Notice how the adults are very similar to the nymphs with the obvious exception of wings. Also notice how they have a relatively similar ecological role, both feed on sap but in slightly different areas.


This is an example of holometabolous development. The butterfly in the video has a very strange parasitic relationship with ants. This butterfly goes through four stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult. Notice how the larva looks nothing like the adult, and how the larva has a completely different role than the adult. In this case, the adult feeds on nectar from flowers while the larva is a parasite in the ant nest.













Document Number: 7891 



 Environmentalism gets its own Martin Luther. 


 by  David Tribe  on 19 February 2010 


It has been obvious to any independant clear-thinking observer that the environmental movement is in need of a reformation.


As with Christianity over the centuries, over the last 50 years environmentalism;s done an enormous amount of good. Christianity needed some 1500 years before it;s wake-up call came on 31 October 1517 when Martin Luther nailed 95 theses on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg .


These are fast moving times, and environmentalism;s changed much faster than Christianity did.


Forty-seven years after the publication of Rachel Carson;s  Silent Spring  , the corresponding key date to 10/31/1517 in the reformation of environmentalism, is the day in 2009 when  Stewart Brand;s   Whole Earth Discipline: an Ecopragmatist Manifesto  reached the bookstores.


It;s not what Stewart Brand says that important (and there is quite a bit I disagree with in the book). It is the open-minded and pragmatic way he goes about questioning the down-side of the romanticism that has dominated the environmentalist movement of the last 48 years. He points out where scientific environmental pragmatism and scepticism got submerged by quasi-religious faith in big ideas that are often wrong. It is these wrong big ideas are now both harming people, and harming the reputation of environmentalism. Environmentalism needs a Martin Luther to rescue it;s reputation.


As he rightly says ;it;s fortunate that there are so many romantics in the movement, because they are the ones who inspired the majority in most developed societies to see themselves as environmentalists. But that also means that scientists and their perceptions are always in the minority; they are easily ignored, suppressed, or demonised when their views don;t fit the consensus storyline.; That;s the problem.


This reflexive almost paranoid suppression of critical views comes through of the environmental hierarchy;s common portrayal of those who stray from the party line as being evil or in the pay of vile multinational corporations (or both). This dogmatism is preventing environmentalists from working out themselves where they are wrong.


Brand refreshingly and frankly states that he is willing to change his mind when he realises that the evidence shows his own opinion is wrong. He even gives examples of his own big mistakes. Such intellectual honesty is the way scientists work, as that;s the way science is successful. Science gains by throwing out false opinion. The opinions of science are always subject to change, and scepticism should be, and usually is, welcome. Not only welcome, it is absolutely necessary. Sadly, we are a very rarely see this in environmentalist ;advocacy; groups, at least in their public statements. They seem to think that being an advocate means they can forget about scientific due process (although they are happy to claim the credibility of being supported by science). As the recent Glaciergate and E-mailgate scandals about the IPCC demonstrate, we sorely need evidence-based environmentalism to restore full credibility to environmental policies.


I hope that Brand;s wake-up call for greater respect for sceptical hardheaded science is heeded by the various environmentalist lobby groups, because as Brand demonstrates , the issues on which it needs to be brought to bear are important. Brand;s discussion of genetic engineering of crops and food production is perhaps the best single exposition for the intelligent general reader why genetic engineering is needed for pragmatic solutions of important environmental challenges, such as reducing the amount of nitrogen fertiliser used in agriculture, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by the use of this fertiliser.


As Brand has credentials in organic farming, he may finally get through to the great bulk of organic farming community who seem to be the dominant sources of resistance to genetic modification in agriculture. If they took Brand;s advice, they would finally realise that the organic way and genetic engineering are very compatible:


;I have a history with organic farming-more than I realised. Reading  The Omnivore;s Dilemma  (2007), Michael Pollan;s natural history of American agriculture, I was surprised by this passage:   Organic Gardening and Farming  struggled along in obscurity until 1969, when an ecstatic review in the  Whole Earth Catalog  [famously written by Brand] brought it to the attention of hippies trying to figure out how to grow vegetables without patronising the military-industrial complex. Within two years  Organic Gardening and Farming;s  circulation climbed from 400,000 to 700,000.;


To give a further taste of flavour of the book:


;In 2000 project called BioCassava Plus, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, undertook to engineer a radically improved cassava. It had eight goals for the new cultivar. In terms of nutrition, a daily diet should provide all a person needs of bioavailable protein, vitamin A, vitamin E, iron, and zinc. In addition, the new cassava should be free of cyanide, should be storable for two weeks instead of one day, and should be resistant to the viruses that afflict the crop. Each trait would be engineered separately and then stacked into a single all-purpose crop plant. ;This is the single most ambitious plant genetic engineering project ever attempted,; says the project leader, plant biologist Richard Sayre from a Ohio State; when all these traits get stacked into what will be a farmer-preferred cultivar from Africa, this work will be done by African scientists in African laboratories. We;re developing the tools mostly in the United States and Europe but once these tools are in place, it becomes an African-owned and developed project.; Field trials have begun in Kenya and Nigeria;  .. another venture of the Gates foundation is the African biofortified sorghum project, with Florence Wanbugu;s Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation leading a consortium of nine institutions, including DuPont-Pioneer. Sorghum is a drought-tolerant staple for 500 million worldwide. The GE version will improve digestibility and vitamin K and E, iron and zinc, and three amino acids. Greenhouse trials are under way in South Africa. (Vitamin A, incidentally, is currently distributed to the developing world in the form of 500 million capsules costing about a dollar apiece. Getting the same amount of vitamin A from a fortified crop will cost about a fifth of a cent.) GE bananas are also being developed to provide a full allowances of vitamins A and E and iron for countries like Uganda, that rely on bananas as their major food source.   ;Greenpeace will fight to keep GE bananas, cassava, and sorghum from poor countries; fields, just as it will keep opposing golden rice, says Janet Cotter of  Greenpeace  ;s Science Unit in London.; That quote was in an April 2008 issue of  Science  .


Because the story is being told by an environmentalist with irrefutable Green credentials, the environmental movement will at last wake up to the cruel injustice being inflicted on the world;s poor by well-meaning, well-fed, rich Green romanticists from the developed world.


These well-meaning romanticists are currently able to justify to themselves deliberately impeding the delivery of beneficial genetically engineered food crops to the people who can most benefit from them ; the rural poor of the third world, as has just happened in India with insect protected genetically engineered eggplant, banned because of environmentalist activism.


Fortunately Brand;s wonderful book will not be ignored because it makes its statements in a highly direct controversial fashion. He delivers only three short but lethal bullets, unlike the first Martin Luther;s list of 95 theses nailed to the door of the  Schlosskirke  in 1517.


;  Cities are green. Nuclear energy is Green. Genetic engineering is Green;  is unavoidable clarity from the new Martin Luther. So look out for them when they arrive in a Penguin paperback edition, due in March, my local bookstore tells me.


;;;;;;-


Update May 2010


Pam Ronald, at Science blogs has this to say:


For Earth Day, let;s celebrate Stewart Bran  d  , the distinguished writer, lecturer and author of the classic Whole Earth Catalog, which won the national book award in 1972.


He also has a new book called ;Whole Earth Discipline; where he argues that the established Green agenda is outdated, too negative, too tradition bound, too specialized, too politically one-sided to address the scale of environmental problems that we face today.


You might want to check out  John Tierney;s column  .


;[Stewart Brand] was the one, after all, who helped inspire Earth Day by putting the first picture of the planet on the cover of his ;Whole Earth Catalog; in 1968.;


(Continues at link).













Document Number: 1350 



 Escape! Crop-Specific Gene Flow to Wild Relatives 


 by  Cody Cobb  on 23 February 2010 


As a molecular biologist, most of my work is done on a bench at or below room temperature. I can count on one hand the number of times I;ve been to a research field because I have more than two fingers. I;ve never taken a course in ecology, and I;ve rarely dealt with full, intact organisms. It is with just such a background that I absorbed a talk by  Allison Snow  at Rutgers ten days ago.


Snow* is an evolutionary biologist and ecologist who;s been running an interesting experiment on wild radishes for more than a decade now. In the 90;s, when transgenic crops like Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybean were beginning to dominant the market (and the landscape), there were concerns that wild relatives would incorporate the transgenes and spread as superweeds. Corn and soybean, with their lack of compatible relatives in the US, are exempt from this concern. However, as more and more transgenic crops with compatible relatives come down the pipeline (and with some, like canola, already here) there needs to be some hard data on just how easily transgenes can persist and spread in wild populations.


Wild Radish. USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database.


Domestic radish (


Raphanus sativus


), like nearly all domesticated crops, differs profoundly from its wild relative (


Raphanus raphanistrum


). The traits that make for a delicious ingredient in a salad often make for a wimpy competitor in the wild. Humans have been cultivating radishes for so long that some alleles are only found in the domestic varieties. In this 10 year long experiment, these crop-specific alleles served as surrogate transgenes in the sense that their presence in wild relatives had to have been the result of successful hybridization of crop and weed. Snow and collaborators chose as their genetic markers two


allozymes


, glucose-6-phosphate isomerase (GPI) and phosphoglucomutase (PGM), and the gene for petal color (


R. sativus


has white petals, the dominant allele, and


R. raphanistrum


has yellow petals, the recessive allele). Even though it;s typical for domestic traits to have a negative impact on fitness in the wild, no


a priori


assumptions were made about these specific alleles.


Allele and phenotype frequencies for four populations over a decade. Figure from Snow et al., 2010. Click to enlarge.  Four plots, each containing 100 wild radish plants and 100 wild/domestic F1 hybrids, were set up and more or less left to the devices of nature for ten years. Allele frequency at the start was 25% for all three markers, with 50% of all plants white-flowered owing to dominance. By the end of experiment, the percentage of plants with white flowers had dropped to 3-15%. Crop-specific GPI ranged from 5-12%, and crop-specific PGM declined the least with an allele frequency ranging 16-26%. As it turns out, the allele for white petals is linked to delayed flowering, a deleterious trait which seems to explain the precipitous drop in white-flowered plants in the second and subsequent years. Despite this selection pressure, the white flower allele persisted in all populations. The GPI crop allele behaved similarly, declining in frequency but never disappearing. The PGM crop allele was a little different, declining in frequency in only one population and remaining more or less the same in the other three.


Pollen fertility levels. Figure from Snow et al., 2010.  What;s more, the first generation of F1 hybrids suffered from a significant disadvantage: only around 60% of their pollen was viable, compared to 80-95% viable pollen from the neighboring  R. raphanistrum  . And yet, despite this initial setback, each population eventually regained normal pollen fertility levels (&gt; 70% fertile) while still retaining low-but-not-zero levels of crop-specific alleles.


So what kind of effects in the wild can we expect to see from transgenes based on this study? From the paper;s conclusion we;re warned:


Clearly, crop alleles can persist for many generations following a single hybridization event, and crop-wild hybrids may recover wild-type fitness in later generations. Thus, beneficial or neutral transgenes that recombine independently of deleterious crop alleles may spread and persist indefinitely (Snow et al., 2010).


A relevant example is her 2003 study on Bt sunflower, which found that the Bt transgene in cultivated sunflower (  Helianthus annuus  ), when crossed into wild sunflower (also  Helianthus annuus  ), allows each plant to produce, on average, 55% more seeds relative to non-transgenic controls under field conditions (Snow et al., 2003). Rather frustratingly, follow-up work was halted when the companies sponsoring the study ; Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences ;  refused to allow further access  to the transgene or the seeds since they decided not to sell Bt sunflowers anyway.


Left: Cody Cobb. Right: Allison Snow. Bottom: Jean Marie Hartman's thumb.


With all this in mind, what are some steps we genetic manipulators and tamperers can take to lower the risk of transgene flow into wild relatives? One thought is to link the transgene of interest with another gene that;s deleterious in the wild but tolerated or even desirable in agricultural situations. Better yet, find  two  such genes and flank the transgene. Creating such a construct would require a lot more work, not to mention the difficulty of finding appropriate crop-tolerant-but-wild-harmful genes. But then, it;s just a thought. What are yours?


*Astute readers of  Tomorrow;s Table  might recognize the name from a parenthetical citation on page 110: ;For this reason, some ecologists see the application of GE as a way to spare even more land from destruction by enhancing yields (Qaim and Zilberman 2003; Snow et al. 2005).;


Snow, A., Pilson, D., Rieseberg, L., Paulsen, M., Pleskac, N., Reagon, M., Wolf, D., &amp; Selbo, S. (2003). A Bt transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers.  Ecological Applications, 13  (2), 279-286 DOI:  10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0279:ABTRHA]2.0.CO;2


Snow AA, Culley TM, Campbell LG, Sweeney PM, Hegde SG, &amp; Ellstrand NC (2010). Long-term persistence of crop alleles in weedy populations of wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum).  The New phytologist  PMID:  20122132













Document Number: 7926 



 Ethics of Labeling 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 19 August 2010 


We;ve discussed labeling many times at Biofortified, usually looking at things from a practical perspective, such as in the posts  Whats in a label?  and  Labeling GMOs  . I argue that anything that is scientifically proven to be a hazard should be a mandatory label. For example, a label that a product contains nuts is justified by severe allergic reactions, even though the additional label may add to the cost of a product for people who don;t have allergies. Any label that doesn;t have a proven hazard is simply a label of preference, so should not be mandatory. Instead, voluntary labels are appropriate. For example, producers may choose to label products as free from animal products if they think the cost of sourcing non-animal ingredients, testing, and labeling will be rewarded by additional purchases of their products by vegetarians and vegans. Non-vegetarians shouldn;t have to pay for a label is based on preference, not science.


Practical concerns are not the only reason to label or not label foods, however. Ethics definitely comes into play. Do people have a right to labels, such as labels that indicate a product contains ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms?


Chris MacDonald


Chris MacDonald, Associate Professor in the  Philosophy Department  at  Saint Mary;s University  , has written about the ethics of labeling GMOs at  The Food Ethics Blog  :  Should Companies Label Genetically Modified Foods?  and in a peer-revied paper  Corporate Decisions about Labelling Genetically Modified Foods  in the  Journal of Business Ethics  . The full paper is well worth reading, as is the blog post, but I;ll summarize (and editorialize) a bit here.


Chris argues that corporations should only be compelled to label if the product meets any of the following criteria:


A law requiring it;  A serious threat to human health;  Recognition within the industry that labelling made sense as a shared way of doing business; or   A consumer  right  to the information.


Of course, a law is not warranted unless one of the three other criteria is met, but based on our standards of ethics, individuals and companies are ethically bound to follow the law.


As Chris his co-author  Melissa Whellams  describe, the Canadian government passed the  Standard for Voluntary labelling and Advertising of Foods that are and are not Products of Genetic Engineering  in April 2004 in response to consumer requests for labeling.


The voluntary nature of the Standard essentially puts the onus of labelling back onto food producers and manufacturers. Current legislation under the Canadian Food and Drugs Act requires that all foods, including GM products, be labeled where potential health and safety risks (e.g., allergens) have been identified, or where foods have undergone significant nutritional, or compositional changes. Since Health Canada has deemed GM foods to be safe, companies are not required to label products as genetically modified, but under the new Standard, companies may voluntarily label their foods as products of genetic engineering.


While the Standard was being drafted, some stakeholders argued that GMOs are a ;like to know; issue and that a ;Contains GMOs; type label would simply be confusing to consumers, possibly mistaken as a warning. Other stakeholders argued that GMOs are a ;right to know; issue, which is where ethics comes in. Do consumers who want to know if products contain products of genetic engineering have rights that trump the rights of consumers who don;t care? What about farmers, distributors, grocers?


Chris and Melissa argue ;that although unilateral action in this regard might be admirable, an agri- food company has no ethical obligation to label its GM foods, given the current social, legal, scientific, and economic context.; This includes no ethical obligation to the consumer.


How can this be, when arguments for labeling of GMOs are often rooted in rights, including the important idea of autonomy? Chris and Melissa explain autonomy ;as involving morally important kinds of control over ones life.;


We might then say that a person has a right to X (some bit of information, in the case at hand) where X is a prerequisite for effective exercise of autonomy, i.e., for effective decision-making regarding matters about which it is morally good that I be able to make decisions.


For example, most of us agree that we have a right to know information about a diagnosis that would help us to make informed decisions about medical treatment options. This is in contrast to the way healthcare was done in decades past, where patients assumed the doctor knew best.


Despite the arguments of labeling advocates, there is no such agreement about right to know for non-health related information when it comes to food. For example, despite the importance of freedom of religion in the US and Canada, no one is arguing for mandatory labeling for non-health religious reasons. We expect people who want to keep Kosher to seek out Kosher foods themselves. If religious or spiritual food needs aren;t considered a right, why would any other ;desire to know; be a right? Perhaps this will change in the future, as ;desire to know; became ;right to know; in health care, but until then, governments and corporations are under no ethical obligation to label.


In another post, Chris argues that in the case of  Trans-fats  , there does seem to be sufficient threat to human health to warrant mandatory labeling, in contrast to the lack of harm shown by genetically engineered crops. In another post, Chris addresses the idea that  environmental concerns  are enough to warrant labeling, arguing that the concerns aren;t science based and that labels wouldn;t actually decrease environmental harm anyway. Besides, we know that genetic engineering is less harmful to the environment than other agricultural practices that aren;t labeled.


*Chris is also the Coordinator of SMU;s  M.A. Programme in Philosophy  and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at Duke University;s  Kenan Institute for Ethics  . He serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Business Ethics and has been named one of the  100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics  two years in a row by  Ethisphere  magazine.


MacDonald, C., &amp; Whellams, M. (2007). Corporate Decisions about Labelling Genetically Modified Foods  Journal of Business Ethics, 75  (2), 181-189 DOI:  10.1007/s10551-006-9245-8













Document Number: 9393 



 EU World;s Biggest Net Importer of Agricultural Produce While Neglecting Critical Investment in Agricultural Research 


 by  David Tribe  on 18 October 2010 


The EU Ranks as the World;s Biggest Net Importer of Agricultural Produce While Neglecting Critical Investment in Agricultural Research  Press Release  BERLIN, October 13, 2010 /PRNewswire/ ;  -  International Competition for Agricultural Production Land is Rising Dramatically


The food situation in poor countries continues to deteriorate. On World Food Day, October 16th, the number of starving people worldwide will have reached a staggering 925 million.  ;Even assuming the very best possible scenario, the poorest nations will fail by a wide margin to produce enough food to feed their own populations over the coming decades,; says Harald von Witzke, President of the Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture. ;This rapidly growing shortfall can only be met if richer nations are able to produce and export more food. So far, the EU has turned a blind eye to this looming crisis. Despite the urgent need for immediate action, this important issue has received little or no publicity.;


Von Witzke believes that the EU has neglected critical investment in agricultural research for far too long. In the meantime, it has become the world;s biggest net importer of agricultural produce. This means that in order to meet its own demand for food, natural fibres, bio-energy and other agricultural products, the EU uses a virtual land area in other countries of about 35 million hectares, equivalent to the size of Germany. The last ten years alone have seen net EU imports from virtual agricultural land increase by 10 million hectares.  ;The EU has become a huge virtual land-user outside of its own territory,; says von Witzke. He points out that this expansion of land by the EU overseas is leading to deforestation and contributing to climate change.


;We must collectively demand that the EU fully commits to innovation and high productivity in agriculture. This is vital if we are to eradicate hunger, make a stand against climate change, and maintain natural habitats.;


About HFFA  The Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture is a leading Berlin-based think tank in global agriculture, bringing together a unique group of internationally recognised experts from science, civil society and industry. Its goal is to develop scientific-based policy recommendations for the future of global food and agriculture.  &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Contact:  &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Prof. h. c. Harald von Witzke  &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture e. V.  &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;hvwitzke@agrar.hu-berlin.de  &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Phone: +49-30-2093-6233  &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Mobile: +49-177-400-1187


SOURCE Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture e. V.


UPDATE  Note from reader Andre at Biofortified  The underlying study is at  &nbsp;    http://www.opera-indicators.  eu/assets/files/News/Final_  Report_Humboldt_Opera.pdf  Easy to read 41 pages, large print and lots of tables. &nbsp;Worth perusing.













Document Number: 6433 



 Evolution of the Polydnavirus: How Wasps Began Using Viruses to Engineer Their Hosts 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 2 August 2010 


1.) Female parasitoid wasp injects eggs, viral particles and venom proteins into host. 2.) Polydnavirus virons infect host tissues. 3.) Parasitoid larva develops inside the host and metamorphosizes after burrowing out of the host. 4-5.) Cells in the female reproductive organs begin producing viral particles.


In  Polydnaviruses, Nature;s GMOs  , I explained how polydnaviruses disabled host immune defenses through genetic modification. A post after that, I discussed how  polydnaviruses  use modified insect proteins to interfere with these systems.


So if you;re a biologically-minded person, there;s one question you should be asking yourself. It;s a rather important question because it;s answer could shed light on what makes these wasps species-specific, and this is essential for any biocontrol project.


So;how did they evolve?  These systems have arisen at least three times independently with different viruses. The Ichneumonid wasps use polydnaviruses which are derived from Ascoviruses, which are DNA viruses which infect invertebrates. The genus  Nasonia  uses poxviruses in a manner which is probably the same as the Ichnoviruses and Bracoviruses. We;ll discuss the Ichnovirus and Bracovirus system as examples of model systems.


Most eukaryotic genomes are essentially old battlegrounds between critters and their viruses. Viruses can go through a process called endogenization, which is when a virus integrates into the genome of a eukaryotic cell. Viral DNA will occasionally integrate into an organism;s genome and then get deactivated either by mutation or by a defense mechanism known as methylation. This DNA then gets passed on to the organism;s progeny. These viruses then become known as endogenized viruses. Many of these viruses happen to be retroviruses, but it;s possible for DNA viruses and even  RNA viruses  can become endogenized if the conditions are right.


In all eukaryotic genomes, there are also bits and pieces of parasitic DNA called transposons. These are little bits of parasitic DNA which copy themselves and re-integrate into the organism;s genome. These guys are also great at copying genes and moving them to places they ought not to be. Occasionally they plop down next to a gene and the enzyme which copies them copies that gene and moves the gene to a new location in the genome.


Polydnaviruses are thought to have taken one of two routes in evolution. The first possibility is that a virus which already was a benefit to the wasp integrated into the genome and began to be passed onto the progeny. The second possibility is that bits and pieces of viral DNA began to produce proteins and became useful to the wasp.


D. pulchellus parasitizing leek moth, from Agriculture and Agrifood Canada


The first possibility is very evident in the Ichnovirus group of polydnaviruses. One primitive Ichneumonid wasp,  Diadromus pulchellus  has a virus that is very different from the polydnaviruses it;s brethren posses. It;s virus, Diadromus pulchellus Ascovirus (DpAv), unlike all other Ichnovirus, actually reproduces and amplifies in the cells of the caterpillar. The disease is fatal to the caterpillar, but could benefit the wasp by disallowing competing species from ovipositing into the same host because the host dies before they are able to complete development. Many Ascoviruses have similar effects to Ichnoviruses and differ in that they amplify within the Lepidopteran host.


Some Ascoviruses are transmitted mechanically from wasp to host. This means they do not actually infect the wasp, but are transmitted when the wasp lays eggs in another host in a similar manner how HIV would be transmitted between IV drug users. Even though they aren;t transmitted in the same manner as DpAv, they occasionally do infect other parasitoid wasps. This gives a great hypothetical mechanism by which these viruses could have evolved.


Nudivirus Phylogeny from Guohong et. al


The Ichnoviruses transmitted by Ichneumonid wasps have a very high sequence similarity to Ascoviruses. Braconid wasps, however, present another problem. While the similarity of Ichnoviruses to Ascoviruses essentially closes the book on many questions pertaining to their evolution, Braconid wasps present a greater challenge.


Braconid wasps also transmit polydnaviruses, but their viruses are derived from a completely different set of viruses. Bracoviruses are genetically most similar to viruses known as Nudiviruses, which themselves are similar to Baculoviruses. Despite their similarity to Baculoviruses, Nudiviruses are quite different in ways I will need to discuss in another post. The greatest mystery for researchers such as myself lies within the host range of the Nudiviruses. No known Nudiviruses afflict Hymenoptera, although I should also be quick to point out that little is known about the host ranges of Nudiviruses in general. Many are sexually transmitted (insects get STDs, too), so many researchers think these viruses originated as STDs accidentally injected into the host during oviposition. It;s a great hypothesis, but with so little known about Nudiviruses, Bracovirus phylogeny remains a wide open mystery.


Pictures:


Webb, B., Fisher, T., &amp; Nusawardani, T. (2009). The Natural Genetic Engineering of Polydnaviruses  Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1178  (1), 146-156 DOI:  10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05023.x


Wu, G., Jun, S., Sims, G., &amp; Kim, S. (2009). Whole-proteome phylogeny of large dsDNA virus families by an alignment-free method  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106  (31), 12826-12831 DOI:  10.1073/pnas.0905115106


General Information:


Bigot, Y., Samain, S., Aug-Gouillou, C., &amp; Federici, B. (2008). Molecular evidence for the evolution of ichnoviruses from ascoviruses by symbiogenesis  BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8  (1) DOI:  10.1186/1471-2148-8-253


Tillman, P., Styer, E., &amp; Hamm, J. (2004). Transmission of Ascovirus from  (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by Three Parasitoids and Effects of Virus on Survival of Parasitoid (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)  Environmental Entomology, 33  (3), 633-643 DOI:  10.1603/0046-225X-33.3.633


Bigot Y, Rabouille A, Doury G, Sizaret PY, Delbost F, Hamelin MH, &amp; Periquet G (1997). Biological and molecular features of the relationships between Diadromus pulchellus ascovirus, a parasitoid hymenopteran wasp (Diadromus pulchellus) and its lepidopteran host, Acrolepiopsis assectella.  The Journal of general virology, 78 ( Pt 5)  , 1149-63 PMID:  9152436


Renault S, Petit A, Bndet F, Bigot S, &amp; Bigot Y (2002). Effects of the Diadromus pulchellus ascovirus, DpAV-4, on the hemocytic encapsulation response and capsule melanization of the leek-moth pupa, Acrolepiopsis assectella.  Journal of insect physiology, 48  (3), 297-302 PMID:  12770103













Document Number: 7618 



 Evolving Pesticide Resistance 


 by  Matt DiLeo  on 17 September 2010 


It;s been estimated that genetic resistance to every pesticide  that will ever be invented  already exists  in some microbe in some field, somewhere in the world (simply because there are so many individuals of each species). If you invent an incredible new spray that kills, say,  Phytophthora infestans  , you;d know that somewhere in the world there is a little  P. infestans  mycelium or spore that is already resistant. If you start spraying thousands and thousands of acres with your new pesticide, you may have a season or a few without late blight, but it;s only a matter of time before this little guy gets into your field and finds a smorgasbord all for himself (to a lesser extent, this probably also applies to multicellular weed and insect pests).  This is one of the primary critiques of modern ag monocultures. The  1970 Southern corn leaf blight epidemic  is a great example of what happens when a lucky germ stumbles onto a crop that can no longer defend itself. Luckily for us, this is pretty rare. Simple mutations that provide microbes instantaneous resistance to a pesticide (or to a plant;s genetic disease resistance) tend to have pretty nasty side effects (think human resistance to malaria via sickle cell anemia  ). This means that stacking up multiple disease resistance genes (natural or transgenic) in a single plant increases the chance not only that no local microbes will be resistant, but also that any microbe that has multiple resistance mutations will be so crippled that it won;t be a very effective pathogen anymore. Stacking up multiple resistance genes in one plant variety is called ;pyramiding.; Another strategy, ;multilines,; places different resistance genes in different individuals of the same variety, creating a field-scale mosaic that should mimic the genetic variation of natural plant populations. This second strategy always appealed to me aesthetically, but it hasn;t been used successfully much in modern ag.


A stunning exception is described in the linked Nature article.*  Magnaporthe grisea  causes one of the most devastating diseases of rice ; rice blast. This fungus chews necrotic spots in rice leaves and panicles, hurting yield and spreading spores. Like many pathogens,  M. grisea  is a diverse species, containing many separate ;races; that are optimized to attack different varieties of rice. New races of  M. grisea  are constantly evolving. If you develop a new variety of rice that;s resistant to all known races of rice blast, it;s only a matter of time before a new race appears to attack it. Even with the use of fungicides to slow the fungus down, new resistance genes begin to ;break down; after just a few years as new races of  M. grisea  continually appear and proliferate.


Rice varieties, like those of any crop, differ in many respects. As described in the article, farmers in this region grew some combination of hybrid rice (great yields, tastes terrible) with glutinous ;sticky; rice (poor yields and extra-susceptible to rice blast, but very valuable). Most farmers grew big plots of reliable hybrid rice with small plots of sticky rice on the side ; but some planted occasional rows of sticky rice within hybrid rice fields. It occurred to the researchers that this trick may allow farmers to produce more rice (especially more valuable sticky rice) on the same amount of land than traditional methods allowed.


Over a few years, the scientists worked with farmers to plant various monocultures and mixes of the two rice varieties (e.g. 1 row of sticky rice for every 4 or 6 rows of hybrid rice). In the end they found that the severity of rice blast on hybrid rice was slightly lower in mixed plots than monocultures, but the severity on sticky rice fell from about 20% in monoculture plots to 1% in mixed plots!


So why did this happen?


The authors suggest a range of possible explanations. Since different races of  M. grisea  attack sticky and hybrid rice varieties, spreading out the sticky rice plants in a big field of hybrid rice (instead of concentrating them in a small plot) makes it harder for the fungus to spread from plant to plant. Also, the mixed canopy of short (hybrid) and tall (sticky) rice plants alters the microclimate around the rice leaves, perhaps producing an environment less conducive to disease. They also studied the genetic structure of the pathogen population in monoculture versus mixed fields ; while  M. grisea  populations from monoculture fields were dominated by the few races that were best adapted to the planted variety,  M. grisea  populations from mixed fields were more diverse, not dominated by any one race. It;s possible, they suggest, that the constant (failed) attempts of the  M. grisea  individuals in the mixed field to attack the wrong variety increased induced immunity of the rice plants ; in a way, ;vaccinating; them against the few races that could really hurt them.


This experiment was so successful, that fungicide sprays were discontinued by the end of the two year project!


Humans have been in an arms race with crop pests for thousands of years ; we keep trying to develop new varieties and sprays that keep the pests away, and the pests keep finding new ways to get back in. While scientists are getting a lot better at designing resistant crop varieties and pesticide sprays that the pests have a very hard time adapting to, we still need new (and old) cultural techniques to load the dice in our favor.


This requires an understanding of the evolutionary pressures that drive pests to adapt. Slowing down the evolution of pesticide resistance is a key aspect of integrated pest management (IPM). For example, the transgenic gene in corn that produces Bt toxin (which specifically kills certain inspect species), is a great trait for limiting pest damage ; but planting thousands and thousands of acres of it presents an extremely strong selective advantage on the lucky individual insect that happens to be resistant. This monoculture doesn;t increase the chance that an insect will develop resistance, but it does increase the ease with which it can reproduce and pass on the resistant mutation (in the absence of competition). We can defuse this selective advantage by intentionally supporting a thriving population of the original, susceptible insect ;  e.g.  by planting rows of old, susceptible varieties of corn among the new, resistant corn. Some yield is lost to the planting of these sacrificial ;refuge; plants, but in the long run, it helps the protect the integrity of the plant;s pest resistance for as long as possible.


At their blog,  Martin Family Farms  demonstrates how they include such refuges on their commercial farm ; as required by EPA regulations and Monsanto contract.**


*Zhu, Y., Chen, H., Fan, J., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Chen, J., Fan, J., Yang, S., Hu, L., Leung, H., Mew, T., Teng, P., Wang, Z., &amp; Mundt, C. (2000). Genetic diversity and disease control in rice Nature, 406 (6797), 718-722 DOI:  10.1038/35021046


**I;ve heard buzzing that some think this practice in this specific case isn;t useful enough to justify having the EPA require farmers to do it, but I haven;t seen strong empirical evidence in either direction. It may be one of those cases that evokes different opinions from people based on their faith in our ability to keep inventing new and better mousetraps vs. taking extra measures to protect the ones we already have;













Document Number: 983 



 Exposed, indeed. 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 24 April 2008 


The article   Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth   published by  The Independent  is surprising, and at first glance looks like it could be about significant research indicating that genetic engineering has unforeseen yield decreases. However, Im not very good at first glances. Instead, I read deeply and find out more. This post is going to be long, but I think the length is justified since the article has been diligently repeated on  Common Dreams  and  Grist  , and of course picked up by  Digg  and used as part of an anti-GM riff at the  DailyKos  and other political blogs. Frankly, Im tired of seeing science get twisted to suit an agenda, and Im going to report some facts.


The first sentence of  Exposed  is clearly sensationalist: Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.


Nevermind that scientists never state findings in such definite terms. Any result is simply a hypothesis that hasnt been rejected. It isnt fact until it has been corroborated by multiple studies by other researchers, and until it has been published in a peer reviewed journal of consequence. Thats simply the way science works. I suppose the enthusiasm can be chalked up to journalistic license.


The results of this study were published in the quarterly  Better Crops  (the full name of the publication is  Better Crops with Plant Food  ).  Better Crops  is published by the  International Plant Nutrition Institute  . This is the first time Ive heard of  IPNI  , but admittedly that doesnt necessarily mean anything. The website states:


The International Plant Nutrition Institute (  IPNI  ) is a new, not-for-profit, scientific organization dedicated to responsible management of plant nutrients  N, P, K, secondary nutrients, and micronutrients  for the benefit of the human family. With established programs in Latin America, North America, China, India, Southeast Asia, and planned expansion in other areas of the world, IPNI is a global organization ready to respond to the worlds demand for food, fuel, feed, and fiber.  IPNI provides a unified, scientific voice for the worlds fertilizer industry; independent of the industry, but scientifically credible and recognized by governments, academia, NGOs, the public, and the industry. Its scientists are working to help define the basis for appropriate use and management of plant nutrients, especially focusing on the environmental and economic issues related to their use and to provide comprehensive and regional information and research results to help farmers, and the industry, deal with environmental and agronomic problems.


So,  IPNI  is controlled by the fertilizer industry, which is one of the agricultural input industries that anti-big-ag advocates fight against. Looking over the website, this NGO seems to have a lot of information on fertilizer. Not genetic engineering, biotech, plant breeding, or any similar topics. Just fertilizer.


Of  Better Crops  ,  IPNI  has this to say:


It;s not easy to describe this unique magazine. With an identity somewhere between an agronomic research journal and a marketing information series, BC provides a steady vehicle for reporting news from research related to nutrient management. While constantly evolving to serve its target audiences, the magazine also serves as a mirror of the agronomic research and education programs of the Institute.


In other words, Better Crops is an industry newsletter, similar to pamphlets on topics like   Beef, its whats for dinner   or   The incredible edible egg  . I may be a bit skeptical, but I dont trust information that comes directly from individual companies or from large industry groups unless similar findings are reported elsewhere.


Because  Exposed  came out on 20 April, I assumed that the article of interest would be in the current issue of Better Crops. Instead, the  article  by  Barney Gordon  was in the fourth  issue  of 2007 (way to keep on top of things, Independent). The abstract:


This study was conducted to determine if glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybeans respond differently to Mn fertilizer than conventional soybean varieties in an irrigated high-yield environment, and if so to develop fertilization strategies that will prevent or correct deficiencies. Yield of the GR variety was less than the conventional variety without Mn fertilizer. However, Mn application (banded at planting) to the GR variety closed the yield gap. The conventional soybean variety was not responsive to Mn fertilization. Conversely, yield was reduced at the highest rate of Mn. A second phase of the study showed that a combination of Mn applied as starter and foliar application provided maximum yield response.


I freely admit that I dont know anything beyond the basics of fertilizers, so feel free to take my analysis of the article with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I am knowledgeable enough in plant physiology to make reasonable conclusions about the article. Geoffrey Lean, environment editor of The Independent, is presumably not, since he completely twisted the facts to make his story.


First, Id like to mention that  Dr. Gordon  of  Kansas State  (  not  University of Kansas as Lean reported) studies fertilizer and farming methods. Not plant breeding or plant physiology. He makes no claims to the contrary.


Next, Id like to call attention to the title of the article:   Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans  . Titles of scholarly articles are  always  about the topic at hand, or they will be rejected by editors of the journal. If this article really was about differences in yield between GM and non-GM crops, the title would say so. Occasionally an experiment on one topic will result in exciting data on a topic other than the one that was intended, but the title would certainly reflect that. Scholarly articles typically start with an introduction that indicates past research about the topic. This article starts with:


Glyphosate-resistant soybean variety planting dwarfs that of conventional varieties in the U.S. by a factor of about 9 to 1. Nevertheless, GR soybean yield may still lag behind that of conventional soybeans, as many farmers have noticed that yields are not as high as expected, even under optimal conditions. In Kansas, average yield seldom exceeds 60 to 65 bu/A even when soybeans are grown with adequate rainfall and/or supplemental irrigation water.  There is evidence to suggest that glyphosate may interfere with Mn metabolism and also adversely affect populations of soil micro-organisms responsible for reduction of Mn to a plant-available form. Manganese availability is also strongly influenced by soil pH. As soil pH increases, plant-available Mn decreases. It is unlikely that Mn deficiencies will occur on acid soils. It stands to reason that the addition of supplemental Mn at the proper time may correct deficiencies and result in greater GR soybean yields.


Dr. Gordon hypothesizes that the herbicide glyphosate interferes with Mn uptake (although this is not what this study tested). All plants could have this response to glyphosate application, but we cant test this hypothesis on plants that are not engineered or evolved to resist glyphosate, for hopefully obvious reasons. The evidence that glyphosate might interfere with crop mineral uptake is serious and must be further investigated, because crops wont be able to reach their full yield potential without proper mineral uptake. Im also concerned that glyphosate might affect soil micro-organisms, because research in organic farming methods shows that soil microbes are crucial to soil and plant health. These results might mean that we should discontinue or decrease glyphosate application, but more experiments to investigate these preliminary results must be conducted.


This experiment was designed to test the response to Mn fertilizer of one particular line of soy that has one particular transgene. The results showed that this particular line did respond to Mn fertilizer, indicating that it might not be as good at Mn uptake as the non-transgenic control. Since only one event was tested, though, no conclusions about the gene itself can be made.


An experiment to compare the overall yield of GM crops to non-GM crops (regardless of fertilizer) must include multiple lines of multiple species and include multiple transgenic traits. It must also include comparable non-GM crops for each GM crop in the study. The reason for the repetition is to avoid choosing particular lines of plants that naturally have higher or lower than average yields. Multiple transgenic traits must be used in order to prove one way or another whether all GMOs have lower yields than non-GMOs. Each transgene or cisgene is different, and we cant assume that drought resistant GM rice is the same as beta carotene enhanced GM rice, for example. Despite peoples claims to the contrary, making general statements about all GM crops is impossible due to the wide diversity of traits that are available.


The experiment must treat the GM and non-GM plants exactly the same (same planting time and method, same fertilizer, same irrigation, same pest control, and so on) so that the results will actually tell us about the difference between the GM and non-GM plants, not about the differences in farming methods. The experiment must also take place in multiple climates, to ensure that the crops in the experiment will act the same whether it is warm or cool, dry or wet during the growing season. Analyzing the results from a comparison of farming methods would be a lot more complex because there would be multiple differences between experiment and control plots.


Note: In Dr. Gordon;s  rebuttal  to Exposed, he says that the third year of the experiment showed no difference between the GM and non-GM lines, probably due to environmental variation from year to year.


Another complication is environmental variation from year to year. One of my research projects includes the hypothesis that a certain type of selection will improve seed protein over a period of years. To show this change over time, I have to save seed from multiple years and plant them side by side. I cant just compare the data from 2006 to the data from 2007 because of all the tiny details that I couldnt control in the field. Maybe the control plots in 2006 had a worse aphid infestation. Maybe the experimental plots in 2007 had slightly better soil;


Not only does the experiment to compare all GM crops to non-GM have to meet all of the above requirements, it also has to include multiple years worth of seed for each tested line.


It is sometimes possible to use multiple separate experiments to support a hypothesis, in a type of scholarly article called a meta analysis. These articles are often used in medicine in cases where larger human studies are not possible due to cost and other factors. A meta analysis can be used to collect information, but must be very extensive to allow conclusions to be drawn. Often, differences in the way each experiment was done prevent strong conclusions from being made.


Id like to expand upon something that was mentioned briefly, but not explained, in  Exposed  . Companies such as Monsanto take years to develop and test the GM seed that is available for sale. The regulatory process is so stringent that, once approval is applied for, the trait can not be improved upon (to be more clear, once approval is applied for with one event, another event can not be substituted), or face a whole new round of application for approval. Regulatory hurdles and other issues make GM seed very expensive for the company to develop, so they must develop new seed to recoup their losses. For these and other reasons, GM seeds are often one hit wonders that excel in one specific trait, but not particularly for increased yield. Non-GM lines, on the other hand, are improved every year, with the best yielding plants being used to produce the next years seed. I recently attended a seminar presented by a scientist from Pioneer where he said that they were working to develop better yielding lines that would work in conjunction with their primary transgenic traits. The companies are aware that this is a problem with their products, and are of course working to solve it, to avoid losing sales.


The second study mentioned in  Exposed  also investigates yield drag in commercial soy that has been engineered for resistance to glyphosate. In the 2002     Yield Suppressions of Glyphosate-Resistant (Roundup Ready) Soybeans  ,  Roger Elmore  (now of  Iowa State  , previously of  University of Nebraska  ) performs a similar experiment to the one in Manganese Nutrition, albeit without the manganese. The abstract:


Herbicide-resistant crops like glyphosate resistant (GR) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] are gaining acceptance in U.S. cropping systems. Comparisons from cultivar performance trials suggest a yield suppression may exist with GR soybean. Yield suppressions may result either cultivar genetic differentials, the GR gene/gene insertion process, or glyphosate. Grain yield of GR is probably not affected by glyphosate. Yield suppression due to the GR gene or its insertion process (GR effect) has not been reported. We conducted a field experiment at four Nebraska locations in 2 yr to evaluate the GR effect on soybean yield. Five backcross-derived pairs of GR and non-GR soybean sister lines were compared along with three high-yield, nonherbicide-resistant cultivars and five other herbicide-resistant cultivars. Glyphosate resistant sister lines yielded 5% (200 kg ha21) less than the non-GR sisters (GR effect). Seed weight of the non-GR sisters was greater than that of the GR sisters (in 1999) and the non-GR sister lines were 20 mm shorter than the GR sisters. Other variables monitored were similar between the two cultivar groups. The high-yield, nonherbicide-resistant cultivars included for comparison yielded 5% more than the non-GR sisters and 10% more than the GR sisters.


In other words, this is more of the same: plants bred for high yield perform better than plants that were bred for something else. More information about the difference in seed weight and height between the glyphosate resistant and non-GM soy can be found in the discussion section of the paper:


On average, non-GR sister lines yielded 5% more than the GR sisters when averaged over all locations and both years (Table 5). Non-GR sister grain yields were greater than those of their associated GR sisters in two of the five pairs; Grain yields of sister-line pairs are shown in Fig. 1. The greater number of data points to the right of the 1:1 ratio line indicates that the non-GR sisters yielded more on the average than their GR sister counterparts.


A correlation of 0.75 is very strong. This correlation (as shown in Fig. 1 from Dr. Elmore;s paper) means that, if a GM-soy was low yielding, there is a strong probability that its non-GM sister would also be low yielding. The 5% average difference is undeniable, but the GM plant in some sister pairs out preformed the non-GM plant. In short, I wouldn;t say that this is conclusive, and there would still have to be additional studies on other types of genetically engineered plants to show a difference between all GM and non-GM.


Dr. Elmore concludes: ;Cultivar choices are best based on (i) previous weed pressure and success of control measures in specific fields, (ii) the availability and cost of herbicides, (iii) availability and cost of herbicide-resistant cultivars, and (iv) yield.; I read that as: if your fields have stubborn weeds and glyphosate is easy to use, then a slight decrease in yield may be preferable to having to either using a more dangerous herbicide or having your yield decrease anyway when your field is overgrown with weeds.


He also says something more concerning: ;Based on the results of this study and those of Elmore  et al  ., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself.; I would like to see further studies on this possibility, and I would be very surprised if Monsanto isn;t already frantically working to solve any related problems. The best way to test the second hypothesis would still be the laborious experiment with a wide variety of GM traits in different crops. The first hypothesis (that the glyphosate resistance gene itself is causing a yield decrease) could be tested in a few ways, including a study of markers for low yield in populations that include the gene, and testing the yields of plants that have  naturally evolved glyphosate resistance  compared to their ;less evolved; relatives.


This type of study is important to help farmers choose the best seed each year from thousands of choices. They also help farmers to choose the best pest management strategy for their particular situation. This is the whole point of ag extension, and is Dr. Elmores job. The purpose of Dr. Gordons study is similar:  to help soybean farmers achieve the highest possible yields, even if it means applying additional Mn fertilizer. Im fairly confident in saying that these scientists dont appreciate having their research misinterpreted to make over reaching conclusions, even if they appreciate the attention.


While researching the background of  Exposed  , I came across a semi-meta analysis of GM crop yield studies compiled by Clio Turton of the  Soil Association  (a non-profit promoting organic ag) that was posted on  Check Biotech  . Every study is listed with the goal of saying that GM crops yield less than non-GM. However, even Mr. Turton even says,  First generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are in no way intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant. Instead, they decrease competition from weeds and decrease insect damage which increases yield by corollary.  Id be happy to discuss the articles he presents, but this post is probably long enough.


Bear with me while I use an analogy. Saying that we should stop using all GM crops because they dont yield as high as crops that have been specially bred for yield is like saying that you are going to throw away a business laptop because the processor cant handle graphics intensive games. We all know that business laptops were designed with other functions in mind, and dont necessarily need whizbang graphics cards. If graphics cards were less expensive, they would be in all laptops. If getting a GM crop to market wasnt so expensive, we would see a better selection of seeds on the market. Right now, the only ones who can afford to make them are Monsanto and Pioneer. Public researchers at universities and small companies cant even hope to get seed to market, so research in GM crops has been slowed to a trickle in the US. This is not the fault of the scientists or of the companies. Instead, we can blame the anti-GM hysteria that caused regulators to make things so difficult.


Thanks,  Mike  for pointing out the  Common Dreams  article, and thus for making me stay up all night and spend half of today researching this post!


Barney Gordon (2007). Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans  Better Crops, 91  (4), 12-14


Roger W. Elmore, Fred W. Roeth, Lenis A. Nelson, Charles A. Shapiro, Robert N. Klein, Stevan Z. Knezevic, &amp; Alex Martin (2001). Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines  Agron. J., 93  , 408-412













Document Number: 1544 



 Exposed: the great organic myth 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 2 May 2008 


The biggest problem I have with the media is that they never post references. Unfortunately, both writers that I disagree with and those I generally agree with are guilty of this. The Independent article   The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world cant afford   posted yesterday has the headline: Theyre not healthier or better for the environment  and theyre packed with pesticides. In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods are an indugence [sic] the world cant afford, argues environmental expert Rob Johnston. He makes a lot of good points, but without proof, the points are nothing. Ill just run through the list pointing out some flaws and gems in the article.


Myth one: Organic farming is good for the environment  A litre of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain. These numbers are surprising, but not altogether different from what Ive read elsewhere. Organically grown food can have yields comparable to conventional in good years, but doesnt yield as well when stressed with pests and unideal climate. So, in our imperfect world full of droughts, corn borers, and various fungi to name a few ; organic fields are often less productive, requiring more land to grow the same amount of food. I wasnt able to find the report from the Food and Rural Affairs office of the UK Department for Environment that was mentioned in the article. I really have to question this statement: organically reared cows burp twice as much methane as conventionally reared cattle. With my limited knowledge of bovine digestion, the statement would make more sense if it said grain fed cows burp x amount more methane than grass fed. I have to wonder if this is a misinterpretation on the authors part. Grain is not good for cows, organic or not.


Myth two: Organic farming is more sustainable  This section of the article is probably the worst of all seven. While it is probably true that a hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one, and that heated greenhouse tomatoes in Britain use up to 100 times more energy than those grown in fields in Africa, I dont know if these things can be directly compared. Transportation is a big issue that needs to be considered. Ive seen this greenhouse tomato reference in multiple anti-organic articles, so I have to wonder if its hearsay based only loosely on actual science.


Myth three: Organic farming doesnt use pesticides  This part hits the nail on the head. Just because a pesticide is labeled organic doesnt mean its safe, and many non-organic pesticides have very low toxicity for non-target organisms. The organic pesticide that particularly concerns me is copper (used specifically as a fungicide on many crops from potatoes to soy). Copper is considered a pollutant because it binds tightly to the soil and can not be removed. If soil concentrations reach a certain level, copper kills plants and soil microorganisms. The problem comes when a farm stays organic year after year, applying more and more copper that builds up to contaminate the land. Coincidentally, I went to a poster session yesterday that was held by the Sustainable Agriculture department at ISU, and saw a poster advocating the use of copper to treat fungus in organic soy. I could only shake my head. The article also mentions rotenone, an organic neurotoxin from some tropical plant roots that is used as an insecticide. Thankfully, rotenone is being banned in more and more places since it has been linked to Parkinsons disease. It should have been banned sooner because of its toxicity to fish.


Myth four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous  The author states that the oft mentioned epidemic of cancer is false. After some research, I agree.  Cancer Statistics, 2007  (full article  here  , access required, just ask if youd like a PDF) published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians by the American Cancer Society, says that conclusions on cancer rates are difficult to make, but that rates do not seem to be rising. I dont, however, agree with the statement that cancer rates are falling dramatically. If anything, they look to be stable. With all of the changes in the environment of the typical developed world person in the past decades, it would be impossible to link pesticide to cancer anyway. Additionally, pesticide levels in conventional food in developed countries are well below international standards.


Myth five: Organic food is healthier  Organic produce is actually more likely to harbor bacteria than conventional produce, simply due to fertilizer choice. There is some concern about untreated illness in organic animals, but I wouldnt go so far as to say that organic animals are generally sickly. Instead, organic farmers choose hardy breeds that are less likely to get sick. Antibiotic resistant bacteria appear in both organic and conventional animals, and food poisoning is just as likely from one as from the other.


Myth six: Organic food contains more nutrients  Improved omega 3s and other nutrients in meat, milk and eggs has nothing to do with whether or not the animals are raised organically, and everything to do with what the animals are fed. The increased flavnoid levels in organic produce may be a misinterpretation. Stressed plants produce more defensive compounds (i.e. flavnoids), so it could be argued that this is evidence that organic plants are stressed (an interesting point when we consider   plant dignity   as codified by the Swiss). I am amused by the authors alternative interpretation of research: The easiest way to increase the concentration of nutrients in food is to leave it in an airing cupboard for a few days. Dehydrated foods contain much higher concentrations of carbohydrates and nutrients than whole foods. But, just as in humans, dehydration is often a sign of disease.


Myth seven: The demand for organic food is booming  If organic food is so much better, so worth the additional costs of growing it, then why is the amount of organically farmed land so small? Why are there so few organic farmers? The debate between agribusiness and organic is a false one. Organic lobbyists have just as much to gain from pushing their agenda as conventional farmers and agribusiness do. All the more reason to depend on science to guide our decisions. As the author says: In a serious age, we should talk about the future seriously and not use food scares and misinformation as a tactic to increase sales.













Document Number: 4274 



 Extraordinary claims; require extraordinary evidence. 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 27 February 2011 


Within the past few weeks, a letter written by a Dr. Don Huber to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has been making the rounds on the ;net. The letter was allegedly given to the  Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance  , and they claim to have confirmed that it was written by Dr. Huber. You can find the full text of the letter on the FRFA site with the ominous title  Researcher: Roundup or Roundup-Ready Crops May Be Causing Animal Miscarriages and Infertility  .


The story has been picked up by many bloggers, including  Jill Richardson  , and even made an appearance on  Reuters  . I haven;t seen any posts dedicated to a critical analysis of the letter, instead there is a rush to assume that it is correct, despite the lack of citations or other evidence provided for the extraordinary claims in the letter. The story is often accompanied with horrific pictures of dead fetal calves and the words ;Emergency!; and ;Danger!; Are we really all in danger? The claims in the letter bring to mind Carl Sagan;s famous statement: ;extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.; Let;s investigate the claims and determine whether enough evidence is provided.


;This organism appears NEW to science!;


In the letter, Dr. Huber claims that there is a never-before-seen pathogen that is caused by or exacerbated by either glyphosate containing Roundup herbicide or the widely used glyphosate resistance gene. The letter opens:


A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and cornsuggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!


Right here in the first paragraph is  Extraordinary Claim #1  . Dr. Huber is claiming that a single pathogen can ;significantly impact; the health of corn, soy, and animals. Not impossible, but extraordinary evidence is required to back up the claim because known pathogens are generally very host specific, whether they are bacteria, virus, fungus, or parasite. A corn pathogen will not infect soy. A human pathogen will not infect cows. In cases where a single pathogen will affect multiple species, it affects groups of very similar species, not corn and cows.


What evidence does Dr. Huber provide for this extraordinary claim? None, actually. Just more extraordinary claims that seem to get more and more extraordinary with each paragraph.


Extraordinary Claim #2  is that the ;organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified.; He leaves us with far more questions than answers. What characteristics, exactly, cause him to compare this claimed pathogen to a fungus? How could it be possible to have a fungus so small? Where are the pictures? How big is the claimed organism and what does it look like? What is the evidence that it is reproducing? What other tests have been done to confirm its existence?


Fungi and viruses ; not at all similar


Fungi have some special characteristics that make them easily identifiable. First, fungi are  eukaryotes  , meaning that they have complex cells with structures enclosed in membranes called organelles, along with plants and animals, but unlike bacteria which lack organelles. Eukaryotic cells range between roughly 10 and 100 micrometers (m) long. Second,  fungi  have some characteristics that make them unique compared to other eukaryotes. Like plants, they have cell walls but unlike plants, those cell walls contain  chitin  instead of  cellulose  . At minimum, if we want to call something a fungus, it needs to have organelles like other eukaryotes and needs to have those unique cell walls.


Eukaryotic cells are many times larger than viruses. &quot;Scanning electron micrograph of the surface of a mouse cell infected with murine leukemia virus. A large number of virus particles are shown in the process of budding.&quot; By R. MacLeod via The Free Dictionary.


Viruses  are completely unlike eukaryotes or bacteria. They have a wide range of shapes but all look quite different from eukaryotic or bacterial cells. Viruses are little more than some nucleic acid surrounded by a protein coat, allowing them to be much smaller than cells, at a range of roughly 0.01 to 0.1 micrometers (m). Even the largest virus is much smaller than the smallest eukaryotic cell. In fact, viruses are smaller than the any of the organelles inside a eukaryotic cell.


Saying that something is a ;micro-fungal-like organism; as small as a virus just doesn;t make any sense. Of course, there;s been other strange things discovered, things that defied existing biological knowledge. Maybe this thing is from space, transported on meteorites. Who knows!? If it is true, then Dr. Huber and colleagues would undoubtedly be lauded for their amazing discovery. But this extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence and Dr. Huber provides none.


Electron microscopy ; it;s not easy


Series of images of a snowflake taken by USDA researchers. Click the pic for larger images.


When I worked for the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in Beltsville, MD as an undergraduate, I had the opportunity to use an electron microscope to look for viruses in plant tissue samples. Our goal was to identify plant pathogens before plant material got shipped all over the country. The normal procedure was to wait a pre-determined period of time to see if a plant would show symptoms, but if we could ID viruses before symptoms showed we could save a lot of time. Unfortunately, the technique didn;t pan out, at least while I was working there, because the experts weren;t able to find a technique that allowed them to accurately ID viruses with electron microscopy.


Electron microscopy is very touchy, with many things that could go wrong. Strange artifacts or errors in the images can be introduced by the processing a sample must undergo before viewing, by less than perfect use of the instrument, and by the instrument itself. Consider this series of images of a single snowflake taken at increasing magnification with an electron microscope. As the magnification goes up, the likelihood that meaning could be ascribed to a random bump also goes up.


Paul Vincelli  , Professor of Plant Pathology at  University of Kentucky and member of the American Phytopathological Society (APS), has expertise in plant pathogens including viruses and fungi. He has commented on the post  Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsantos Roundup  by Rady Arnada indicating that he has seen the claimed ;micro fungus; research himself. He said he has spoken with another researcher that has seen the electron micrographs, who concluded that the supposed ;micro fungus; is actually just artifacts and that ;detailed molecular data were needed before concluding that the structures observed were actually organismal.; Hopefully Dr. Huber plans to relase the images soon so additional experts can examine them. You have to wonder why the images haven;t already been released.


Pathogen presence


Extraordinary Claim #3  is that the claimed pathogen ;is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.; Why is this extraordinary? There is no control information provided.


We need to know what are the relative concentrations of the claimed pathogen in corn and soy plants grown in identical conditions, preferably in multiple environments of the following categories so we can isolate the effects of the Roundup Ready gene and of Roundup:


Roundup Ready plants that are treated with Roundup  Roundup Ready plants that are weeded by hand or other non-chemical method  non-Roundup Ready plants that are genetically similar to the Roundup Ready plants that are weeded by hand or other non-chemical method (negative control)


Without these comparisons, saying ;high concentrations; is meaningless. We also need to know the relative concentration of the claimed pathogen in animals fed these different plant samples under strictly controlled conditions. We also need to know how the presence of the claimed pathogen was determined and whether it was confirmed with any additional tests, such as nucleic acid or protein analysis.


Similarly, the claim that the ;organism is prolific in plants infected with ; sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss wilt in corn; also requires comparison to uninfected plants with and without Roundup and the RR gene. Dr. Huber continues: ;The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).; Found in? As in inside the cells? How do you know? Again, where are the pictures?


Cattle, swine, and horses (oh, my)


French dairy cows. Are these ladies luckier with their calves than American cows? Image by Meg Hourihan via Flickr.


Extraordinary Claim #4  is that there has been ;escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.; For comparison, the expected rate of spontaneous abortion in dairy cattle is about 2-5%, according to Virginia Cooperative Extension;s  Abortions in Dairy Cattle  and West Virginia University Extension;s  Abortion in Dairy Cows and Heifers  , and the expected successful insemination rate is 50% or higher with proper technique.


Don;t you think that if the rate of spontaneous abortion in livestock was skyrocketing that we;d have heard about it earlier? We;d see a  huge  spike in the cost of meat and dairy if farmers had to artificially inseminate their sows and cows an increased number of times to succeed in a pregnancy and if a high rate of those pregnancies resulted in late spontaneous abortions. What about the relative rates of AI success and spontaneous abortions in countries that use glyphosate and RR crops vs those that don;t? Shouldn;t we see major differences?


Dr. Huber claims that the ;micro-fungus; has been detected ;in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.; How was the claimed pathogen detected? With ;laboratory tests;, of course! Unfortunately, zero explanation is provided of what these tests are, how or where they were conducted, etc.


Anecdotes aren;t sufficient evidence to justify policy changes


We are provided with an anecdote: ;450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.;


Likely? This single word causes me to seriously doubt that a scientist wrote this letter. This anecdote is clearly not a scientific study because there are no controls and there is no confirmation of whether the feed did or did not have Roundup residues or the mysterious claimed pathogen present. To make conclusions based on a single situation we don;t even have details on is irresponsible at best. It is even more irresponsible to call for changes in national policy based on an anecdote.


Let;s consider this anecdote more closely. Glyphosate has been used as a herbicide since the 1970s. The amount of glyphosate use has increased with glyphosate resistant crops, and the amount of other herbicides used has decreased, at least until glyphosate overuse caused weeds to develop resistance (but that;s another story). As the use of Roundup and other glyphosate products has been increasing steadily, and crops that have been grown in fields that were treated with glyphosate have been being fed to livestock more and more over the years. If there is a link between glyphosate use and the rate of spontaneous abortions in livestock, then we should see a linear correlation between the two. In other words, the spontaneous abortion rate should be steadily increasing as glyphosate use has steadily increased.


Now let;s look at the two types of feed. Dr. Huber claims that 0% of heifers fed hay had abortions while 45% of heifers fed wheatlage (not wheatlege) had abortions. The wheat may or may not have been ;under weed management using glyphosate;. Since there are zero genetically engineered varieties of wheat (Roundup Ready or otherwise) we know that the wheat itself was not sprayed with glyphosate because without the resistance gene it would die. Instead, glyphosate may have been used before the wheat was planted or along the edges of the field. Is this enough glyphosate to cause spontaneous abortions? If it was, then there would be a lot more abortions in livestock.


Can we think of anything else that may have caused the claimed abortion rates? Yes. Going back to the extension documents  Abortions in Dairy Cattle  and  Abortion in Dairy Cows and Heifers  , we learn that there are multiple causes for increased number of spontaneous abortions in cattle, including undiagnosed genetic abnormalities, heat stress and infection by certain types of viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Feed contamination with a variety of types fungi that produce toxins can also cause abortions in cattle, especially when the cattle are otherwise immunocompromised by things like stress or disease.


This anecdote can be easily tested by having two groups of randomly selected cattle fed feeds that are identical and grown under identical conditions except one has been under weed management with glyphosate and the other was weeded by hand or other non-chemical means.


Who is Don Huber?


We need to examine Dr. Huber;s experience and positions so we can determine whether he has relevant expertise to be discussing both the extraordinary claims made in this letter and his more reasonable claims that glyphosate could have an effect on mineral uptake and disease resistance. Unfortunately, the letter doesn;t lend him much credibility, assuming that he did indeed write it.


The letter is signed ;COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University, APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS);. Dr. Huber retired in  2006  or  2007  . He is listed as a faculty/staff member at Purdue but I wasn;t able to find a bio or CV page on the Purdue website (or indeed a bio or CV elsewhere, either, but that may be due to of all the blog posts re-posting the letter that may be pushing other results back more pages than I;m willing to sort through).


The  NPDRS  is a program called for in Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 9 in 2004 ;to ensure that the tools, infrastructure, communication networks, and capacity required to mitigate the impact of high consequence plant disease outbreaks are such that a reasonable level of crop production is maintained in the US.; It was ;a cooperative effort of university, industry, and government scientists sponsored by The American Phytopathological Society (APS) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).;


As far as I can tell, the last activity of NPDRS was in 2008, and their list of recommendations on the USDA page is a broken link (the correct link is  here  ). Dr. Huber completed work on  late wilt of corn  for NPDRS and was the chair for that project, but is not listed as the coordinator of NPDRS and I could find no mention of him being the coordinator of the APS side of the partnership. Instead,  Kent Smith  , a USDA employe, is listed as the contact person for NPDRS. Don Huber is not listed as an employee of the USDA at this time.


Dr. Huber is a  member  of the Emerging Diseases and Pathogens Committee of the  American Phytopathological Society  (APS). He served as President of the APS North Central Division in 1988, and has served on other APS committees throughout the years, but does not currently hold any leadership positions with APS that I was able to find.


What work has Dr. Huber done?


Photo of Dr. Huber from a 2010 article in No-Till Magazine.


A search on PubMed for  DM Huber  results in 11 papers (one of which is not this DM Huber), including these two most recent listings:


Thompson IA, Huber DM, Schulze DG.  Evidence of a Multicopper Oxidase in Mn Oxidation by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici.  Phytopathology.  2006 Feb;96(2):130-6. PMID: 18943915   Thompson IA, Huber DM, Guest CA, Schulze DG.  Fungal manganese oxidation in a reduced soil  .  Environ Microbiol.  2005 Sep;7(9):1480-7. PMID: 16104870


I don;t know why PubMed has such paltry results. Web of Science provides 115 results for DM Huber in the Life Science category. None of the papers have any mention of a ;micro fungus;. The two most recent are probably the most meaningful for this discussion. Each has been cited 9 times (mostly by the authors themselves).


Zobiole LHS, de Oliveira RS, Huber DM, et al.  Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans  . Plant and Soil. 2010 Mar;328(1-2):57-69.   Johal GS, Huber DM.  Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants  . European Journal of Agronomy. 2009 Oct;31(3 SI):144-152.


Long story short, assuming that at least half of the 115 papers in Web of Science are actually this DM Huber (at least some belong to a DM Huber at the University of Cincinnati), we can say that he is a well published scientist that has published relevant subject matter in some fairly reputable journals for his field, including  Phytopathology  as recently as 2007 which has an  impact factor  of 2.2 (out of 5) according to Journal Citation Reports (not great, but not bad, either). Dr. Huber appears to have relevant and recent expertise on the subject of the effects of glyphosate on mineral uptake and disease resistance.


Next steps for ;micro fungus;


The claimed ;micro fungus; may indeed be a never before seen pathogen, perhaps a virus. At this time, however, there is not enough evidence to require action. More data needs to be collected in well designed experiments that needs to then be subjected to peer review.


Peer review is the ;checks and balances; of science. A team of researchers writes up a report of their experimental design and results and submits it to a journal. Before it is published, it is reviewed by a team of scientists who evaluate whether the experimental design is sound, whether the conclusions are supported by the data, whether the statistics were done properly, and so on. Peer review isn;t perfect for multiple reasons, but as of now it is the best form of quality control for scientific research that we have. For a very good discussion of what peer review means to scientists, see  Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists?  This is just one part of an excellent discussion of peer review in Nature that should be required reading for every scientist as well as anyone even slightly interested in what scientists do and how to interpret science:  Nature;s peer review debate  .


Getting a paper through the peer review process is a necessary part of science validation, in part because of its rigid requirements that go above and beyond what one might put in a letter or a blog post. For one scientist;s first person experiences with peer review, see  From blog to  Science  (thanks to Mary M. for the referral)  .  Avoidance of the peer review system indicates that a researcher knows that their work won;t pass muster.


It is through the peer review process that extraordinary claims can begin to accumulate enough evidence to become accepted. There are plenty of examples of researchers who had extraordinary, some would say impossible, claims that have been proven to be true. Here are two of my favorite examples:


Susan Lolle  claimed to find some examples of non-Mendelian inheritance in the plants she was studying. It looked like the seeds were remembering what type of environment their parents were in, which seems impossible! Other scientists tore her papers up, and pretty much openly laughed at her. She persevered, kept doing more very well designed experiments, and eventually convinced other scientists she had something. Now we understand that epigenetics is a way that DNA can remember environmental conditions. Its a very exciting and still very strange new field of genetics.


Stanley Prusiner  claimed to have isolated the cause of mad cow disease, claiming it was a protein that was misfolded that caused other proteins to also misfold. Like Lolle, Prusiner sounded crazy. How could this be possible? Through perseverance and hard scientific evidence, Prusiner proved that he was right and eventually won the Nobel Prize in medicine.


Any scientist who thinks they;ve find something extraordinary can either give up or persevere. If I found something that was unexpected in a preliminary experiment, Id redo it first. If the same thing resulted, Id talk to statisticians and experts in the field, make sure my experimental design was top notch. If I still got the strange result then Id find a well respected scientist in the same field and ask their lab to redo the experiment or at least part of it to make sure it wasnt just my lab coming up with the weird results. If it then was still happening, itd be time to publish an impressive paper in Nature or Science with my well respected colleague as a co-author.


Not following this sort of path is a major shortcoming for a lot of scientists who have found unusual things. For whatever reason, there seem to be a lot of examples of scientists finding results about genetic engineering that go against established science that don;t bother going past that initial finding. The example that first comes to mind is  Arpad Pusztai  . Why didnt he work on much better experimental designs before going to publish? Why didnt he talk to some experts in plant studies so he could have had the proper controls? He took his preliminary results from some poorly designed studies and then ran with it and now people wonder why his work isnt taken seriously. If Dr. Huber wants to be taken seriously with his ;micro fungus; claims then he needs to emulate Lolle and Prusiner, not Pusztai.


Conclusions


This letter makes very little sense both in its sheer existence and in its details. Why would a reasonably well published scientist suddenly throw away everything we know about the scientific method to make claims about biologically impossible organisms with no evidence? Why is so little evidence presented and why is the evidence that is presented given as anecdotes instead of hard science? Most importantly, why would he make claims without going through the peer review process to ensure that his claims would be at least vetted by his peers?


Multiple sites have claimed to have spoken with Dr. Huber to confirm that he did indeed write this letter, but I remain skeptical that an experienced scientist would have released something so unscientific. Someone with as much experience as Dr. Huber should know that his fellow scientists (as well as government agencies) would require at least some proof before acting on extraordinary claims. Fred Gerendasy at Cooking Up a Story, wonders if  the letter is a fraud  . Perhaps the letter is real and he knew that no one with any knowledge of biology would accept the claims, but also knew that many non-scientists would latch on to claims that confirmed their own biases without question.


Dr. Huber;s colleagues at Purdue have responded to his claims about glyphosate use and crop mineral uptake (which I describe in  Does glyphosate restrict crop mineral uptake?  ), but they are conspicuously silent on the ;micro fungus;. The absence of analysis of the ;micro fungus; claims tells me that his colleagues are politely ignoring this bizarre outburst. I would have done so as well, if it wasn;t for the prolific repetition of the claims on blogs and even news sites. It;s long past time for us to apply the  Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science  to Dr. Huber;s claims. Hopefully this post will give some balance to the discussion.













Document Number: 5510 



 Faustian Frankenpoodles Sighted 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 14 November 2010 


In the  recent debate on sustainable agriculture  , I noted that ;The likelihood of pollen from GE cotton causing harm to the environment is about as likely as a poodle escaping into the wild.;


Amidst the avalanche of comments, noone rebutted the peer-reviewed data indicating that biotechnology has already contributed to enhancing the sustainability of our farms as measured by environmental and socio-economic benefits. But there were several people who were concerned about the poodle.


Let me explain.


The farms here in the great Central Valley of California supply 50% of the nation;s fruits and vegetables. We grow many exotic species;tomatoes and corn from Central and South Americas, cotton from what is now Pakistan, safflower and alfalfa from the Near and Middle East, and rice from China. Our farms are surrounded by the blue-gray foothills of the inner coast range harboring some of the wildest land in California (where mountain lions and bears still occasionally surprise visitors).


Notably absent from these foothills are crop species. Despite the proximity of farms and foothills, none of our crops have gone wild at any point during the 150 years of farming. This is because any residual weediness in these species has been eliminated through many years of breeding and domestication. The traits that make these plants good for farmers make it impossible for them to survive in the wilderness.


Furthermore, genes from GE corn and cotton crops plants cannot be shared with the native populations nearby, because the GE crops grown here have no sexually compatible relatives in the foothills. This means that the GE species grown in this great valley are trapped. It is as if California were a large, oval-shaped, flat-bottomed platter with steep, slippery sides holding all the GE crop plants at the bottom.


But apparently the poodle is another matter. Several readers commented that poodles, once they are free from their owners, interbreed with wolves, roam in packs and threaten children.


And Joanna pointed out that Goethe;s Faust uses the poodle as a symbol of unexpected and approaching evil.


Faust: D;you see a jet-black dog now scampering wide  Through corn and stubble?


Wagner:  Him I have espied  Some time ago, but gave him not a thought.


Faust  Look closer now, with care, and say what sort  Of beast you think he is.


Wagner:  Why, Sir, a hound  Of poodle breed who snuffs his way around  To find his master


Faust:  Mark the spiral trail  With which he comes from far, yet ever nigher  Encircling us: unless my senses fail  His track is traced with little tongues of fire.


Wagner:  Some optical illusion, Sir, maybe:  He;s nothing but a poodle-dog to me.


Faust: It seems like magic tracing of a snare,  Or meshes in our future pathway spread.


Thus, I amend my statement to say, GE crops are much safer than poodles.













Document Number: 4517 



 Feature Request! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 13 January 2010 


It is time for a major update to the look and functionality of the Biofortified Blog. Prior to the Changemakers contest voting week and discussions, we added an integrated forum to the blog that I;m happy to say is getting well-used. It is helping us get an idea what issues readers want to discuss apart from what;s on the minds of the blog authors. This forum was one of our top priorities to put together, among several that Anastasia and I came up with during a telephone meeting a few months ago. What I would like to do is reiterate the things we would like to add to the blog, and see what other kinds of features readers and users would like to see.


In the coming weeks, I plan to give the blog a much-needed visual and functional update. Biofortified is run with WordPress, which allows for an enormous set of possibilities. I plan to replace the blog;s current theme with a more functional updated one that will look similar. The fading  features gallery  seen before on the blog will return, which was lost because of a conflict between the current theme and a recent wordpress update. Along the sidebar, we have added Frank;s Twitter widget, an awards section (hopeful for more!), and a Networked Blogs widget that shows who is following the blog in Facebook. With the updated theme, I will also add a much-needed ;Latest Forum Posts; section so that you don;t have to sift through the forum categories to see if people are talking about things. Of course, the recent comments and calendar are good things to have, and the tabs full of information will stay, too.


What other kinds of sidebar features have you seen on the blogs that you read that you would like to see here? (Tag cloud, Similar Posts, Google news feed;)


Now on to the other special functions and doodads we are going to include in the blog. Another great thing about WordPress if that we can quickly upload and activate plugins that give the blog new functions. There are  thousands of such plugin  s to choose from.


As has been mentioned before, we are going to include a plugin that will enable contributors who have their own blogs to have new posts automatically (or near-automatically) syndicated on Biofortified. So for those of us who blog in more than one place, this will make life easier. But for readers who have their own blogs and would like to contribute from time to time, we will be able to set you up in the plugin to be able to do so. This has the potential to greatly expand the number of bloggers who can be a part of this group blogging effort.  In fact, it might make us not only a group blog but also a blogging network! We are trying to see if the author of the  Feedwordpress plugin  will be able to modify the plugin to suit a few special needs we have that could make this process go more smoothly. Contributors could advertise their involvement with a special banner, and readers and fans could have one too. Here is one mockup.


Next, it would be great if we could make it possible for other bloggers to be able to show the latest posts on Biofortified on their sidebars. For wordpress, this is easy, as there are many  feed-reading sidebar plugins  to choose from, and we could even customize our own if we wanted to. But this leaves out bloggers without a wordpress blog. It would be great if we could make (or modify) some javascript code that will allow the latest posts (and last comment?) from the posts and comments rss feeds to be displayed on the sidebars of other sites. Here;s a mockup of what I thought it might look like. Anyone know any javascript or know someone who does? A feature like this would greatly enhance our ability to show that there is an ongoing discussion to attract readers from other blogs. Sure, we could just encourage people to subscribe to the feeds; but this would be so much cooler! Note the optimistic blog post titles in the example image!


Next, if the page on  Genetic Engineering Companies  is any indication, there is great potential in getting help from readers in adding content to the pages of the site. The quintessential model of group participation on the web is a  wiki  , would that be a good addition to Biofortified? Perhaps it could be used to build a database of terms and concepts often discussed on the blog, or going whole-hog and building a comprehensive information resource from the ground-up. The wiki could be hosted internally or on the free  Wikispot site  , which I have been involved with. Here is an  example of a wiki on genetics  that I started a couple years ago, but only got so far as to build a few basic pages and 500 placeholders for terms and concepts. A external wiki could be very useful, but it means more time spent managing the wiki and less time spent writing posts.


Then again, there is also a  wikifying plugin  for wordpress that will allow us to open up certain pages for registered users to edit on their own and build content. We could do a ;project of the month; or something to try to add batches of pages to the blog. As with all wikis, there are issues with vandalism, however, there are ways to deal with that. Do either of these wiki ideas sound like a good idea?


Speaking of adding pages, Anastasia is working on a  list of books  for the blog, and proceeds of sales will go to supporting the blog.


Anything else? Video in the sidebar? Related Posts plugin? Enhanced user profile pages? I;m open to suggestions! Feel free to get lost in the  WordPress plugin directory  ; people have all kinds of interesting ideas expressed in widget form.













Document Number: 7656 



 Fighting for science 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 21 May 2008 


Kathrin Mendler, a fourth-year agronomy student at Nrtingen-Geislingen University (HfWU), is fighting back. Her university bowed to pressure from the protest groups and announced that all trials of genetically modified plants would be stopped for the next five years. She leads a group of students calling for the school to reverse her decision,  GMO Safety  reports. The story was also reported in  NatureNews  .


The protesters have destroyed fields almost every year since 1996, when researchers at HfWU first started to study transgenic crops. One of the biggest arguments against genetic engineering is that it is untested. The students at HfWU worry that the only research on genetic engineering will be conducted by big corporations, if they can no longer research at universities. Sadly, the same has been happening in the US. The entire interview with Kathrin can be found below


GMO Safety:  In early April, GM opponents occupied a trial field at the HfWU, rendering it largely unfit for deliberate release experiments. What do you make of this type of protest?


Kathrin Mendler:  The fields were destroyed in previous years too when the maize was trampled on and pulled up after sowing. It is important for people to freely express their opinion, but I think its completely wrong to do it this way. You can find ways to put your point across without destroying other peoples property. It annoys me that they treat the property of others like this, and then maintain that it is all legal. The destruction of the trials restricts the research and then the very people who have done this are the first to complain that not enough research is being carried out in this particular field.


GMO Safety:  The occupiers of the field see their actions as a legitimate democratic means of standing up for their beliefs. They talk about peaceful protest.


Kathrin Mendler:  I wouldnt describe the destruction of fields and plants as peaceful. Ok, so it was peaceful. They didnt harm anybody. But in my view, occupying and destroying other peoples property has got nothing to do with democracy. We students were very concerned by the way the occupiers treated the field. You may have seen the pictures on the Internet. Ditches were dug around the tower to create a bike track. The soil is now heavily compacted as a result of foot traffic and vehicles. This is still a source of annoyance to many students.


GMO Safety:  The HfWU yielded to pressure from the protest groups and abandoned the research project to avoid damaging the universitys image. Can you understand the universitys position?


Kathrin Mendler:  I personally think that abandoning the research project has caused far more damage to its image. The population and even the students have never been party to the internal discussions on this subject. The public sees only that the trials have been suspended after a very short period of time just because there was a bit of opposition. And this opposition, in the form of the occupation of the field, came neither from our students, nor from local people but from all over Germany. I believe, and other students are saying the same thing, that stopping the research in these circumstances shows a lack of fortitude. On the other hand, I can sympathise with the university management. Its the same every year. Pressure from the protest groups on this occasion was particularly high, but nevertheless, the trials should not have been stopped.


GMO Safety:  Together with other students you have written an open letter to the university management. Can you describe the contents of this letter?


Kathrin Mendler:  We wanted to make it clear that we do not agree with the fact that the research is being stopped due to pressure from the occupiers of the field and some sections of society. We are convinced that universities are one of the few institutions that can conduct unbiased research on a legal basis. Although we had only very little time and Im sure we could have got more signatures, 160 of around 240 agronomy students signed the letter. And even now, two weeks after submitting the letter to the university, the whole issue is still a major topic of conversation among students. I think that shows just how important it is.


GMO Safety:  Deliberate release experiments with GM plants can no longer be conducted at the HfWU. What does this mean in practice for you as a budding agronomist?


Kathrin Mendler:  The trial cultivation in Oberboihingen was hands-on science. With Professor Schier we carried out practical experiments and could see how conventional plants were infested with fungi as a result of damage from European corn borer larvae. The genetically modified plants, on the other hand, had no corn borer damage. These plants were visibly healthier and had far fewer signs of fungal attack. I think that Professor Schier will continue to give lectures on genetic engineering because it is a key aspect of modern arable farming, but now we will only get to see pictures. It will no longer be hands-on.


GMO Safety:  This is not the first time the field trials at the HfWU have been destroyed. Does this have an effect on teaching and research?


Kathrin Mendler:  Since Ive been at the university, at least a part of the trials has been destroyed every year. This means that the trials can only be partially evaluated. Thats obviously a shame. We students would really like to know just how great the differences are between conventional and GM maize.


GMO Safety:  With the field occupations the GM opponents have put their concerns in the media spotlight and have received a lot of attention as a result. As students and future scientists, are you able to bring your arguments into the debate?


Kathrin Mendler:  No. We dont get the same attention. We sent the open letter to a few local newspapers and when we handed over of the letter, as well as the local press, there was even a regional television team present, which had broadcast several reports on the protesters a few days previously. There wasnt even a brief report on the television about our campaign, and it was only mentioned in passing in the rest of the press. And the little that was written was wrong. We have not taken a stand either for or against genetic engineering. We support the trials. And yet throughout the press it was reported that students support genetic engineering. Our statements were completely distorted. The media placed us firmly in the supporters camp, although that is completely untrue. Even students who are against genetic engineering, but in favour of the research, signed the letter.


GMO Safety:  What is your personal view of plant genetic engineering and research in this field?


Kathrin Mendler:  At the start of my studies I was completely against it. But I honestly have to admit that I had no idea what it actually entailed and in particular, how it worked. Now my whole outlook has changed somewhat. I still have doubts, but can clearly see the advantages of this technology, and thanks to my studies, I am much better informed. But I can well understand that many people harbour fears. In order to be able to allay or confirm these fears, the technology must be thoroughly researched. And this means in Germany too. This is very important. We mustnt leave other countries to do all the research. And if the core research findings are put in the public domain, we will get a quite different basis for discussion. This is something that needs to be borne in mind. Without research, we will have nothing to discuss.


GMO Safety:  Plant genetic engineering causes quite an emotional response amongst the general public. In your view, how can we deal with this topic in a more constructive way?


Kathrin Mendler:  I think that universities have a major responsibility here. Genetic engineering is a complex subject which must be made comprehensible to people so that they know what it is about and can make up their own minds. But the media plays the most significant role here, because much that is reported about genetic engineering is very one-sided. As a rule, only the risks are mentioned in the reporting and the opportunities are played down, if they are referred to at all. If society as a whole were better informed, people could discuss the subject more rationally. I think that the only way to move the genetic engineering debate forward is through close co-operation between research institutes, politics, organisations and the media.


GMO Safety:  Thank you for talking to us.













Document Number: 2972 



 First fun at MGC 2011 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 18 March 2011 


As I mentioned in my previous post, a good contingent of the Biofortified gang is here at the  2011 Maize Genetics Conference in St. Charles, Illinois  . This 3-4 day event is the 53rd conference in its long history. After I walked out of the  NCCC-167  meeting to pick up my name tag and conference book for MGC, Anastasia had just arrived and we started chatting about many of the things that have been going on with the blog, and in the world. We put up our posters (Anastasia has a research poster and one for MaizeResearch.org, and I brought our latest blog poster) and had dinner. That;s when the first awesome thing happened.


When we sat down at a table with our food, a guy named Carl sat down across from us. He took a look at our name tags and told us he knows ; and likes ; our blog. First name-recognition from the blog! We talked with him and the other members of the ad-hoc table party about what we all do, and interesting issues in genetic engineering. We learned a little about GE crop regulations and how bizarringly strict they can be sometimes.


For instance, many regulations require that every base pair in the plasmid you use to transform a GE crop be accounted for. The sequence is the easy part, however often times these circular pieces of DNA that genetic engineers use to insert a gene into a plant have been cobbled together from parts from various species to make the mature vector with all its useful parts. This is how exact it must be ; you have to be able to say where  every base  in the plasmid came from. For every A, C, T, G, however inconsequential they may be ; you have to say where it came from. If you inserted a restriction enzyme site (makes a place to cut the DNA) with PCR or some other tool, you have to list that. Any single letter unexplained, though it may be far from a gene and thus very unlikely to affect anything, could be cause for rejection. Consider that not everything in this plasmid even gets incorporated into your plant ; it seems that explaining the presence of one Thymine in a string of letters that doesn;t even get into the plant is pretty weird. Are these the things that matter most, really?


We also learned something about some of the tests required to verify aspects of GE crops for approval, such as making sure that you know where the transgene is integrated into the plant genome. Originally, an experiment called a Southern Blot was used to confirm where the gene went. Southern blots are useful for checking the length of a region of DNA in any specific place you want in the genome. If you made a blot that was specific for the place your gene popped into, you would see a size difference in your piece of DNA. It would show the original region plus the length of the DNA you inserted. Today, however, we have much more advanced tools that can be used to sequence every base pair in and around your transgene, giving far more information than the Southern Blot. But the blot is still required, and may be for a long time. It would be like having to learn a stick shift vehicle to get your license when every car is an automatic ; this also doesn;t make sense. Regulations such as these are a mix of science and politics, and what worries me is that any attempt to change things, such as removing the southern blot requirement, would immediately be framed as ;weakening; the regulations. Interesting discussion. It would be great to get a guest post from someone who has more experience with these regulations to help us all find out more about the scientific and bureaucratic details involved.


After dinner, it was time for the introduction and the first plenary talks. It is tradition at the MGC to ask everyone who is attending the conference for the first time to stand up for cheers and accolades. Then, everyone who has attended 2 or more conferences gets to stand. Then 5 or more, 10, 15, and on up to 50. Always at the top are Ed Coe and Gerry Neuffer. Ed could not make it this year, so Gerry was the last man standing. He was at the first Maize Genetics Conference as a graduate student in 1959, and has only missed two conferences in his life. That;s a whopping 51 conferences! Here is Gerry posing with Frank.


Gerry Neuffer never met an ear of corn he didn;t like


The Plenary talks that followed were interesting. The first was about the knowns and unknowns about factors that influence yield in maize, by Elizabeth Lee. Simon Chan followed with a very cool talk about changing centromeres in Arabidopsis to make the offspring of the plant inherit just half of one parent;s chromosomes and nothing else. It also had implications . Not only was it fascinating in the approach used, but the implications for being able to ;fix; hybrid vigor an/or reduce the number of plants that were screened, but it also suggested an explanation for why when you cross distantly-related species, why they might lose chromosomes from one or both of the parents, if I understood the talk correctly. Cool stuff.


Afterward, we all adjourned to the hall with all the posters to meet up with colleagues both from near and far, and have some drinks. As it was St. Patrick;s Day, one bartender was wearing leprechaun ears while serving cups of beer on the house!


The  Maize Genome Database  folks were out in full force at this time, trying to get people interested in the many genetic resources that they have on their site, and they were looking for input for a site redesign from the attendees. It was almost like a kiddie;s corner with scientists getting MaizeGDB Tattoos and rearranging website pieces on a magnetic board!


Anastasia and I both got tats on our hands to forever show our Zea mays pride. Well, at least until it rubs off.


Only badass maize geneticists wear MaizeGDB tattoos


Frank also got one and wanted to show it off in front of the  MaizeGDB  cloodle!


Frank looks fearsome with his new tat


The end of the night arrived before we managed to kill our voices ; so it was time to recharge for the next day of this marathon conference.


Friday morning had some interesting talks, some neat stuff, but this post is already getting pretty long as it is. So instead, I will just mention one talk. James Schnable, UC Berkeley grad student, blogger extraordinaire at  James and the Giant Corn  , and Biofortified contributor, gave an oral presentation in front of the entire conference. He talked about his research on the ;two genomes; in maize. In the history of this species, its chromosomes got duplicated, leaving twice as many copies of each gene. Over time, some of the duplicate genes from these two genomes got lost, as things got scrambled around over innumerable generations. James used Sorghum, a close relative of maize that did not have this duplication event happen, to piece together the history of these genes and where they all went. Awesomeness! Very good job.


It is almost time for lunch now, so I will leave it at that. During the conference, we will be adding more photos to our  Flickr photo album  as we can. They will also appear here in our  on-site photo album  . There;s lots more science to come, and hopefully we can get more of this out to you than ever before!


This afternoon, we will be at the poster session to talk about our projects. If you are at the conference and want to come find us, Anastasia will be at her research poster (#263) from 1:30-3 pm, and her MaizeResearch.org poster (#196) from 3-4:30. Frank and I will be at the Biofortified poster (#299) from 1:30-3 pm ready to tell all about the blog and see if anyone wants to be a star and pose with Frank.













Document Number: 5939 



 Flooded out 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 15 June 2008 


It;s official. I won;t be able to plant any maize this year. My field seemed to be be ok at first, but now the flooding has spread. We can;t even get to the field because the road is flooded as well. I can;t tell you how happy I am that we waited to plant ; if we had rushed, all of the seeds would have drowned. This image of what used to be a cornfield and is now a lake was taken by me on Thursday at about 9:30am. For more, see my Facebook  album  (no login required).  The field might dry out next week, but it;s really too late to plant because we;re almost past the summer solstice. The maize seedlings need to experience lengthening of days before shortening of days or they don;t grow properly. So, plan B is the greenhouse, where I can control day length with lamps.  I;ve narrowed down my experiments to one: maize hemoglobin. Hopefully I;ll get enough grain to do some iron bioavailability experiments. Here I am posing with my entire ;cornfield; for 2008, planted on Friday. My big experiment using GFP as a selectable marker will just have to wait until next year. Hopefully it won;t delay my degree too much.  I;ve planted 18 seeds each from 13 transgenic events which I will test for presence of the transgene (cisgene, actually) via PCR at the second leaf stage. Hopefully, I;ll get 6 positive plants from each event. I;ll transfer these to the big black pots you see in the back, and will cross 2 of each event to 3 inbreds ; Mo17, B73, and B101. Once I have grain, I;ll be able to see if the gene of interest has the intended effect no matter what the event and genetic background are. I;ll also look to see if the transgene has any effect on normal seed storage proteins.  It;s funny (and frustrating); a friend offered his mother;s farmland as a dry place to plant, but I;ve gotta stick to regulation. All planting locations and procedures must be approved in advance for transgenic corn that has not yet been deregulated, regardless of what it is. I had to say no thank you to my friend, even though I know how to contain 99% of the pollen and  GFP  is  GRAS  anyway.  Incidentally, I recently found the  List for Field Test Releases in the US  for regulated genetically modified plants, which of course includes all of the plants I;m working on. I had no idea that this list existed, and found it entirely by accident when I was looking for the molecular weight of maize hemoglobin.













Document Number: 6079 



 Food, Farming and Genetics in Korea 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 14 August 2010 


Korea has a 5000 year history of food and farming. How much can a nine-year old and her mother learn on a two week visit to this  land of miracles  ?


For the first few nights we stayed in a tiny room in a traditional Korean house called a ;Hanok; house. There is a courtyard that everyone shares that the owners have filled with lots of stuff including a rabbit named Mimi. In this quiet place, one can imagine ancient times before the rebirth of this powerful nation that was almost totally destroyed by the Korean war (1950-1953). Now, although most cities are dominated by massive buildings and congestion and where many restaurants are run by industry giants such as Samsung and Hyundai, a quieter life and traditional foods can still be found in the alleyways and countryside.


Our first night there, Audrey got up in the middle of the night to sit in the courtyard in the pouring rain. When the lightening got too fierce and frightening she returned to our futon put her head on the buckwheat pillow and slept so soundly that her jet lag was over with the first night.


The diet staple here is rice. According to the  FAO  , 47% of the total caloric intake in Korea were supplied by rice in 1965. These percentages decreased to 35% in 1995, due to incorporation of other foods in the diet. We have seen many beautiful farms with rice paddies, ginseng, peppers and soybean as well as massive acres of greenhouses tucked between industrial areas.


Here is a sampling of some of the foods we have tasted so far.


Thick slices of roasted potatoes  Chicken on a stick  Marinated dried fish with sesame and chiles  Radish and cabbage kimchi  HOT marinated peppers  Amaranth greens  Fiddlhead fern  Mung bean sprouts  Minature sardines  Acorn curd with cucumbers and carrots and sweet onions in sesame sauce  Soy curd in a spicy sauce  Tofu with 2 kind of mushrooms and greens in broth with several kinds of shellfish  marinated sesame leaves, marinated  A dark delicious vegetable green, probably from greens dried from previous season  different kinds of kimchi made from cabbage, radish or cucumbers  pumpkins, either fried or baked  Japchae sweet potato noodles mixed with sauteed vegetable  Rice  Bibimbap, a rice dish of mushrooms and vegetable and sauce  Bomandu, dumplings with onion, garlic and sesame inside  various stews with mushrooms, seaweed, green peppers, tofu  Different types of ;jeon;: Savory Korean pancakes


I watched a cooking demonstration by Paul Schenk to learn how the mung bean pancakes that are made. He began by soaking the mungbeans and a little rice for a few hours, blending the mixture to a batter, frying and adding green onions and green peppers marinated in sesame oil, garlic, sesame seeds and soysauce. ;Jeon; is usually topped with pork or kimchi.


Drinks:  Unfiltered rice wine (makgeolli) is made through the fermentation of a mixture of boiled rice and nuruk with water. Nuruk is a fermentation starter made from grains, Aspergillus, Rhizopus and yeasts. For a great site on the history of fermentation in Asia see the  FAO


Another fantastic fermented drink is made from plums-one of the best drinks I have ever tasted.  And then there is the 100 species fermented drink that Dr. An prepared for us  Bamboo tea


Many types of green teas, can be purchased from small shops such as this one.


Desserts:  Fresh peaches  Yakshik, steamed sticky rice with pinenuts  Korean donuts with cinnamon and honey  Rice cakes rolled in bean powder  Walnut shortbread  Ginko nuts  Roasted chestnus  Golden kiwi  White melon (yellow and white skin)  Grapes  Pine nut and walnut cakes with sweetened bean paste. I took a picture of the machine that makes this fabulous treat.


The entry to traditional restaurant in Insadong, Seoul:


and the full table of food:


My nine year old daughter is more interested in finishing the 7th book of Harry Potter rather than sampling the food. For Audrey;s take on this trip, check out  her blog  .













Document Number: 7866 



 Food is fundamental, fun, frightening, and far-reaching 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 September 2010 


Food Is Frightening  Paul Rozin  ; The frightening part of food, in the past, was largely the prospect of no food. There were also the possibilities of foods contaminated by micro-organisms or with high levels of toxins. A few things have happened in the middle to late 20th century that have turned the tables on food.


First, in the developed world, we now have an excess of food. The worry has shifted from having too little to eat, to having too much.


Second, the technology of food manufacture has allowed for an exquisite variety of highly palatable foods. The human biological urge for sweets, and probably fats, can be indulged with foods that are higher in both than any in nature.


Third, advances in microbiology and nutrition, often implemented by government regulations make the food supply very low in toxins or harmful micro-organisms. Nutritional supplementation and guidelines make it relatively difficult to consume a seriously imbalanced diet.


Fourth, as a result of what is sometimes called the epidemiological revolution, infectious and other acute diseases have been greatly reduced in incidence, and can be cured in the great majority of cases. The result of this has been a substantial increase in human longevity, and a shift from acute infectious to chronic degenerative diseases as the main cause of death.


Fifth, information about the health effects of different patterns of food intake, and different foods, has become widely available, through the media. These results are frequently reported, ;as they happen,; on the basis of single experimental or epidemiological studies. This availability of information has not been accompanied by education of the public on risks and benefits, basic concepts of probability, and on the gradual and rocky road, in science, from ignorance to knowledge. Hence, the public often takes findings to be facts.


This has led, at least among Americans, to frequent new concerns about particular dietary items, and has promoted tendencies to ignore it all, or to overact to it all, or to develop simplifying heuristics that take the uncertainty out of every bite. One unfortunate heuristic is that foods are either good are bad for health. The level of intake drops out of the equation. Thus, a substantial percent of Americans think of fat and salt as toxins; even a trace of each in food is considered unhealthy (Rozin, Ashmore, and Markwith, 1996). This belief establishes a goal that is both extremely unhealthy, and unattainable.


So, in modern life in the food world, we have many more opportunities for pleasure, and many more perceived opportunities for harm. Food is both a pleasure and a poison. In the balance of these beliefs lies much of the quality of life, and something of the quality of health, as well. It is my perception that the American upper and upper-middle classes have gone too far toward the poison end of the dimension, in their excessive worries about body weight, calories, the presence of toxins in foods, and the proper diet to maximize health. Every bite, for some people, is fraught with conflict. Many Americans, especially women, would seem to be willing to give up eating, one of our greatest pleasures, rather than face the battle between pleasure and poison with every bite. This is less illustrated by the explosion of anorexia and bulimia among American women, than by their ;normative discontent; (Rodin, Silberstein, and Striegel-Moore, 1985) about weight, body image, eating, and food. Thus, for example, in a recent survey of college students on six campuses across the United States, over 10% of women claim that they would be embarrassed to buy a chocolate bar in the store, and about 30% say they would be willing to opt for a nutrient pill, safe, nutritionally complete, and cheap, as a substitute for eating (Rozin, Catanese, and Bauer, 1999). These American phenomena are primarily expressed in individuals of upper-middle and upper classes, and serve to further increase class differences among Americans; we are creating a health as well as wealth aristocracy (Leichter 1997).;


From


Rozin (1999) P. Rozin, Food is fundamental, fun, frightening, and far-reaching, Social Research 66 (1) (1999), pp. 930.


Review of the book  The&nbsp;Hungry&nbsp;Soul  , by Leon Kass.













Document Number: 4792 



 Food price rises finally hit home in mainstream media 


 by  David Tribe  on 2 April 2011 


Global end of year grain stocks as percentage of global consumption (graph from Helbling and Roache)


Going up: food prices set to soar  by Richard Webb. The Sunday Age, Melbourne. April 3, 2011


;Higher world prices for commodities such as wheat and sugar will place pressure on related food prices;, says the Reserve Bank of Australia. With global food prices at record highs, a supermarket war isn;t enough to keep prices down;


;In Europe, rising food prices are cited as one of the main reasons why the European Central Bank may lift interest rates at its meeting this week despite growing debt problems among the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain).


Countries such as Algeria and Saudi Arabia have been stockpiling wheat and Bangladesh and Indonesia rice to enable them to contain panic buying, inflation and social unrest, while Russia and Ukraine have introduced grain export restrictions. In India, food price inflation is running at an annual 15 per cent and the price of onions has doubled in a year, while Pakistan has stopped some exports of onions to India in a bid to tame its own onion prices.


The rising cost of food is a huge problem in China, helping push annual inflation to 4.9 per cent in February as workers move from rural areas to the cities and lift their living standards and basic food consumption (particularly protein).


Richards Webb;s article cites the IMF food price index which is available on the web:


Rising Prices on the Menu  by Thomas Helbling and Shaun Roache. Finance and Development, March 2011, Vol. 48, No. 1. (PDF version available, also see their references section for more information)


AROUND the world, poor weather has reduced harvests and driven up food prices, fueling inflation risks and hitting the most vulnerable. Floods in Australia, Pakistan, and parts of India have helped push up the cost of food, as have droughts in China, Argentina, and Eastern Europe. Energy prices are again on the rise, with likely knock-on effects for food.


Trendline for real food prices since 1900 (graph from Helbling and Roache)


Readers can also turn to earlier GMO Pundit Posts, such as:


What Everyone Needs to Know about the Economics and Politics of Food, and Even More


What Everyone Needs to Know about the huge topic of Food Fights


What should we have for dinner? versus Will there be anything for dinner?













Document Number: 4722 



 Food security discussed at Vatican conference 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 November 2010 


Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development  - Proceedings of a Study Week invited by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican City, May 15-19, 2009  A joint publication of the invited participants of the Study Week as an open source Volume of NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY of Elsevier and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences


Food security ; sufficient nutritious food at all times to live a healthy and productive life ; is one of the prime challenges for mankind. On the background of the public debate about the potential contribution from transgenic plants and the interest of the Vatican in the this challenge, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was inviting an interdisciplinary group of independent public sector scientists, known for their scientific rigor and their engagement in social justice, to analyze the peer- reviewed state of science about transgenic plants and to explore the conditions under which the obvious potential of this technology could be made available in a better way for public good and the poor.  In summary, the program of the study week was designed (a) to present the potential of plant genetic engineering to contribute to food security, (b) to analyze the causes for the obvious exclusion of the public sector and projects from the delivery of public goods and (c) to develop concepts how to improve the situation to the benefit of the poor. The participants represented a wide and interdisciplinary range of scientific disciplines including philosophy, theology, political science, economy, agricultural law, agricultural economics, development economics, intellectual property rights, botany, ecology, plant pathology, evolution, botany, microbiology, agriculture, crop science, biochemistry, molecular biology, biotechnology, food safety, biosafety, and regulation.


Against this background the program of the study week was organized into the following sections,  http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-Studyweek-Elsevier/Summary-Study-Week-Potrykus-2010.pdf


About the organizers and participants:  Prof. Dr. em. Ingo Potrykus ingo@potrykus.ch was the organizer of the study week; Mons. Prof. Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences was inviting the 41 participants to Vatican City. Prof. Dr. em. Klaus Ammann klaus.ammann@ips.unibe.ch was the editor of the proceedings, together with Prof. em. Ingo Potrykus


List of participants including email addresses of the contributors:  http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-Studyweek-Elsevier/Participants-List-english-email.pdf  The program and scientific contributions of the Study Week  Program of the May 2009 meeting with abstracts, invitation by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2009/booklet_transgenic_34.pdf  Full bibliography (including open source links) of published papers and statements:  http://www.ask-force.org/web/Vatican-PAS-Studyweek-Elsevier-publ-20101130/PAS-Studyweek-NBT-20101130.pdf   Preliminary Remarks  - Werner Arber, New Biotechnology, Volume 27, Number 5, November 2010  www.elsevier.com/locate/nbt&nbsp; (Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 50-70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland)


During the 400 years of its existence, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has carried out its statutory goals by employing various approaches. In the words of its 1976 reformed Statutes, it ;organises meetings to promote the progress of sciences and the solution of important scientific problems;and promotes scientific investigations and research which can contribute, in the appropriate places, to the exploration of moral, social and spiritual problems;.  Inspired by this idea, in October 1982 the Pontifical Academy held a Study Week on Modern Biological Experimentation. In this meeting, Professor J. Schell gave a paper on Gene Transfers into Plants as a Natural and Experimental Phenomenon. On this occasion, John Paul II addressed the participants with these words: ;I wish to recall, along with the few cases which I have cited that benefit from biological experimentation, the important advantages that come from the increase of food products and from the formation of new vegetal species for the benefit of all, especially people most in need;.  The Holy Father John Paul II, who was well aware of what Paul VI called the tragedy of world hunger, concluded his message by asking God ;to direct the application of scientific research to the production of new food supplies, since one of the greatest challenges that humanity must face, together with the danger of nuclear holocaust, is the hunger of the poor of this world;.  Encouraged by the Pope;s message, in the Jubilee Year 2000 the Academy drafted its first Statement on Genetically Modified Food Plants to Combat Hunger in the World, which was then published in 2004. Ten years after this first Statement, the Council of the Academy, led by myself and counting on such authoritative members as Ingo Potrykus and Peter Raven, decided to update it with the meeting we are presenting in this volume. It is particularly significant that the new Statement was then signed by all the participants. It is our hope that this new effort will serve to clarify an issue which can undoubtedly and decisively contribute to solving the growing problem of world hunger.  The general view  Individual life times and population densities of any kind of living beings depend to a large extent on the availability of food, or in other words on food security. In archaeological times, humans found their nutrition as gatherers and hunters. About 10,000 years ago, our ancestors started to collect seeds and other plant materials from their preferred food plants.  Agriculture then took its start by deliberate planting of the collected materials, growing the new plants up and harvesting their products. This neolithic or food-producing revolution must have taken place independently at different locations on the planet, both in the Old and in the New World. This cultural development allowed the human population to transform from small local or migrating tribes to larger, often resident communities which eventually developed into technologically advanced nations.  A number of factors including food security contributed at various stages of this development to limit the ongoing population expansion.  A wide geographic exploration of our planet in the last millennium led stepwise to beneficial exchange of agricultural crops between continents of the Old and the New World. For example, Europe profited tremendously from the introduction of potatoes, tomatoes and maize from the Americas, while the New World introduced wheat, barley and rice, among other agricultural crops, from the Old World. None of these mass implantations led to serious ecological problems. As a result, food security generally improved and allowed the human population to continue to grow.  For a long time, agricultural management improved food security stepwise, largely through learning by doing and by learning from each other. Breeding methods became introduced and led to the selection of agricultural crops with higher yields and sometimes with higher nutritional values. It is mainly in the last century that increasing scientific knowledge and science-based technologies started to contribute to the improvement of food security, at least in parts of our planet. The green revolution boosted this development.  In the meantime scientific knowledge has tremendously increased, largely by the introduction of novel research strategies. Genomics, proteomics and metabolomics provide us with a rich scientific basis to understand better the sources and nutritional values of the products of many of our common food crops. In addition, research strategies, such as genetic engineering, have become available and can allow one to attempt experimentally to improve nutritional values and yields of food products. Site-directed mutagenesis of inherited genetic information and recombinant DNA techniques introducing carefully selected foreign genetic information into the genome of an agricultural target crop have recently become routine methodologies to reach envisaged improvements.  Thanks to the set of actually available research strategies, selected products of such improvements can be assessed for their genetic setups and functional phenotypes before their introduction into the environment. In contrast to earlier practices, such as conventional plant improvement methodologies, today;s molecular biological research strategies can confidently allow the researcher to obtain the envisaged genomic and functional abilities without introducing other, unexpected alterations into the developed product.  There is no justification to assume that carefully carried out and controlled genetic engineering would principally go along with conjectural risks. Rather, molecular methodologies provide to the researcher highly secure and responsible approaches to improve crop properties such as higher nutritional values and improved health of the plant itself.  The good news given here can contribute to render agricultural practices more secure and also more sustainable. We must be aware, however, that the carrier capacity for agricultural crops is limited on our planet.  Any longterm improvement of worldwide food security has to go hand in hand with a responsible and sustainable parenthood, together with the safeguard of the naturally given rich environmental diversity.













Document Number: 3705 



 Forbidden Fruit: Genetically Engineered crops in New Zealand 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 4 April 2011 


I walked into the gleaming ;Orchard in a box;, a closed greenhouse where no pollen can flow outside. The apple was red, red, red inside and out and I wanted it. But because I was in New Zealand, where experimenting with genetically engineered food is highly regulated, tasting was banned.


How was this forbidden fruit created? By overexpression of an apple transcription factor in the white-fleshed, tasty Royal Gala variety. The transcription factor was isolated from an apple that has both red flesh and red skin, that occurs in Central Asia. However, these apples are normally quite bitter tasting so some genetic manipulation was needed to create a new variety that was red but had good flavor.


The GE apple carries at least 5000x more anthocyanins than the Royal Gala.  The work was led by Andrew Allan at  Plant ; Food Research  , a non-profit research institute in New Zealand. Richard Espley, a molecular biologist at Plant ; Food Research, was named one of the MacDiarmid Young Scientists of the Year for his work in apple genetics. The Plant and Food scientists are also trying to develop a red-fruited Royal Gala using marker assisted breeding but do not yet have a commercially viable product.


Take a look at this great video describing their work:


By the way, if I had not been able to resist temptation, and had bit into the apple (without approval from ERMA, the Regulatory Authority) then I would have faced prison and/or a personal fine of $500,000 and the Institute would have been fined $10 million. The researchers did attempt to get permission but after two years of waiting and application costs of around $18,000, they gave up and flew to California (known widely for our permissive culture) for a taste-testing instead. The result? The apples were delicious and the researchers survived to tell the tale.


While in New Zealand, I also gave a public lecture at the  Royal Society  in Wellington. I spoke about the science behind seed development (GE, marker assisted breeding, mutageneis, hybridization etc) and made the point, which every farmer knows well, that seed is only part of the story. Farming practices are equally important, especially when it comes to caring for the land and reducing loss to insects and disease. I included examples from the US where GE has enhanced goals of sustainable agriculture (BT cotton, GE papayas, etc). I received many good questions including:


Can insect evolve resistance to BT? (answer: yes they can evolve resistance to both sprayed BT and genetically engineered BT. In both cases integrated pest management approaches are critical to delay resistance).


Does GE interfere with a farmer;s ability to manage a complex farm ecosystem? (Answer: yes if he/she relies only on the seed and ignores farming practices).


Do the high regulatory costs prevent growers in NZ from accessing the technology? (answer: yes. Regulatory costs are so high that it is difficult for breeders working in the public domain on small acreage crops to commercialize new varieties).


Is Bt cotton safe for the environment (answer: yes. Scientific reviews over 50 years of use have concluded that Bt is safe for the environment and human health. Organic growers have been using it for 50 years with no ill-effects).


How can you be sure that GE cotton reduces insecticide use? (answer: Because growers use fewer synthetic insecticides. This has been extensively documented in the scientific literature).


A few audience members were not pleased with my presentation and said so very often and very loudly until the moderator intervened and asked them to sit down so others could ask questions. More on this below the fold.


You can hear more about genetics and sustainable agriculture by tuning into my  interview with Kim Hill of Radio New Zealand  . This was one of the most fun interviews I have ever done- Kim has tremendous energy, fantastic facial expressions and asks good questions.


If you cannot get enough of this debate. you can also check out  my interview with the US Ambassador  , read articles published in the  New Zealand Herald  and in the  Dominion Post  . There were a few  letters to the editor  , too.


And for a more amusing take on the subject check out  this article  , which suggests Raoul and I are as odd a couple as Felix Unger and Oscar Madison.


On the visit, I learned a lot about how talented NZ scientists are innovating to advance the sustainability of their own farming systems.  Pastoral genomics  , a New Zealand research consortium for forage genetics, has developed drought tolerant rye grass (85% of the pasture land is NZ is seeded with a mixture of ryegrass and clover). Planting of this GE grass is predicted to extend the grazing season a few more weeks. This would reduce the use of supplemental palm kernel feed. (Full disclosure my trip was sponsored by Pastoral genomics).


It seems enhanced nitrogen use efficiency would also be quite useful for sheep farmers. Now, many New Zealanders use quite a bit of synthetic fertilizer which runs off into streams. Any reduction would enhance the sustainability of the grazing system, an important component of NZ agriculture.


There are also insects and diseases infecting potatoes (  psyllid  ), clover (clover root weevil, grass grub and clover mosaic virus) and kiwi fruits (  Pseudomonas  ) that are currently difficult to control that are subject of scientific investigation.


My talk in Wellington included the idea that GE crops could be useful for enhancing agricultural sustainability for some farmers in some countries in some instances (eg. my examples included GE papaya and GE cotton). This fairly benign statement led to  a press release  suggesting that I was a stealth agent of the US government and had been ;internationally discredited;. For proof, you need only look at Wikileaks.


Who knew?


In response to their strangely jumbled press release, they received several comments on their blog:


;I too was at Professor Ronald;s presentation yesterday and thought her message was clear ; that the focus should be on the outcome we are trying to achieve in terms of sustainability and that, once we have defined that, THEN lets look at the tools at our disposal to achieve this. These ;tools; could be from organics, conventional or from new technologies such as GE ; or a combination.


Her other message (which she made repeatedly) was that when debating the use of technologies you have to be very specific about what plant or growing system you;re talking about. To say ;GE is bad; or ;organics won;t produce enough to feed the world; is all too easy ; and wrong. GE cotton has allowed for the halving of pesticide use for that crop ; and some organic crops are highly productive.


What was clear is that those purporting to represent the organic industries in the room found this fairly balanced suggestion difficult to accept. I felt their philosophical blinkers were well and truly in place. This was a pity as one of Prof Ronald;s other messages was that to create truly sustainable agriculture all parties have to come to the table and talk.


And lastly Professor Ronald is married to Raoul Adamchak ; a long time organic farmer and teacher of organic production at Davis University in California ; who co-authored the book ;Tomorrow;s Table;. It;s worth a read as it sets out far more clearly than this comment or Mr Brownings comments above, what Prof Ronald and Raoul Adamchak are trying to say; ;


And here is another Anonymous comment:


;It seems strange to me that Mr Browning above, speaking for Soil ; Health ; Organic NZ and it seems for everyone in New Zealand with an interest in organics could be so closed minded.


These seem to be reasonable and rational points to discuss ; i.e. what is the best approach and maybe it is not simply one or the other ; at least discussing it rather than sticking our heads in the sand might achieve some common understanding. It was good to see that the Royal Society was open minded enough to invite all sides of the spectrum for the discussion.


Born a few thousand years ago Mr Browning probably would have also spoken out against traditional hybrids and cross pollination of plants too and possibly the advances of medical science and the notion that the world was round and not flat!;


Thank you, anonymous commenters, for setting the record straight.













Document Number: 3896 



 Forces of antiscience 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 31 October 2009 


During the Changemakers contest, several parallels came up between the people who have extreme anti-genetic engineering views, and several other flavors of antiscience.  Comments  on PZ Myers;  blog  compared the often religious-like responses of certain groups to the technology, and indeed the ludicrous reaction of GM Watch in particular, to creationist tactics against evolutionary biology. On the other hand, on Orac;s medical blog,  he made the comparison  between those groups and the Alternative Medicine crowd, including and especially the Anti-vaccination groups. It is fascinating to note that politically, the creationist version of antiscience is conservative, and the anti-vax version is generally liberal. But they share a commonality in that science is rejected as the best means of obtaining knowledge, and something else, be it political or religious ideology takes its place and dictates the facts.


I thought it would be a good idea to write a post detailing several of them, and then Steve Savage at Sustainablog went and did it for me. Check out  The Bizarre, Modern Coalition of Anti-Science Forces  . He didn;t cover every kind, but he delves into several of them including anti-GE forces, anti-global warming activities, and the antiscience-of-the-year, it seems, Anti-vaccination. In the comments section a reader confirms exactly what he is talking about.


In the blog discussions that ensued while the voting went on, a few fights broke out over one issue or another, but a very strong sentiment was expressed by several people ; they had some reservations about one aspect of genetic engineering or another, and felt that the accusations of ;antiscience; were unfairly being applied to them. Perhaps there was a bit of miscommunication going on.


To be  antiscience  on a particular topic, for one reason or another you reject solid knowledge derived through the scientific method in favor of some other satisfying belief. Saying that ;scientists were wrong once on nutrition so I shouldn;t believe what they say now,; is an antiscience sentiment. A person who says this clearly expresses that they believe that they have just as much of a chance of being right or wrong if they ignore the science as if they listen to it.


Saying that ;I have concerns about the social impact of this technology, or about intellectual property rights issues; is not an antiscience sentiment. It is a statement about values and their concern for how those play out in an issue. Nor is having a disagreement about a particular scientific detail necessarily a mark of antiscience. Certainly, not everyone who doesn;t like genetic engineering is antiscience ; but some people are.


In practice, sometimes it can be hard to distinguish antiscience from other concerns about science. What do we make of someone that argues that we don;t know enough about the long-term consequences of say, GE crops, to consider them safe to eat? How much is enough? Do they have a clear idea of how much that will be and will put that on the table to be convinced, or each time a more detailed study comes out will they move the goalposts even further?


How about this one. Recently, Greenpeace India campaigned for Nestle to promise never to have GE ingredients in their products in India. On the  FAQ page of safefoodnow  , a Greenpeace campaign site, they made this claim:


Greenpeace believes that GM food cannot be introduced until every stringent scientific test has established that they are 100% safe.


This is at the very least an unscientific statement. If there is one thing to know about science it is that it NEVER deals with 100% certainty: science deals with data from which we calculate statistics and form conclusions. No scientific study ever finds that something is 100% anything, so what they are effectively saying here is that science must prove something that in essence it cannot. Does this reveal an antiscience position? I am reminded of creationists that often say there must be one more transitional fossil before they accept evolution, only to ask for further more when one is discovered.


You could go to their FAQ page to read this statement in its context, but after  I quoted it in a discussion at Genetic Maize  , this telling statement disappeared from the Greenpeace site. Thanks to the  Ecology to Economics  blog for copying the entire thing, and I will reproduce it here so it won;t disappear down the memory hole again.


So what do you want me to do?  On August 2009, Greenpeace India wrote to about 20 major food companies in the country and asked them to declare their stand on GMs publicly. While some of them had a policy on GMs such as MTR, the others did not even reply to us! We have collated all this information for you and put it together in our safe food guide. You can find it at www.safefoodnow.org. It will give you a quick snapshot of the GE free food brands in this country. You can even download it from our site and print it to take it along with you the next time you go grocery shopping. You will also find detailed information and other resources on this site. You have every right as a consumer to ask all then companies to declare what they are putting in your food.  And what about Nestle?  Global food giant Nestle India, wrote back to Greenpeace saying that they are in favor of using GM technology in food!  Greenpeace believes that GM food cannot be introduced until every stringent scientific test has established that they are 100% safe.  Second, it should be completely the choice of the person who eats it to know what they are eating and to reject GE products if they want to. Therefore, we are running a campaign right now urging Nestle India to initiate, formulate and strictly enforce a GM free policy in this country.  You cannot become a lab rat for these experiments in food!


I have also just found a textbook example of antiscience with regard to genetic engineering. In an article titled,  Why Do GM Scientists Lie?  by Devinder Sharma, he suggests that there is a global network of ;liars; known as, well, scientists.


E  very time I meet an agricultural scientist, especially those who are engaged in Genetic Engineering, I am shocked at the blatant manner in which they lie. They are not even remotely ashamed of telling a lie, although they know they are not speaking the truth.  I thought telling a lying was a prerogative of the agricultural scientists alone. But over the past few years I am noticing that molecular geneticists, whether they work for the Royal Society in London or Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi or even the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, have picked up the art (or should I say science) of lying, and that too right through their nose.  Genetic Engineering has surely come of age. It has become synomenous with lying.


Questioning the integrity of individual scientists is one thing, but now he is questioning the whole scientific enterprise. My humble suggestion is that maybe ;  just maybe  ; if the information being provided by agricultural scientists across the world does not square up with your personal beliefs, that perhaps your personal beliefs are wrong. A consensus amongst scientists about solutions to global food issues is a lot more parsimonious than assuming a global consensus of lying scientists!


It is not just agricultural scientists that are his target, he really does mean science as a whole. After spending some time  misreading the Royal Society  , he lays down the punchline:


I am so glad my children did not pick up science in their graduation.


This is little different from what we might hear from a young-earth creationist, or an ;Al Gore is in on the climate conspiracy; global warming denier. When science is seen as a threat to something you hold to be true, the choice is often to attack science itself as the enemy.


Not everyone who is skeptical of genetic engineering is antiscience, nor are they necessarily anti-technology. Nor is someone who is in favor of it necessarily pro-science or pro-technology. Many just have not spent the time understanding the science in its proper context, and still more have issues not with the science but with the social, economic, or philosophical implications of it.


In what forms have you seen antiscience in the debate over geneic engineering? What other common patterns do you see between its different forms? Or does the antiscience label instead apply to  very few of the partisans  and should be  used very sparingly  in this discussion because it alienates moderates? On the other hand, we know that real antiscience beliefs influence people, so would ignoring their existence be even worse?













Document Number: 688 



 Framing agriculture 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 16 December 2009 


Abut 2 weeks ago, I had a conversation on Twitter with  Liz  of  Hyperlocavore  about whether biotechnology could possibly fit into sustainable agriculture. I wrote a  forum post  about it on Biofortified but the ideas hadn;t quite come to full fruition. Well, I;ve had a little time to mull the ideas over and the motivation of achieving a decent grade in Foundations in Sustainable Agriculture. The result is the following paper about framing agriculture in different ways, and how those frames might hold us back from achieving a truly sustainable agriculture. Let me know what you think!


New ways of looking at agriculture


Analytical frameworks can be helpful in putting peoples ideas about agriculture, and indeed many other things, into context. In Integrating Sustainability into Agricultural Education, Wals and Bawden (2005, p. 30-32) describe dichotomous ways to see the world. Academics like Wals and Bawden and their predecessors and successors invent and use analytical frameworks to help describe ways of thinking. These frameworks, based on philosophical theory, are artificial divisions. No single one of them is right or correct, theyre just different ways to describe the same things. Nonetheless, it can be very helpful to categorize the ways that people frame the world around them. If we work to understand the frameworks that people use to view agricultural problems and solutions, we might be better able to communicate with people that have frameworks that differ from our own. Improved communication and collaboration between academics and activists, scientists and farmers in sustainable and conventional agriculture would be of great use to each person involved, to consumers, and to the environment.


While understanding these conceptual divisions can be very helpful, they are also holding each of us back. In order to achieve truly sustainable agriculture, we must all learn how to look past the frameworks that we impose on ourselves and look for ways that nature can guide us instead. For example, conventional farmers are often unwilling to make changes that might make their farms more sustainable. Part of the resistance is financial, because some changes require the purchase of new equipment, but part of the resistance is also emotional and tied to the mental frameworks that they have about agriculture. Similarly, organic farmers and other non-conventional farmers are more likely to take advice from non-conventional sources because their mental frameworks are often quite different from those of conventional sources such as extension agents (Eckert, 2005).


In this paper, I will examine two sets of opposing frameworks as described by Wals and Bawden (2005, p. 30-32): relativism and objectivism, and holism and reductionism. Specifically, Ill apply these frameworks to agriculture, with the goal of showing that a better understanding of how these concepts frame our thinking and the thinking of those around us might result in a better, more sustainable, agriculture. Finally, Ill show how better understanding of the different frameworks people might have towards a specific method can affect whether the method is considered sustainable.


Relativism and Objectivism: How do we know what we know?


Relativism and objectivism are both epistemologies, or ways of knowing knowledge. In the case of agriculture, the knowledge in question is knowledge of nature. Relativism is the idea that we understand reality only in the context of our own consciousness (Wals and Bawden, 2005). Taken a step further, relativism is a way of knowing that depends on our past or current experiences, and that depends on things that we are made aware of through our own senses. Objectivism is the idea that reality exists and can be understood separately from our own consciousness (Wals and Bawden, 2005). In other words, knowledge in an objectivist epistemology contains universal truths that are unaffected by our personal experiences or sensory input, even though these are often the methods through which we understand reality.


Epistemology is closely related to methodology, the methods we use to gain knowledge about the world around us (Trochim, 2006a). In agriculture, there are many ways, or methods, to gain knowledge about a farm. Soil quality can be determined by feeling its texture in your hand and smelling its earthy richness. Its quality could also be determined by collecting soil samples and sending them to a lab to have various properties analyzed. The well-being of animals can be measured by how many offspring they produce. Their well-being can also be determined by how friendly they are, or by how frequently they play with their siblings. These different methods of gaining knowledge may be characterized as either qualitative or quantitative.  Qualitative methods look at a phenomenon in its greater context while quantitative methods examine distinct parts of a phenomenon (Trochim, 2006b). In many ways, qualitative methods depend on a relativist worldview; a qualitative researcher may become immersed in the phenomenon of study, examining a phenomenon through their own experiences and senses. Quantitative methods and researchers are more aligned with an objectivist worldview, in that they begin with the assumption that there is an ultimate reality that may be broken down into parts and studied. An example within agriculture might be the study of agricultural workers on different types of farms. A qualitative study might examine in depth the life histories of selected groups of workers and use this information to tell a story about their working conditions within the greater context of the workers lives. A quantitative study might involve a questionnaire that asked employers of farm workers to report quantitative characters, such as how many employees they have, how much the employees are paid, and so on.


Relativism, as in contextual and personal ways of knowing, and qualitative study, as in information gathering that considers the larger system, are generally associated with sustainable agriculture. Meadows explains her idea of relativism, which she calls systems thinking, as an acknowledgement of the uncertainty inherent in systems. An objectivist point of view implies that all knowledge is knowable, if we know how to measure it. Uncertainty is simply due to inaccuracy in measurement. The relativist point of view, on the other hand, implies that there is no essential knowledge to know, because reality is always changing based on the context in which we view things. This changing, or dancing, as Meadows calls it, can only be examined through flexible models that are constantly redesigned as the system changes.


Holism and Reductionism: What is the Nature of Nature?


Along with epistemology, ontology can provide useful distinctions in the way we frame the world around us (Wals and Bawden, 2005). Ontology is the study of the nature of reality, including the ways that reality might be divided or grouped. A holist perspective claims that an entity (concept, phenomenon, process, etc.) can not be divided into parts. If an entity is divided into parts, those parts do not in sum have all the properties that existed in the whole entity. Properties that are present in the entity but not in the parts are called emergent properties. A reductionist perspective claims that an entity can be divided into parts and that the properties of an entity are simply the sum of the properties of the parts.


Sustainable agriculture is generally considered to be holistic in that it considers whole entities. Leopold (1949), one of the most well known figures in sustainable agriculture, shares his opinion of holism and reductionism in his allegory Thinking like a Mountain. Reductionist thinking led many states to enact programs to remove wolves from hunting ranges in an effort to encourage larger deer herds. The result was too-large herds that overgrazed the land to the point that it would no longer sustain deer. Leopold (1949, p. 132) says of the situation that man has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea. Instead of this reductionist thinking, sustainable agriculture would encourage holist thinking that includes the soil, foliage, deer, and wolves as part of the entity that is the mountains ecosystem. Any desired changes to the system must work with the system in its entirety. This holism in sustainable agriculture lends itself well to interdisciplinary study. One can not effectively consider the workings of an entire system by examining only one part of it.  Conventional agriculture is often associated with productionism, a form of reductionism. Productionist agriculture focuses exclusively on yield, and improvements in yield are achieved by manipulation of individual factors within an agricultural system. Individual changes within the system have been extremely successful in increasing agricultural production. Increased yields were driven by technological developments in five areas: increased use of chemical fertilizers; high-yield crop varieties with a stronger response to those fertilizers; chemical pesticides for controlling insects, weeds, and diseases that depressed yields; greater use of irrigation; and increased mechanization (Phelan, 2009, p. 2). Reductionism in agriculture does not require interdisciplinary work except at the most shallow level. It is typical for conventional agricultural research to focus on a narrow subject area within one discipline. Phelan (2009, p. 4) states that reductionism in agriculture is reflected in the structure of agricultural colleges of U.S. and European universities, which are almost universally divided into disciplines, if not departments, of soil science, agronomy, horticulture, weed science, entomology, and plant pathology.


Defining Sustainability: Using frameworks to describe what we mean


Understanding the analytical frameworks of relativism and objectivism and holism and reductionism can help us to better communicate about sustainability. Keller and Brummer (2002), Leibman et. al (2008), and many others make a case for moving conventional agriculture away from objectivist and reductionist thinking and towards relativist and holist thinking. I agree, and humbly suggest that sustainable agriculture must meet conventional agriculture somewhere in the middle, if not for any other reason than the fact that an entirely relativist or entirely holist frame makes it difficult to communicate with the objectivists and reductionists that make up the majority of farmers and agricultural researchers.


We may be better able to achieve a more sustainable agriculture if we recognize that both relativist/qualitative/holist/interdisciplinary and objectivist/quantitative/reductionist/individual ways of knowing, measuring, and studying are valuable. In fact, these ideas are most useful in combination. We must at minimum work to understand views that are different from our own. Doing so will allow us to communicate with more people that have diverse viewpoints. It will allow us to understand information that is collected in ways that are different from the ones we are used to, and potentially allow us to use these different methods in our own exploration of the reality that is a farm. It will also help us to evaluate farming methods to determine if each has a role to play in sustainable agriculture.


However, we must be careful to not give too much weight to epistemological or ontological distinctions. In practice, there are few if any farmers or agricultural researchers that apply any of the frames to exclusion of the others. There is no such thing as sustainable farming or as conventional farming if we define them as holistic farming and reductionist farming respectively. In reality, there is a gradient between particularly sustainable/holistic methods and particularly conventional/reductionist farming methods, with many methods in-between. Even the most reductionist farmer uses some practices that rely on the farm as an ecological system to achieve a goal. Crop rotation and cover crops are both methods that are associated with sustainability and a holist way of thinking about agriculture, but they are used by conventional farmers to some degree, and the majority of conventional farmers are interested in adopting these methods (Singer and Nusser, 2007). Similarly, a truly holistic farmer shouldnt make any individual responses to specific problems, instead they should modify the system as a whole. All good farmers, sustainable or otherwise, carefully observe their fields and react as needed, whether their reactions include are synthetic nitrogen and organophosphates, or blood meal and neem. All of these are reductionist responses, though the second two consider secondary effects within the system more than the first two. A more holistic farming system can be achieved, but not a truly holistic farming system. The key to a more sustainable, if not more holistic, agriculture is to evaluate each method individually on its own merits. In short, we can use the analytical frameworks as a guide, as long as we dont use them dogmatically.


Bringing the Concepts together: Does Biotechnology have a role in sustainable agriculture?


It has been argued that biotechnology is just one more reductionist solution in the body of reductionist solutions that make up conventional agriculture. Krimsky (2005) argues that the reductionism in biotechnology began in 1975 and has not changed since. This is true of some traits created with biotechnology, but other traits can be seen as providing a solution that works within the greater context of the system. Conventional agriculture faces its biggest problems when looking outside of systems for solutions to problems within the system. Ronald and Adamchak (2008) argue that biotechnology is inherently compatible with sustainable farming because biotechnology allows us to find biological solutions for biological problems. Synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are chemical solutions for biological problems, and many of these have significant unintended effects both inside and outside of the system. Traits like herbicide resistance do not work with biology to solve problems because they encourage chemical use, even though they may encourage farmers to use a less toxic herbicide than the ones currently in use. Upcoming traits like drought tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and so on are reductionist in nature, because they address individual problems like scarcity of water and nitrogen runoff. However, these traits allow a farmer to reduce other inputs into the system which is a major goal of sustainable agriculture.


In my own research, I am developing nutritionally enhanced crops through breeding and biotechnology. Some traits are best manipulated with selection while other traits are best introduced with biotechnology. Each is a tool that can be used to achieve goals that may or may not fit into the different analytical frameworks. The nutritional quality of crops is in itself a reductionist goal. Krimsky (2005, p. 322) sums up his pessimistic view of biotechnology thusly: rather than seeing the problem of vitamin A deficiency in terms of loss of crop bio-diversity, poor access to seeds, water resources, farming machinery, and arable land, it is seen as one of natures failings, namely that its rice lacks beta carotene ; something that can be easily fixed through biotechnology and provided through a global seed cartel. This view is only accurate if the analytical frameworks are kept rigid. In reality, the frameworks are flexible and we may find a variety of solutions that are appropriate for a given system. Few, if any, proponents of biotechnology would embrace a solution to nutritional deficiency that includes only biotech crops. Instead, proponents would suggest nutritionally enhanced crops that fit in the current system, but only in combination with solutions that would improve the system overall, such as poverty reduction. Each solution, whether holist or reductionist, relativist or objectivist in nature, may be part of a more sustainable agriculture, if only we are able creatively view the merits and faults of each solution in the context in which it will be applied.


Works Cited


Eckert, Eileen and Alexandra Bell. (2005)  Invisible force: Farmers; mental models and how they influence learning and actions  . Journal of Extension Vol. 43 No. 3.


Keller, David R. and E. Charles Brummer. (2002)  Putting Food Production in Context: Toward a Postmechanistic Agricultural Ethic  . BioScience Vol. 52 No. 3.


Krimsky, Sheldon. (2005)  From Asilomar to industrial biotechnology: Risks, reductionism and regulation  . Science as Culture Vol. 14 No. 4.


Liebman, Matt, Fred Kirschenmann, Rich Pirog, and Jerry DeWitt. (2008) Sustainable agriculture in the United States: Maturation and new directions.


Leopold, Aldo. (1949)  Thinking Like a Mountain  . A Sand County almanac: And sketches here and there. Oxford University Press.


Meadows, Donella.  Dancing with systems  .


Phelan, P. Larry. (2009) Ecology-based agriculture and the next green revolution: Is modern agriculture exempt from the laws of ecology? Agroecosystem management for ecological, social, and economic stability. CRC Press.


Ronald, Pamela and Raoul Adamchak. (2008)  Tomorrows table: Organic farming, genetics, and the future of food  . Oxford University Press.


Singer, J. W. and S. M. Nusser.  Are cover crops being used in the US corn belt?  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Vol. 62 Issue 5.


Trochim, William M. K. (2006a)  Positivism and post-positivism  .


Trochim, William M. K. (2006b)  The qualitative-quantitative debate  .


Wals, Arjen E. J. and Richard Bawden. (2005)  Part 1: Integrating sustainability into agricultural education; Dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and diverging worldviews  . Curriculum innovations on higher education. Elsevier Overheid: The Hague, Netherlands.













Document Number: 4522 



 Frank at MOSES 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 1 March 2010 


Hi everyone, Frank N. Foode here. Over the weekend, I went to the  MOSES organic farming conference  in La Crosse Wisconsin. It was right on my way across the country so it wasn;t much of a detour for me. This conference brought farmers, consumers, and seeds from all over the Midwest to attend some workshops about everything from producing seed, to building healthy soils, to market farming and even some were about genetic engineering. Karl was also there and he reminded me that I still have a lot of pictures from my travels last year that I haven;t put up on the blog. So now that I;m back in Berkeley (there;s a story about that which I will tell), I am not wasting any time showing you how much fun I had!


Anastasia has set up a Flickr account for the blog, which you can see on  the Photos page  ! This has made it so much easier for me. I may be smarter than the average corn but all this web stuff is confusing.


You can see the pictures from my whole trip in the Flickr photo album hosted  on Biofortified here  , on the  Flickr site  , or read more below.


Seed Swap! I can;t wait!


The fine folks at  Vermont Valley Community Farm  have got some seed potatoes here of all kinds of colors. Jonnah (holding me) likes the blue ones the best. Their little tubers were selling like hot potatoes!


Jared here just got a Masters degree from UW Madison, and now he works for the  Organic Seed Alliance  ! He is helping people learn how to produce seeds for planting and how to cross varieties together.


Hey buddies, how you doin?  (;) Organic only?  Whoa didn;t know this was such an exclusive club.


Look, I;m ;Contaminating!;


Brian grows sweet corn, field corn, wheat, and soybeans on his  family farm  in Dwight, Illinois, which is about 1/3 organic. He was really curious about how the genetics of sweet corn works, and although he doesn;t grow any GE crops, he was ;all ears; about what people are working on!


Strike up the band! But lose that glove, man.


HELP! HELP!  Jeffrey Smith  has got me! He said I was cute but don;t let me out of your sight!


This is Margaret (;Mardi;) Mellon, who directs the  Union of Concerned Scientists; Food &amp; Agriculture Program  .  Psst, is Jeffrey Smith gone? Can I come out now?


Chuck Benbrook works for  The Organic Center  , and writes about differences in the healthful content of food depending on how you grow it, and also writes about pesticide use with genetic engineering. He;s not as anti-GE as he sounds from what he writes, but he;s still arguing old questions.


Eric Mader from the  Xerces Society  talked about Native Pollinators and how you can help them out on your farm. Hey Roundup Ready Beet growers ; remember to strip-spray and leave some forage for the bees!


Ah, the MOSES organic farming conference is over, and I;ve met a lot of people, some of whom just don;t like me and don;t want me on their farms or in their food;


But at the same time I met many people who are interested to learn more about me. Will Organic Agriculture stop being my enemy and instead be my ally in producing healthier, safer food that is better for the environment?  I;m optimistic, but these things take time.













Document Number: 7298 



 Frank gets a check 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 10 December 2009 


I just got the prize check from Ashoka Changemakers today, and boy, this will buy a lot of compost! Seeing the $1,500 amount would have been enough, but they went the whole nine acres and sprung for one of those big novelty checks. This thing is enormous!


So what are we going to do now that Biofortified is solvent?  Plan a big bash? Make some movies? Personally, I like the idea of renting some space at a tropical research station for a little winter nursery to do some field trials. But that;s just me.


Also, over Thanksgiving we finalized the details of our Michael Pollan meetup. On January 25th at 1:00 pm (PST), Anastasia, Karl, and Yours Truly will be having lunch with Michael at the shwanky  Chez Panisse  in Berkeley, California. This might be a first for this locavore restaurant ; will they serve ;my kind;?


Unfortunately, there will not be any interviewing going on to be posted on the blog, however we are hoping to have a; ahem,  Frank  discussion with the bestselling author about genetics and food. We;ll certainly have questions for him, but we;re hoping that he will also have questions for us. But the big question on my mind is,  what should I order  ?













Document Number: 5661 



 Frank N. Foode at Maize Genetics 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 19 March 2009 


Hi, Frank N. Foode here. Last week I went on a special trip. I was invited to the 51st annual International Maize Genetics Conference in St. Charles Illinois, an opportunity I couldn;t pass up. So many scientists, all working on the genetics of; me! Well me and my brothers and sisters in the great Zea mays family.


My flight was delayed, so I missed the first part of the conference. Luckily someone  filled me in  on what happened. Apparently I;m 1.4 percent Helitron! Good deal.


I managed to get there just in time for the first viewing session for posters. But three geneticists barred my way saying ;Is this guy legit?; I thought they didn;t recognize me, but they were pulling my leg, I was expected!


That was a relief! I wouldn;t want to miss these posters. This is my favorite part of scientific meetings. Meeting people, seeing what cool stuff they;re working on. Like Patrice, here, who was comparing the chromosomes of some of my cousins by FISH mapping repeat sequences. That means that wherever there were repetitive segments of DNA of different kinds, she made them glow different colors under the microscope! I wish I could show them to you but this stuff is unpublished. And she was simply glowing to see me.


Later that evening, I listened to a big presentation by Pam Johnson from the National Corn Grower;s Association. My favorite part was when she talked about how the connection between corn geneticists, breeders, farmers, and the consumer was the strongest of any crop grown in the states. It was also neat to know that studying me will help them understand switchgrass and more exotic plants like miscanthus.


Saturday I had a blast in the morning talks. All about how I release Jasmonic Acid when I;m injured, or some mutant relatives of mine that look more like a grass than proper corn. And I learned that even though two corn plants may be hybrids of the same parents, it matters which parent is the mom and which one is the dad!


At the second and final poster session, I got to talk to a few people who run websites about plants. Ann, here, works on the  iPlant Collaborative  , a center for organizing plant biologists to answer the BIG questions in the field.


And the nice folks at the Maize Genome DataBase told me all I wanted to know about my genome and how to access it from anywhere in the world. They even created a database of my weird looking cousins. Here;s to  MaizeGDB  ! (Always jokers, those database types)


Apparently my fans are everywhere, look at this next guy ; he dressed up as a giant; me! He even got the glasses right! And who is this other scientist with you?


Oh of course, it was  Karl  and  Anastasia  from Biofortified, promoting their stuff. And lo and behold,  James from James and the Giant Corn  was here too, so we grabbed him for a group shot.


After dinner, it was time for my keynote address. I was pretty nervous, but I think I managed to move the audience. I felt like they could all see through me, so I tried to imagine them without their husks. I sprinkled in a few, heh, corny jokes to get them started, and then I was off! ;Compost! Compost alone moves the wheels of history!; I pounded my fists. I think I had an impact.


After that was over, it was time to party. And corn geneticists know how to do that. They tore open the curtain between the posters and the dining area, cleared out a dance floor, and brought forth the ethanol. These two ladies sure knew how to get down.


I;m not much of a dancer, but I play a good game of Euchre. So while everyone was grooving I was winning the kernels off of some grad students.


The next morning there were a few more talks, and then we all adjourned to go our separate ways. Just when I thought I could slip away un-noticed, a fan called down the hallway asking for a photo op. Sure, I can do a favor for last year;s chairman. Heck, Tom was probably the matchmaker that brought one of my ancestors together!


I had a fun time at Maize Genetics. These are definitely my kind of people. They grow hard, and they yield hard. I hope to see them all again in Italy next year.


Oh, the things I;ve seen!













Document Number: 8701 



 Frankenfood Carving Contest! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 27 October 2010 


Hi folks, your friendly neighborhood genetically modified organisms here. Today is the last day to nominate someone for Community Contest #2, so remember to plug your worthy adversaries while there is still time!


For those who feel like grabbing a cutting tool when talking about genetic engineering, this next contest is for you ; the first annual Biofortifed Frankenfood Carving Contest!


GMOs are often depicted harshly. For some reason, moving a couple genes around is supposed to make a plant grow teeth and attack the hand that waters it. Greenpeace turns onions into spiders and others turn corn into grenades. While I could be offended at such cultural misunderstandings, I want to turn this hyperbole around on its stalk! Let;s make veggies  really  scary!


Here are the rules:


This contest is open to  everyone  ; you need not have ever commented on the blog before the day you enter in the contest. But, you will need to register for the blog to enter.   Carve  any  fruit, vegetable, grain, or heck, fungus into the scariest creature imaginable. While you may carve the classic pumpkin, extra points will be awarded for creative use of alternatives. Feel free to splice different plants together to enhance the phenotype! Do a little genetic engineering.  Upload a photo of your mad creation to your profile page, and mention it in the comments on this post below.   To give you time to upload a picture from a Halloween carving party, the contest is open until  November 3rd  , at midnight Pacific time in the US.   Biofortified;s Editors will decide on a winner and announce it on  Friday the 5th  Tuesday the 9th.


And what will you win? Like both previous community contests, you will get your very own Biofortified Tote bag. Look how  happy MaryM looks with hers at the farmer;s market  !


Update:  The contest winner will also receive  a mint-condition Norman Borlaug commemorative coin.


Boo!


Start thinking of some ideas right away. You could carve a likeness of your favorite GE commentator, and browse around  Extreme Pumpkins  for techniques. Grab that rotten celery from the back of your fridge and transform it into a Frankensteinian Freak! As art is often commentary ; make yours mean something about some aspect of the debate and you;re sure to be noticed. Give your creation LIFE!


Here I am with my entry, which I carved out of a Delicata squash! I think it has evil powers. (Obviously an unintended side effect of the transformation process.) Next to this vegetable, I;m downright cuddly. It;s gonna get youuuu!


Good luck!













Document Number: 1211 



 From char to fuel? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 6 June 2008 


One of the arguments against biofuels is that (like all agriculture, even organic) it is essentially soil mining. By removing plants that grow on the land, we also remove nutrients. This includes trace essential nutrients like iron and copper as well as the big ones like potassium. We can do our best to replace the nutrients with fertilizers (synthetic or organic) but will never match mother nature. So, what  do we do?  Biochar is plant matter (such as corn stover) that has undergone pyrolysis (heating without oxidation). To put it extremely simply, biochar is a large quantity of biomass ;condensed; into a smaller quantity of charcoal. All of the minerals in the biomass are now in the biochar. Increasing soil health in the form of microbes is another positive effect of biochar. Plants grown in biochar do better than plants in unamended soil (see picture at right, no info on a comparison to conventional or organic soil amendments.  I;ll let the  International Biochar Initiative  (IBI) explain:


Biochar is a fine-grained charcoal high in organic carbon and largely resistant to decomposition.  It is produced from pyrolysis of plant and waste feedstocks.  As a soil amendment, biochar creates a recalcitrant soil carbon pool that is carbon-negative, serving as a net withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in highly recalcitrant soil carbon stocks.  The enhanced nutrient retention capacity of biochar-amended soil not only reduces the total fertilizer requirements but also the climate and environmental impact of croplands.  Char-amended soils have shown 50 ; 80 percent reductions in nitrous oxide emissions and reduced runoff of phosphorus into surface waters and leaching of nitrogen into groundwater.  As a soil amendment, biochar significantly increases the efficiency of and reduces the need for traditional chemical fertilizers, while greatly enhancing crop yields.  Renewable oils and gases co-produced in the pyrolysis process can be used as fuel or fuel feedstocks.  Biochar thus offers promise for its soil productivity and climate benefits.


Biochar even appears in the 2008 Farm Bill, I learned on the IBI  policy site  , appearing just before provisions for research of and protection for pollinators. Apparently Senator Ken Salazar (D Colorado) fought to have the language on biochar  included  .


Biochar Research. Grants may be made under this section for research, extension, and integrated activities relating to the study of biochar production and use, including considerations of agronomic and economic impacts, synergies of co-production with bioenergy, and the value of soil enhancements and soil carbon sequestration.


Ideally, the production of biochar would be coupled to biofuel production (bioplastic, biorefining, etc) such that every molecule of the plant would be useful ;  while improving soil quality and sequestering carbon!  Admittedly, this sounds too good to be true (some naysayers have stepped forward), but I have reason to beleive it. At the recent  Breeding Lignocellulosic Crops for the Bioeconomy  lecture series at Iowa State, most of the speakers seemed to think use of biochar was a given (speakers included an economist, multiple plant breeders, people from industry and from a non-profit). Their idea of biofuels doesn;t match that in the media or the doom-and-gloom environmentalists at all.  Each biofuel plant would be limited by transportation. In other words, a circle will be drawn around each plant at the boundary where transporting the feedstock becomes too expensive or too carbon positive. The grain (or beans, etc) can be used as food or feed. Some amount of lower stalk, along with the roots, will be left to retain soil. The remaining stalks and leaves will be harvested and deconstructed in a series of enzymatic and industrial steps. Compounds such as xanthan gum and lysine will be extracted (along with any profitable genetically engineered compounds), the starch and sugar will go to ethanol, and the remaining organic material will be burned for power with the charcoal going back to the farms as a soil amendment. This is, in effect, a closed system.  While I;m not quoting him directly, this model was described by  Charles Abbas  , the charismatic Director of Renewables Research for Archer Daniels Midland who still teaches at the University of Illinois and coined the term ;biorefinery;. He believes that we need to wring every last drop of productivity out of the crops we have, becasue 1) we will not be able to depend on petroleum much longer, 2) we have a limited amount of land, and 3) demand for pretty much everything is only going to increase. Our answer is ;industrial ecology;. I;ll have a whole post on his talk at the lecture series soon.  Despite the copious media coverage of biofuels lately, I had actually never heard of biochar until I read a post at the  Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog  which I heard of through  Inoculated Mind  that linked to a post titled  Soil Mining  at Muck and Mystery. Because of the post, I asked about biochar use in biofuel production at the lecture series and learned what the speakers thought about it. Gotta love the blogosphere!













Document Number: 3279 



 Fungal growth on grain poses a real risk to infants in Tanzania 


 by  David Tribe  on 11 November 2010 


Infant foods should be screened for mycotoxins  10.nov.10  Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp  Carl Lachat


ANTWERP - An international team of scientists calls for protecting complementary food for infants in developing countries  especially those where corn is a staple food  against fumonisin, a toxin produced by fungi. Until now, physicians thought the growth retardation of children in those regions was to be blamed on the poor nutritional value of the complementary maize porridge they receive when breast milk is no longer sufficient. But toxins indeed are involved, the scientists report in the journal Molecular Nutrition and Food Research.


The call is made by scientists of the Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp and their colleagues of the Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority and Gent University. Until now, not much attention was paid to mycotoxins in food (mycotoxins are toxins produced by fungi)  with the exception of aflatoxin, of mouldy nuts ill fame. But their research in rural Tanzania does connect fumonisin with stunting and underweight. It is the first time anybody establishes this association.  Worldwide, 1 child in 3 suffers from growth retardation and 1 in 4 is underweight. The problems of stunting and underweight are associated with over 5 million deaths of children less than 5 years annually. 70% of these deaths are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Malnutrition is implicated in the majority of these deaths.  Already in 2004, the same researchers reported that improving the nutritional quality of complementary foods does not reduce stunting and underweight in Tanzanian toddlers. This raises questions about the actual management of malnutrition by international aid organisations.  So the research team went looking for other possible causes of poor growth as soon as breastfeeding falls off and maize porridge is introduced. They knew aflatoxin, the most notorious mycotoxin, had been observed to impair child growth in Benin and Togo. So they explored for other fungal toxins that could end up in maize based complementary foods.  They observed that children of twelve months, who through their corn flour based complementary food were exposed to fumonisin above the WHO maximum tolerable daily intake (2g/kg body weight), were significantly shorter and lighter than their counterparts.  Fumonisin enters the food chain through fungi growing on maize, the staple food in Tanzania  and in many other parts of the world. The fungus can be present without being visible to the untrained eye. It can be prevented by correct storage of the maize.  See several previous posts, eg.  Bt and protection against mycotoxin formation in the field


Update  See also  &nbsp;   Scientists call for mycotoxin screening in infant food


By Helen Glaberson, 22-Nov-2010  Complementary food for infants in developing countries, especially where corn is a staple food, should be protected against the mycotoxin fumonisin, according to an international team of scientists.


The study was published in The Journal Molecular Nutrition and Food Research and explored the association between exposure of fumonisins from maize and growth retardation among infants in Tanzania.


The scientists of the Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp and their colleagues of the Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority and Gent University claim this is the first time an association has been established between fumonisin and stunting/ weight.


It was found that at 12 months of age, infants exposed to fumonisins intakes through their corn flour based complementary food above the WHO provisional maximum tolerable daily intake of 2 g/kg bodyweight were significantly shorter by 1.3 cm and 328 g lighter than their counterparts;.(continues at link)













Document Number: 8675 



 Can GE be sustainable? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 28 November 2010 


The Economist recently held an online debate on the motion:  This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory  . Long story short, the debate was disappointing ; I think because the subject wasn;t very well defined*. Both proponents and opponents in the comments and in the official statements had off topic ideas, depending on how they framed the assertion. It;s really a shame because this could have been an opportunity to really discuss how we can forge a new agriculture that is less harmful for the environment.


The discussion really needs to include proponents of and experts in genetic engineering, plant breeding, agronomy like  Pamela Ronald  and  Sir Gordon Conway  , proponents of and experts in sustainable agriculture, like  Matt Liebman  and  Charles Benbrook  , and perhaps most importantly everyday people. If we;re really committed to moving  towards a better agriculture for everyone  , we need to get past labels, get past ideology, and cooperate.


Biofortified was designed to be a place where we can have that discussion, but just like the Economist debate, discussion here can easily get derailed with ideas that are important but not directly related to the topic at hand. The off topic discussion can be really interesting, but decreases the likelihood that we;ll reach any agreement on the main topic. I wonder if reframing of a subject with a slightly more narrow focus would help. In the case of the motion proposed by the Economist, I;d break it into two separate assertions that can be debated separately:


Biotechnology as it is currently deployed and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory.  Biotechnology in some potential applications and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory.


Dividing the assertion into two doesn;t make the answers any easier to find, but it does make the discussion more focused.


Biotechnology as it is currently deployed


Regarding the first assertion, the answer could be yes, with certain caveats. Charles Benbrook chooses to discuss only Bt and Roundup Ready traits, which isn;t technically correct because there are other traits on the market, but those are the two categories of traits that make up most of the biotech crops out there. If our definition of sustainable doesn;t include herbicides, then any herbicide resistance traits are out. However, we do need to consider the environmental impact of switching from a relatively harmful to a relatively gentle herbicide. If no herbicide is ideal, is a less harmful herbicide at least a step in the right direction?


Bt, on the other hand, has undoubtedly reduced synthetic insecticide use not only in Bt fields but in neighboring fields. Development of resistance to Bt has been fairly low due to careful resistance prevention methods. Biodiversity in Bt fields is higher due to reduced insecticide use. Depending on how we define sustainable agriculture, one might see how judicious use of Bt crops could fit into a diverse crop rotation in areas with high pest pressure from insects susceptible to Bt.


Of course, if we are to consider Bt as a sustainable trait, we must consider how farmers will get it. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of seed that needs to be purchased every year, regardless of what farmers want. Farmers in the developed world and some in the developing have been able to vote with their dollars for hybrid and biotech seed that they buy each year. A minority of farmers have chosen instead to save seed, as is their right. Is this system a problem? Perhaps. But if we are to question the system of private development and selling of seed, we must be honest and question this system for all seed, not just biotech.


Farmers in the developing world (if we;re including them in our definition of sustainable agriculture ; I do) often aren;t able to afford improved seed every year, don;t have access to loans, and might not even be able to get to a market that has appropriate seeds. The developed world system of leaving seed development to private companies has so far not worked in the developing world ; so by default, biotechnology as it is currently deployed isn;t a part of sustainable farming for those farmers. That brings us what is possible, beyond biotech as it is currently deployed.


Biotechnology in some potential applications


The second assertion also gets a yes with caveats. It;s easy to imagine traits that would be useful in conjunction with sustainable farming methods, as well as seed deployment methods that would be sustainable in the long term. It;s difficult to define those specific situations, and we can quickly get stuck in details. However, I think these details are exactly what we need to talk about, because such discussions can help guide what NGOs and governments choose to invest in. We do have a few examples that have happened and are happening to help us consider the potential for biotechnology working in harmony with sustainable agricultural methods.


Frank poses with some orange maize at the First Global Conference on Biofortification.


Flood tolerant rice  and  orange maize  are great examples of what;s possible. Now, I need to be clear ; the final flood tolerant rice and orange (aka high-pro-vitamin A) maize that are being distributed are not genetically engineered (unless you count marker assisted breeding as genetic engineering), but the way they have been developed and distributed can be be a model for future biotech traits. Both flood tolerant rice and orange maize were developed with public funding with the intent to distribute the seed at low or no cost to famers that might benefit from these special traits. Both traits were developed with farmers in developing countries in mind but may also be useful in developed countries.


Is biotechnology going to be useful for traits that can be achieved with breeding (even if it takes way longer and doesn;t work as well)? Maybe, maybe not. Kevin Pixley, of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), writes on the Harvest Plus blog that  breeding and biotech are like the tortoise and the hare  . Even though the tortoise is slower, sometimes he wins. For high pro-vitamin A maize, the tortoise won, even though biotech had long ago produced varieties that have far higher levels of the vitamin. Ingo Potrykus, developer of Golden rice, thinks  the problem is regularly hurdles  that NGOs can;t climb on their own.


The traits that can be changed with breeding, even if it takes some Herculean efforts, are certainly interesting ; but what about traits that can;t be changed by breeding, or at least traits for which we haven;t yet found a source of genetic diversity? Golden rice is an example of such a trait, because rice doesn;t have the genetic variability in pro-vitamin A content that maize has. Other examples include nematode resistance conferred with RNAi and pest resistance conferred with special proteins such as snow drop lectin.


All of these traits have the potential to be helpful to farmers large and small as well as their neighbors and consumers. Can they be sustainable? Yes, if they are developed with sustainability in mind. Like the flood tolerance trait in rice and the pro-vitamin A trait in maize, sustainable biotech traits have to be bred into varieties that farmers will actually use, with no restrictions on seed saving for low-income farmers, even if high-income farmers are charged for seed in order to recoup development costs. Those development costs could be decreased with more unified regulatory systems that are science-based.


Discussing biotech


Finally, we have the problem of facts. Commenters on the Economist debate and elsewhere make a variety of wild claims about genetic engineering without using science (or logic) to back them up, and are often unable to produce references if asked. Discussions such as these shouldn;t be based on rumors. They also shouldn;t be based on reports from special interest groups or on individual studies, even if they;re peer reviewed. As I discussed in  Does the Source Matter?  , we need to look at the entire body of literature and then draw our conclusions. Outliers that show the opposite of the majority need to be carefully evaluated for validity, not trumpeted without skepticism. Let;s all be more careful about the claims we make. Just because it;s ;common sense; doesn;t mean it;s true.


* They also apparently had  server issues  .













Document Number: 1066 



 GE to cause food prices to go up? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 16 August 2009 


Only a day after my  last post  about a bizarre argument against GE wheat that argued that Australian non-GE wheat producers would need to be protected from prices being  lowered  by a hypothetical frost-free wheat, the opposite is reported in the UK. The Daily Express reports that   GM crops could send food prices  rocketing  . Wha?


In order to understand this claim, you have to take into account the market and regulatory environment in the United Kingdom. As far as I know, the only GE crop that can currently be grown in the UK is Bt maize, although there is  talk of more  crops being approved in the near future. They also import most of the soybeans used in animal feed from South America, which is growing more and more GE soy each year. Although GE soy can be imported into the UK, it appears that there are still restrictions on these imports that make it difficult for much of this soy to get into the country.


Currently, also, foods derived from genetically engineered crops  must be labeled  as such in the UK, as noted here, some food manufacturers and fast food chains source their soy from non-GE farms. Although it appears that people in the EU  don;t care or don;t even read the labels  , there is a substantial market for non-GE soy for producers who do business in the UK. Meat from animals fed GE crops, however, do not have such labeling requirements, but they still must source most of their soy from imports, of the few that are available and legal to be imported.


This seems to present a market problem for those meat producers, as acreage of soybeans in Latin America increasingly switch to GE varieties, this reduces the availability of soy that can be imported into the UK, especially the non-GE soy. As supply reduces and demand stays the same; what happens to prices?


Now the article:


UK animal feed, which is made mainly from soya, could quadruple in price within two years if growers in Brazil and Argentina produce more genetically modified soya, which is banned in Europe, according to government research.  Non-GM soya would rocket in price, making animal and poultry feed more expensive and ramping up UK meat and poultry costs by around a fifth. Farmers are worried they face unfair competition from countries which allow GM crops.  The National Farmers Union director of policy Martin Haworth warned: There is a very real danger that livestock producers, both here and across the EU, will be unable to compete.  The GM Crops And Foods report has been published jointly by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Food Standards Agency. It says Britains livestock farms rely on Brazil and Argentina for 90 per cent of imported soya used in feed for poultry, cattle and pigs.  Defras research outlines a worst-case scenario in which British farmers cannot buy soya from either Argentina or Brazil if they only grow GM crops  the use of which is banned here.  Feed costs would soar by 300 per cent, while UK pork and poultry production would plunge by up to 68 per cent. As a result, the report suggests, shop prices for meat and poultry would jump by up to 20 per cent.


Prices would go up. It is interesting to note that the meat producers are not in the non-GE soy market,  per se  , they would probably source their soy from whatever is available, including GE. However, restrictions on GE soy imports (and  growing  , to I suppose) are for the most part  forcing  meat producers to be in the non-GE soy market, competing against other non-GE soy buyers in the UK, driving the prices up. It is not surprising that meat producers  have argued for reducing  those restrictions.


So it is misleading to suggest that GE crops  alone  would be responsible for those rising prices, without giving the context of the importation restrictions that are setting up this market issue. There is also the context of labeling and perceived consumer attitudes to consider, which is helping to drive this trend. But there is one more thing that is odd about the way this story is being presented: why are only the food prices being mentioned?


If the price of non-GE soy skyrockets, then that means that two things happen: Food prices for non-GE food products made from them go up, but this is also matched by an increase in the price that farmers can get for non-GE soybeans. The latter would be considered by many anti-GE orgnizations to be a boon ; a cause for celebration because it would ensure that some farmers will grow non-GE soybeans just to get that higher price, but why is only one aspect being reported in this case?


Similarly, for the hypothetical GE wheat discussed in the  previous post  , if the cost of wheat goes down, that also means that the price of foods containing wheat will also go down. It becomes very difficult for people to understand what the real effects genetically engineered crops will be on the economics of farming and of food if only one half of the equation is  selectively reported  ; only the potential downsides to individual groups caused by changes in GE acreage. These two stories taken together might seem to suggest the absurd notion that genetic engineering will cause crop prices to plummet and put farmers out of business, while making food prices skyrocket beyond control!













Document Number: 2198 



 Gene flow, IP, and the terminator 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 3 June 2008 


Terminator seed has been back in the news and blogs, due to some rumors that the  Convention on Biological Diversity  would consider rescinding the ban on the technology. Before I get knee deep into the politics, Id like to make some quick comments on gene flow. First, pollen of many types of plants are capable of traveling quite far. The exact distances are dependent on wind, weather, plant density, species, etc. For the most part, though, pollen stays near its origin, so that gene flow between separated populations is slow (not many fertilizations between populations). It is fairly easy to test gene flow and pollen spread rates.


An elegant example was prepared by Jason Haegle, an undergraduate at Iowa State under distinguished professor  Peter Peterson  . As described in  The Flow of Maize Pollen in a Designed Field Plot  , Jason planted purple corn surrounded by yellow corn. He planted the rows 0.76 meters apart (much wider than normal) to eliminate any effect of plant density. He simply counted the purple kernels on the ears in the yellow corn fields to determine how much and how far the pollen spread. Yellow corn plants that were closest to the purple corn of course had the most purple kernels. Three rows into the yellow corn, numbers of purple kernels (thus amounts of pollen from those plants) dropped dramatically. Other studies on maize pollen flow agree that the majority of pollen stays near the plot. As Jason says in his paper, this is likely because maize pollen is large and heavy compared to pollen from other grasses.


If the goal is to avoid pollen spread and thus gene flow from cultivated to wild varieties or from one cultivated variety to another, there are several precautions that a farmer can take. First, planting of barrier rows around the variety one wishes to contain will soak up most of the pollen. Second, the farmer can choose plants that are early or late flowering, so that pollen shed will not coincide with the fertile period of nearby plants. Third, plants with a low level of outcrossing (natural selfer) could be chosen. Fourth, mechanical means such as removing the pollen producing parts of the plant can be used. These options apply to all crops, not just maize. Feel free to let me know if there are more options that Ive havent mentioned here! Now, even with these precautions, it is possible for a few pollen grains to stray.


If you are very concerned with pollen spread, the pollen could be made sterile through natural or technological methods. The natural method would be to use a male sterile line. Despite the rather obvious evolutionary disadvantage, plant breeders have been able to maintain this trait. The technological method is of course terminator genes. There are a few very different reasons why plants like this would be beneficial: making hybrid seed, protection of intellectual property, containment of transgenic traits, and protecting the environment from pollen spread.


Phillip McClean of ND State has a clear  explanation  of how the male sterile trait is used in seed production. In order to make hybrid seed in maize, the tassel (pollen producing part) must be removed from the female parent or she will just fertilize herself (each corn plant has both male and female parts). Some people realized that they could just use male sterile lines to make the hybrids, eliminating the need for de-tasseling. Hybrids are far superior to their parents due to heterosis (hybrid vigor). Seed for maize, rice, soy, and more are often sold as hybrids because they produce better yields and have other advantageous characteristics.


The seed provides a benefit to the farmer, but does not breed true. If the farmer saves and replants the seed, the resulting plants will be completely different from the parents. In other words, farmers who plant hybrid seed either have to buy it every year or invest in the large amounts of time, space, and money that it takes to do it on their own. Alternatively, the farmer can plant non-hybrid or open pollinated varieties. Ill follow up with a post on the pros and cons of hybrid and specialized seed so this post can stay on topic.


Seed companies can afford to develop new lines and new hybrids because they sell seed year after year (note that the seed industry is starting to provide poor farmers with superior seed at little or no cost such that licensing doesnt affect those who most need the seed). With genetically engineered seed, the trait of interest  can  be passed to other plants, so the farmer could save seed and retain the trait (either purposefully or accidentally), without paying for it. Saving seed that is protected under intellectual property law is a crime without the proper licensing agreements (similar to how music is protected). For an in depth discussion on why transgenic traits (and some non-biotech crops as well) are considered IP, please see ISU Bioethics Professor Clark Wolfs discussion of the  origins  of plant IP. The idea that any unit of life, even a gene, could be patented is strange and seems inherently unethical. However, the way capitalism works is that it rewards innovators. Without monetary reward, there is no impetus to innovate (consider the problem of not enough research into malaria medicine while there are multiple drugs for erectile dysfunction). If we dont want to depend on corporations for development, much more public and private money must be spent (such as with the Gates Foundation funding malaria research and the Chinese government funding research into improved rice varieties). The investment of seed development (transgenic or traditional) is high, and has a unique problem not faced by any other industry ; the product can reproduce itself!


Ideally, patents would be on certain applications, not on the genes or plants themselves, but this is a legislation problem that has nothing to do with science. Terminator seed is one example of a proposed way to solve the intellectual property problem that incidentally has a few other benefits. Terminator seed is widely misunderstood. The name makes it sound far scarier than it is. Seriously, there are no seeds shooting guns at bystander seeds, killing all in their path. The technology is actually called Genetic Use Restriction Technology or GURT. The particular system in question is just one of many that can result in sterile seeds. The benefits include protecting a seed companys intellectual property rights  and  preventing biotech crops from growing where they are unwanted (read: so as to eliminate outcrossing with native plants or organic crops).


There is one  op-ed  in particular that Ive seen tossed around the web. It appeared in The Guardian on 22 May, written by Sol Oyuela of Progressio (a Catholic charity that claims to focus on poverty but has been less than progressive, despite the name). Sol states in his Blogger  profile  that he has a Masters degree, but doesnt feel the need to tell us what the degree is in. Of course, I have quite a few problems with his statements.


As the world grapples with the impact of global food shortages (Six million Ethiopian children at risk of malnutrition, May 21), the livelihoods of 1.4 billion of the worlds poorest farmers who rely on harvesting seeds from one crop for sowing the next season is under threat from biotech companies which are pushing to commercialise terminator technology ; genetic engineering that results in plants producing sterile seeds. The advent of these so-called suicide seeds represent an insidious attempt to privatise plant life ; and force poor families in developing countries to buy new seeds each year from the large companies that control the $19bn global seed market.  A global ban on terminator technology struck eight years ago is now under threat from a powerful alliance of biotech companies and countries with vested interests. They argue terminator technology should be considered on a case-by-case basis, thereby undermining the blanket moratorium. We fear the ban will once again come under pressure at this weeks UN summit on the convention on biological diversity in Bonn.  Biotech companies claims that terminator technology will prevent contamination between GM and non-GM crops are hotly contested, yet the EU and, by implication, British taxpayers are contributing to the development of the technology through a 3.4m EU research project investigating ways that seeds can be brought back to life with chemicals. In the developing world, small-scale farming is how millions of families survive. It is vital that at the Bonn summit this month the UK government strongly supports the continuing global ban on terminator technology.


First, terminator seed does not change the ability of farmers to sow seed they grew themselves. It is important to remember that hybrid seed already must be purchased every year. Farmers are still welcome to save seed that isnt protected or to develop new varieties on their own. Poor farmers may be able to receive improved seed at reduced cost, as I stated before. In other words, the terminator trait doesnt actually change anything. On the Progression site, Sol expands on the ideas in his letter, telling us that:


If commercialised, Terminator would put an end to the practice of seed-saving, which is essential to 1.4 billion of the worlds poorest farmers who save and re-plant seeds from one year to the next to feed their families and earn a living. What makes Terminator different from other genetically modified seeds is the fact that it would:   Force farmers to buy new seed from large companies that control a global seed market worth US$19.6 billion.  Further jeopardise the food security of the worlds poorest communities that are already struggling to cope with rising food prices.  Reduce biodiversity by forcing farmers to abandon local seed varieties in favour of commercial seeds.  Make farmers more vulnerable to climate change by forcing them to use commercial seed rather than locally adapted varieties, which are far more resilient to unpredictable weather patterns.


There could very well be factors that Im not aware of, but as of this moment, I think these statements are a complete lie. We cant have a healthy debate about lies, and are reduced to a nuh-uh battle that helps no one, least of all the 1.4 billion poor farmers or the 6 million starving Ethiopian children Sol speaks of. Seriously, guy, please step into reality and then we can talk about it. If terminator seeds are available on the market tomorrow, how does that change what farmer does with the seeds in his hand today? The addition of terminator seeds to the market wont change the choices farmers have of what seeds to buy or not buy, has nothing to do with food prices, and doesnt force the farmers to abandon seeds they already have.


Plant life is already privatized to some degree in that patents on either genes, plants, use of plants are considered valid by many countries. As I stated before, this is necessary to a point, or we would have no improved crops at all due to the huge cost of development (biotech or not) unless we were willing to spend a lot more tax money on agriculture. Some people beleive that we would be better off without improved crops ; but the increases in yield alone that can be achieved through hybrids can not be denied (even without the addition of fertilizer). If the ban on GURTs was lifted to allow a case-by-case approval (as if anything is getting approved in Europe anyway), the genes would not suddenly appear in every seed on the planet. It would be used judiciously by the seed companies for certain specialty crops. It wouldnt be used in all new seed for the simple reason that its more expensive, as it takes time and money to breed the genes into a given line and it takes chemicals to awaken the seed.


Even though Sol and other opponents of GURTs seeds might not come out and say it, the real reason (in my opinion) that they oppose the technology is that it might open the door to production of industrial compounds and other products in crops. These types of genetically engineered crops can not be used with out some very strong safety devices, and some version of GURT might provide that safety (in conjunction with other methods of containment). The actual  report  given to the Convention on Biological Diversity (why not just call it Convention on Biodiversity?) by EcoNexus and the Federation of German Scientists is a bit more lucid than that of Progressio. Its long but interesting, although I dont think its right for the CBD to only consider a report written by an openly anti-biotech and anti-corporate organization. I mean, a little peer review and unbiased science would be nice. So would a few less uses of e.g. in the text.


Anyway, regardless of its faults, the report has a point: the big problem with terminator technology (as created by Delta and Land) is that the pollen is still fertile. So, even if other pollen containment strategies are used, some pollen will get out, making unwanted fertilizations. The resulting seed would be sterile, so it doesnt matter, but theoretically a large amount of the pollen could fertilize a nearby field, possibly ruining a farmers chances to save seed (and possibly contaminating the crop with a non-edible protein). It could also theoretically fertilize wild relatives of the crop, possibly decreasing biodiversity by shrinking the gene pool. I wholeheartedly agree with the authors on this point. However, the problem wouldnt continue beyond this point because the genes will effectively delete themselves from the population ; unless there was a mutation in one or more of the involved genes.


The other problems with this particular GURT, as described in the report, have to do with mutations, silencing, and segregation. It is true that mutation or silencing could disable one or more of the genes, but we do have to remember that this would happen at a very low frequency, and would likely be noticed before the new version of the gene was passed to many other plants. I imagine that the crops containing the GURT would be rotated with a different crop so that it would be easy to see and remove volunteers. It is possible that the transgene and the three genes in this GURT version could segregate away from each other if a diverse population of plants were open pollinated. However, I doubt that the plants would be a diverse population ; instead Id imagine that the company selling the GURT protected seed would be selling inbred or hybrid plants that are homozygous for the necessary genes.


Surely, if they were to go to the trouble of using the technology, theyd ensure that it was as stable as possible. There is also at least one way to avoid the problem of segregation and to increase the stability of all involved genes: the  mini-chromosome  . Just in case anyone from Monsanto or Syngenta is listening, I think the best course would be to scrap this version of terminator, and look for something much closer to male sterility. It just makes more sense. Occams Razor, dont cha know. Oh, and if this type of GURT is to be pursued, please try to find some more creative activators and repressors besides antibiotics and steroids.













Document Number: 5707 



 Genome sequence of Peruvian wild cotton enters the public domain through corporate donation to databases 


 by  David Tribe  on 22 September 2010 


MONSANTO AND ILLUMINA REACH KEY MILESTONE IN SEQUENCING OF COTTON GENOME. Press release


Companies Will Donate Info to the Public Domain; Texas A&amp;M Professor to Lead Effort on Cotton Genome Sequencing


ST. LOUIS and SAN DIEGO (Sept. 22, 2010)  The complicated cotton genome is one step closer to having its genetic threads unraveled, thanks to a key research milestone completed and announced today by Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON) and San Diego-based Ilumina Inc. (NASDAQ: ILMN). &nbsp;Combining Monsantos knowledge of cotton genomics and Illumina;s next generation sequencing technology, a critical landmark has been achieved that could lead to the development of cotton crops with higher yields, better fiber quality, and greater resistance to diseases and pests.  The two companies have completed sequencing a wild Peruvian cotton species,  Gossypium raimondii  , and will donate their findings to the public. The completion of  G. raimondii  will aid public and private researchers in their quest to sequence the more elusive genome of domesticated cotton,  G. hirsutum  .


Domesticated cotton, more commonly known as American Upland cotton, accounts for more than 95 percent of U.S. production. Its genome has proven difficult to sequence and assemble because of its large size as well as the large quantity of repetitive DNA. The cotton genome, at about 2.7 billion nucleotides, is roughly comparable to the human genome at 3.2 billion. Additionally, most organismsincluding humanshave two sets of chromosomes. However, domesticated cotton has four sets.  Imagine you have four puzzles and all of their numerous pieces to put together in order, says Ty Vaughn, Monsanto global cotton technology lead. On top of that, many of the puzzle pieces are identical. The cotton genome presents the same unique challenge to researchers.  Researchers chose a strategy to study related cotton species that closely represent the more complex domesticated cotton genome. The genetic structure of the  G. raimondii  species represents one part, and the G. arboretum species, more commonly known as tree cotton, represents the other. Additionally, previous molecular studies have shown that the  G. raimondii  and  G. arboreum  genomes have a great deal of similarity in the way that genes are arranged on chromosomes. This could allow the  G. raimondii  genomic sequence to serve as a base to assemble the even larger and more complicated  G. arboreum  genome. Having those two sequences together is expected to provide a path toward sequencing and understanding the genome of domesticated cotton.  Todays announcement will bring everyone closer to assembling the entire cotton genetic puzzle. Sequencing helps cotton breeders and researchers identify which genes are responsible for which characteristics in the crop, says Vaughn. A high-quality genome map can help us get where we need to go faster and the more detailed that map the faster we can get there.  The  G. raimondii  genome sequencing project is a great example of Illuminas commitment to deep collaborations that leverage the quality, throughput and utility of our industry-leading technology, said Michael Thompson, Ph.D., Global Sales Manager of Agrigenomics at Illumina. &nbsp;We are pleased that this work will enable a thorough understanding of gene content and organization, and lay the ground work for unraveling and harnessing the diversity among the  Gossypium  genome types. These advancements will ultimately benefit both producers and consumers.  Monsanto and Illumina will deposit the genetic data into the public domain through entry in the GenBank database, hosted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Monsanto has a history of donating its genomic knowledge to the public sector. In previous years, the company has made its sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome public and contributed significant genomic data to help complete the rice and corn genomes.  In cotton, Monsanto previously donated 4,000 cotton molecular markers and associated information to Texas AgriLife Research, an agency of the Texas A&amp;M System, in April 2009. These types of public donations should help cotton research continue to move forward.  As a leader in the cotton industry, we have the resources, expertise, and partners such as Illumina to conduct this type of work, and believe its important to share this knowledge with both public and private researchers so we can all benefit, says Vaughn. We can achieve the ultimate goal of a complete sequence of the cotton genome faster by sharing what weve learned and enabling others in the cotton community to continue and build upon this research.  Once the information is publicly available, David Stelly a molecular breeder and cotton genomicist with Texas A&amp;M University, is expected to lead the effort to pull together a group of researchers in the public sector to conduct further analysis of the  G. raimondii  genome and the role it plays in key functions such as fiber development.  A public reference genome sequence is essential to efficient use of modern genomic technologies for both non-GE and GE approaches to genetic improvement, says Stelly. The lack of a good public reference genome for cotton has been among the most serious constraints on development of cotton genomics. The ongoing efforts by Monsanto and Illumina will lead to a good public reference genome for cotton, and help stimulate the creation of new and more efficient research paradigms in cotton research and improvement. &nbsp;These will be needed if society is to meet additional demands of the future, when we;ll have to produce more, yet use fewer resources.


About Monsanto Company  &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Monsanto Company is a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and food quality. &nbsp;Monsanto remains focused on enabling both small-holder and large-scale farmers to produce more from their land while conserving more of our world;s natural resources such as water and energy. To learn more about our business and our commitments, please visit: www.monsanto.com. &nbsp;Follow our business on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MonsantoCo, on the company blog, Beyond the Rows at www.monsantoblog.com, or subscribe to our News Release RSS Feed.


About Illumina  Illumina (http://www.illumina.com) is a leading developer, manufacturer, and marketer of life science tools and integrated systems for large-scale analysis of genetic variation and function. We provide innovative sequencing and array-based solutions for genotyping, copy number variation analysis, methylation studies, gene expression profiling, and low-multiplex analysis of DNA, RNA and protein. We also provide tools and services that are fueling advances in consumer genomics and diagnostics. Our technology and products accelerate genetic analysis research and its application, paving the way for molecular medicine and ultimately transforming healthcare.













Document Number: 8050 



 Gilles-Eric Sralini concerned that practical classes erode the time spent imparting knowledge of biology. 


 by  David Tribe  on 1 February 2011 


The genetic modification of bacteria in French science classes has sparked concern.  Nature Magazine News 31 January 2011


A row has broken out in France over whether 15- and 16-year-olds should be allowed to create transgenic  Escherichia coli  bacteria in the classroom.


Practical experiments in which students learn how to use plasmids to alter the DNA of the bacteria have been under way for 17 and 18-year-olds in the final year of the scientific baccalaureate at schools across France for the past decade. But this year teachers have for the first time been offered the option of teaching the experiments to younger students.


The Committee for Research &amp; Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) in Caen, France, which lobbies for stricter controls over genetic engineering, is particularly upset because in the  experiments the students modify the bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin.*


Gilles-Eric Sralini, president of the organization;s scientific committee, says that CRIIGEN is in favour of genetic engineering, as long as it is properly controlled. But the necessary restrictions are not currently in place, he says.


CRIIGEN ;will urge the education ministry to impose a moratorium until a full debate on the question is organized;, says Sralini. ;We believe such material should not be manipulated by students before they reach university.;


He warns against trivialization of a sensitive subject, contamination risks and possible violation of European directives on the manipulation of genetically modified organisms in confined spaces. ;I am also concerned that practical classes erode the time spent imparting knowledge of biology,; he adds.


Gilles-Eric Sralini&nbsp;concerned that practical classes erode the time spent imparting knowledge of biology.


Update


* Quite clear&nbsp;Gilles-Eric Sralini has not been reading  Academics Review  :


5.2GM does not affect gene movement into bacteria


There is scientific certainty that genes normally move at detectable frequencies between different microbe species in the gut. &nbsp;But Genetic Roulette does not mention that genes constantly move between distantly related bacteria in other environments, and that these other environments provide a huge reservoir of antibiotic resistance genes that can be transferred to gut bacteria.  There is vast and diverse array of genetically mobile antibiotic resistance genes in soil bacteria. Genes move between kingdoms in ocean plankton on a vast scale.  Multitudes of viruses and other agents that carry genes between different species are known to be active in these different environments. &nbsp;These are proven existing sources of novel genes for bacteria that dwarf the undetectable gene transfers that Genetic Roulette speculates about (Bennett and others; 2004; DCosta and others 2007; Demanche and others 2008; Drge and others 1998; Gladyshev and others 2008; &nbsp;Keeling , Palmer 2008; van den Eede and others 2004).













Document Number: 6194 



 Glowing phagocytosis 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 31 March 2010 


Usually, when we think about biotechnology, it;s in the context of agriculture, and occasionally in the context of medicine, but biotechnology is useful for a lot more. It can be used to study complex cellular and developmental processes with results that can be stunningly beautiful, and sometimes silly.


Margaret Clarke  researches the soil  amoeba  Dictyostelium discoideum  using biotechnology. Dr. Clarke is officially retired, but as a dedicated scientist, she;s continuing her work. She visited Iowa State yesterday and today.


Phagocytosis of a bacterium by an immune cell (on a tee shirt!) by Zazzle.


In particular, Dr. Clarke studies phagocytosis ; literally ;cell eating;. These amoeba are single celled organisms that eat bacteria (and just about any bacteria-sized particle that might be nutritious). Phagocytosis is the process of forming a cup that engulfs the prey, drawing the prey into the phagocyte, and digesting the prey.


Her work has important applications in human medicine, as the phagocytosis process takes place in special phagocytic cells that are part of the  immune system  of humans and other animals. Learning how phagocytosis works in amoeba can help us to understand how it works in the immune system.


Before biotechnology came around, Dr. Clarke used biochemical analysis to determine what sorts of compounds were at work in actively phagocytising cells. She was able to find out that both  actin  and  myosin  were present. While this was important information (people used to think myosin was only present in muscle tissue), she wasn;t able to get any information about exactly where, when, and how these proteins were produced in the phagocytosis process ; especially since it happens so quickly!


Finally,  about 15 years ago  , people started using biotechnology to label proteins in living cells with  fluorescent proteins  . Dr. Clarke saw that she could use these fluorescent labels to actually see where, when, and how actin and other compounds accumulated and dissapated in amoeba that were phagocytising. Dr. Clarke labeled different proteins with either red or green fluorescent proteins, learning much about the phagocytosis process. Even better ;  she caught them on film  !


The images above are from Dr. Clarke;s 2006 paper  Phagocyte meets prey: Uptake, internalization, and killing of bacteria by   Dictyostelium  amoebae  . This transgenic amoeba are expressing RFP-LimE, which is the gene for red fluorescent protein joined to a gene for a protein that binds to actin. Where ever actin is expressed, the amoeba will be a brighter red. It is eating GFP labeled  E. coli  .


As you can see, Dictyostelium are greedy little guys! They;ll try to eat just about anything, including things that are too large for them, like this amoeba trying to eat a yeast cell to the right (for the video of this frustrated little guy, see Honorable Mention #5 at the  Olympus Bioscapes 2009 competition  ).


Development of Dictyostelium by M. Grimson and R. Blanton of Texas Tech University.


In addition to its awesome phagocytosis techniques,  Dictyostelium  has an amazing  life cycle  . When food becomes scarce, the amoeba will put out  cAMP  ,a chemical that causes them to aggregate. About 100,000 individual amoeba group together and start to form what;s called a ;migrating slug.; The ;slug; will move through the soil toward the surface where it will develop into a fruiting body and eventually put out spores that will become single celled amoeba again.


.


Clarke M, &amp; Maddera L (2006). Phagocyte meets prey: uptake, internalization, and killing of bacteria by Dictyostelium amoebae.  European journal of cell biology, 85  (9-10), 1001-10 PMID:  16782228













Document Number: 1113 



 Does glyphosate restrict crop mineral uptake? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 28 February 2011 


Note: This post follows  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence  about Don Huber;s alleged letter to the USDA that claims a never before seen ;micro fungus; is endangering all of agriculture.


While claims about ;micro-fungi; are too extraordinary to even consider until extraordinary proof is provided (and preferably replicated by another lab and peer reviewed), Don Huber;s claims that Roundup (specifically the active ingredient glyphosate) weakens crops by binding minerals in the soil seems to have at least some merit, at least enough to be taken seriously and examined further.


Over the years since Roundup Ready (RR) crops have been released, independent researchers have conducted many studies to determine whether there is a specific problem with some crop varieties with the RR gene, with all crops with the RR gene, or with glyphosate itself. Overall, the research shows that there may be some concern about glyphosate reducing availability of some minerals when the soil is deficient in those minerals. The research hasn;t found a problem with the RR gene itself.


It is important to note that the stack of peer reviewed papers indicating glyphosate to be a problem with disease or yield is much smaller than the stack indicating there is no problem. We must look at the entire body of evidence, not just cherry pick one or a few papers, in order to get a clear understanding of what;s really happening. Happily, extension experts from multiple universities have summarized the research for us, but if you want to look for yourself,  PubMed  is a great place to start.


Claims of interactions between glyphosate and minerals


In February of 2010, Dr. Huber appeared in an article by Martha Ostendorf titled  Are We Shooting Ourselves In The Foot With A Silver Bullet?  in No-Till Magazine along with Bob Streit, an agronomy consultant in Iowa. That article is  no longer available  from the No-Till Farmer website, but thankfully a Biofortified reader found another source (linked from the article title). Another article written by Huber at about the same time is  Ag chemical and crop nutrient interactions  . In these document, a lot of claims are made that aren;t consistent with the majority of peer reviewed research on the subject.


Since 2010, Dr. Huber has continued publicly claiming that glyphosate binds up minerals in the soil, making the minerals unavailable to crops and increasing susceptibility to disease (specifically fungal disease), thus decreasing yields. He spoke to the  Innovative Farmers Association of Ontario  in March 2010, one of many talks he;s given on this topic. In February 2011, he gave a talk in Des Moines at a  seminar  organized by the same Bob Streit and Amie Brandy. Dr. Huber has published some peer reviewed studies to back up his claims as well.


Dr. Huber is not the only scientist that has found interactions between glyphosate and minerals. Back in 2007, Barney Gordon published some research in an industry newsletter indicating that glyphosate treated soybeans may require manganese fertilizer for optimal yields:  Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans  . Of course, this research was used inappropriately as ;evidence; that genetic engineering reduces yields, but that;s  another story  .


Dr. Gordon and Dr. Huber;s work has been used eagerly by fertilizer companies and organizations that promote fertilizers to encourage farmers to apply minerals to their crops. For example, see  Glyphosate and Micronutrients  by Jim Halbeisen of  Growers Mineral Solutions  and  Missing Micro Nutrients  by Larry Reichenberger of  ProfitPro  (who sells liquid fertilizer).


Dr. Huber has published directly in fertilizer promotion materials, such as the Fluid Journal (sponsored by the Fluid Fertilizer Foundation):  What About Glyphosate-Induced Manganese Deficiency?  Dr. Gordon;s  Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans  was published in Better Crops which is run by the International Plant Nutrition Institute which encourages use of a variety of fertilizers.


Response from extension


Understandably, farmers have been actively pursuing more information from  extension  agents as soon as they hear about a possible decrease in yields with glyphosate use. University extension has responded with multiple documents and presentations to help guide farmers using known research and by conducting additional research. Extension agents have a unique ability to bring research directly to farmers and other people near the university and can quickly conduct field tests to help farmers make science-based decisions.


In February of 2010, Iowa State University Extension produced a great overview of the research that includes analysis of some papers of which Dr. Huber was a co-author:  Glyphosate-Manganese Interactions in Roundup Ready Soybean  by  Bob Hartzler  , Extension Weed Specialist and Professor of Agronomy. He concludes that manganese uptake varies depending on which soybean variety is being used, not on whether or not the RR gene is present. He also concludes that while it is known that glyphosate will bind to soluble manganese, this is only a problem in manganese deficient soils.


In November of 2010, Bob Hartzler released  Glyphosate Interactions with Micronutrients and Plant Disease  , with the conclusion:


Due to the complexity of the processes that occur within the root zone, it is impossible to completely rule out negative effects of glyphosate on mineral nutrition or disease development in GR crops. However, results from field research and our widespread experience with glyphosate on GR crops for over a decade do not indicate widespread negative impacts of glyphosate on these factors.


In April of 2010, University of Minnesota Extension put out a short commentary that also discussed Dr. Huber;s claims:  Roundup and Manganese for Minnesota Soybeans  . Extension agent George Rehm conducted experiments in Minnesota and found that additional manganese was not needed due to adequate manganese in Minnesota soils. The April commentary was actually a followup to a xpost about manganese from January of 2010,  Magnesium In Minnesota  , that attracted some critical commentary from none other than Bob Streit.


In January of 2011, Ohio State University Extension released a presentation (Flash needed) by  Robert Mullen  , extension specialist and associate professor, summarizing their work on this subject:  Manganese / Glyphosate antagonism?  Their research shows that applying manganese to soy does increase the concentration of manganese in plant tissues, but did not find that glyphosate caused decreases in yield or manganese. Adding manganese can cause yield increase or yield  decrease  depending on environment, specially soil type. They did find that soil type and pH causes significant differences in manganese uptake.


In February of 2011, Dr. Huber;s colleagues at Perdue University Extension put out a paper titled  Glyphosate;s Impact on Field Crop Production and Disease Development  that seems to be in direct response to the flurry of blog posts and ;news; articles about Roundup that were spurred by Dr. Huber;s recent letter. While they don;t mention Dr. Huber directly, they do cite and express concern about articles that are credulous about Dr. Huber;s claims regarding glyphosate and plant and animal disease. They conclude:


Overall, the claims that glyphosate is haing a widespread effect on plant health are largely unsubstantiated. To date, there is limited scientific research data that suggest that plant diseases have increased in GM crops due to the use of glyphosate. Most importantly, the impact of these interactions on yield has not been demonstrated. Therefore, we maintain our recommendations of judicious glyphosate use for weed control. We encourage crop producers, agribusiness personnel, and the general public to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims instead of facts.


This isn;t the first time that Dr. Huber;s colleages have attempted to do damage control in response to ;greatly exaggerated; reports by Dr. Huber about minerals and glyphosate. In April of 2010 Dr. Huber;s colleagues at Perdue University Extension released  Glyphosate  Manganese Interactions and Impacts on Crop Production: The Controversy  , referring interested persons to Iowa State University Extension. They state that high pH, high organic matter soils cause manganese to be less available to the crop whether or not glyphosate is present.


Update: Extension agents are still working to correct what they see as misinformation spread by Dr. Huber.  Anne Dorrance  , expert in soybean pathology and extension agent at Ohio State has a 14 March 2011 article in Ag Professional:  Glyphosate Effects on Soybean Diseases  . She directly assesses the claims that glyphosate use has increased incidence of disease, backed up with literature and her personal experience.


Have you seen any other extension or other articles by professional agronomists on this topic?  Let us know  and I;ll include them here.


Consider the data, not the source


I have read some claims that university researchers can not be trusted because many universities accept some grants from agricultural companies. Specifically, some bloggers have claimed that the Purdue extension agents; scientific integrity is compromised, which is something that I think needs to be addressed, especially when it is clear that fertilizer companies and foundations are so eager to use Dr. Huber;s research. Potential conflicts of interest go every which way.


Purdue  , like Iowa State and every other university, has strict standards of scientific and professional ethics. In addition, the amount of research funding granted by companies is small compared to funding from other sources. For example, at Iowa State,  publicly available  detailed reports of funding show that the research being conducted with corporate funding are far from the majority of funding and that most grants are extremely specific in scope. While there are isolated examples of inappropriate conduct of public universities regarding private companies or company interests, that is no reason to denounce every employee at every public university.


Instead of smearing the names of extension employees and researchers, we should examine the veracity of their work. We need to consider the data available. The identity of the source needs to be known in order to determine if a person has relevant expertise. We can look at the source to get a feeling for how much skepticism we need to apply. Go too far beyond that, and we get dangerously close to  ad homs  .













Document Number: 6359 



 GM and GW added together mean action on climate change fears 


 by  David Tribe  on 1 October 2010 


American Institute of Biological Sciences


Genetically altered trees, plants could help counter global warming


Study evaluates prospects for boosting carbon sequestration from the atmosphere by modifying natural biological processes and deploying novel food and fuel crops


Forests of genetically altered trees and other plants could sequester several billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year and so help ameliorate global warming, according to estimates published in the October issue of&nbsp;   BioScience  .


The&nbsp;   study, by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory  , outlines a variety of strategies for augmenting the processes that plants use to sequester carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into long-lived forms of carbon, first in vegetation and ultimately in soil.    Besides increasing the efficiency of plants; absorption of light, researchers might be able to genetically alter plants so they send more carbon into their roots;where some may be converted into soil carbon and remain out of circulation for centuries. Other possibilities include altering plants so that they can better withstand the stresses of growing on marginal land, and so that they&nbsp;   yield improved bioenergy and food crops  . Such innovations might, in combination, boost substantially the amount of carbon that vegetation naturally extracts from air, according to the authors; estimates.    The researchers stress that the use of genetically engineered plants for carbon sequestration is only one of many policy initiatives and technical tools that might boost the carbon sequestration already occurring in natural vegetation and crops.    The article, by Christer Jansson, Stan D. Wullschleger, Udaya C. Kalluri, and Gerald A. Tuskan, is the first in a Special Section in the October&nbsp;   BioScience  &nbsp;that includes several perspectives on the prospects for enhancing biological carbon sequestration. Other articles in the section analyze the substantial ecological and economic constraints that limit such efforts. One article discusses the prospects for sequestering carbon by culturing algae to produce biofuel feedstocks; one proposes a modification of the current regulatory climate for producing genetically engineered trees in the United States; and one discusses societal perceptions of the issues surrounding the use of genetically altered organisms to ameliorate warming attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases.    ###      By noon EST on 1 October 2010   &nbsp;and until early November, the full text of the article will be available for free download through the copy of this press release available at&nbsp;     www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-  releases/  .     BioScience   , published 11 times per year, is the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).&nbsp;   BioScience  &nbsp;publishes commentary and peer-reviewed articles covering a wide range of biological fields, with a focus on ;Organisms from Molecules to the Environment.; The journal has been published since 1964. AIBS is an umbrella organization for professional scientific societies and organizations that are involved with biology. It represents some 200 member societies and organizations with a combined membership of about 250,000.    The complete list of peer-reviewed articles in the October 2010 issue of&nbsp;   BioScience  &nbsp;is as follows:    Phytosequestration: Carbon Biosequestration by Plants and the Prospects of Genetic Engineering by Christer Jansson, Stan D. Wullschleger, Udaya C. Kalluri, and Gerald A. Tuskan    Opportunities and Constraints for Forest Climate Mitigation by Robert B. Jackson and Justin S. Baker    Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security by Rattan Lal    Microalgae: The Potential for Carbon Capture by Richard Sayre    Far-reaching Deleterious Impacts of Regulations on Research and Environmental Studies of Recombinant DNA-modified Perennial Biofuel Crops in the United States by Steven H. Strauss, Drew L. Kershen, Joe H. Bouton, Thomas P. Redick, Huimin Tan, and Roger A. Sedjo    Societal Choice for Climate Change Futures: Trees, Biotechnology, and Clean Development by Emily Boyd    Time Horizons and Extinction Risk in Endangered Species Categorization Systems by Jesse D;Elia and Scott McCarthy













Document Number: 1988 



 GM crops and farming reality 


 by  David Tribe  on 16 October 2010 


Opinion piece:  The Gene Revolution ; GM crops and farming reality  &nbsp;AFAA ; Jim Peacock


The time has come for all sectors of Australias grain industry, from farm to shop, to get on top of GM technology, urges Australias former Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock.


Our Green Revolution is near spent. The enormous and lasting gains made in crop yield through conventional plant breeding, mechanization, crop protection and clever agronomy are slowing.


But the next era for mainstream broadacre farming is already here, it might well be called the Gene Revolution.


More than 95% of Australias near 400,000 hectare cotton crop this summer consists of GM varieties. And in only the 3rd year of commercial production, there are some 133,300 hectares of GM canola in NSW, Victoria and WA this spring  an estimated 9% of the total canola crop.


What else is coming over the hill? Well, you name it  GM research underway in Australia covers: papaya, pineapple, sugarcane, grapevines, carnations, rice, white clover, wheat, Indian mustard, bananas, barley, perennial ryegrass, tall fescue, corn and roses. Most work is focusing on key traits which lessen production risks and underpin yield.


The big-ticket item, GM wheat, is just 7 or more years away. Clearly, our farmers and their advisors, and the supply chain all the way through to customers and consumers, now need to start appreciating the GM reality, and separate myth from fact.


Fact 1: GM science will be essential for our food security in the decades ahead. It is estimated that the number of humans on the planet will rise from 6 billion in 2000 to near 9 billion in 2050, and food demand will rise by 70% (Source: FAO).


Fact 2: Globally, farmers and supply-chains are going with GM; in 2009, 134 million hectares of GM crops were planted in 26 countries representing an 80-fold increase since 1996 when GM crops were first commercialised. There were 2 million new adopters last year.


Fact 3: It is estimated that biotech related gains in corn, soybean &amp; canola had delivered an extra 14 million tonnes of production since 1996. And it has all been successfully traded.


Fact 4: Farmers who use GM technology appreciate that GM R&amp;D businesses simply need a return on their long-term investments. Remember, much GM work is by public-private collaboration, and these bodies can only protect their IP through patents and fund their work via royalties. It is how innovation is incentivized. It is standard practice. And market forces ensure the pricing of the technology to farmers is realistic.


Fact 5: The costs of doing the R&amp;D and bringing a variety to market are huge: Monsanto alone spends $1.1bn per year ($3 million a day) in research. Multiply that figure 10-fold or more for the global GM R&amp;D effort.


Perhaps the biggest misguided myth is around safety. Those who have a different view of mainstream farming reality continue to raise questions about GM science and GM crop safety, and refer to studies which purport to have discovered something harmful about GM.  Fact 6: Such studies have, without exception, been discredited by the weight of mainstream scientific evidence, opinion and peer review, and by recognised regulatory agencies around the world.


Fact 7: Major scientific and health organizations, and regulatory bodies, have endorsed the safety of approved GM crops to human health and the environment.


In Australia, we are regulatory leaders. We have an excellent, world-class system that is purposely designed to pick-up anomalies and look for any potential problem. Human health and environmental safety is the first priority. Why would it be anything other than that? Indeed, GM crops are subjected to incredible scrutiny, whereas conventional crops receive relatively less.


For example, our record started with Gossypium sp. When we started work with cotton (Gossypium pima) in the early 1990s to develop GM varieties, we knew that there were some native Australian Gossypium plant species. We were rightly required to conduct thousands of tests to analyse every possible facet of potential transfer of genetic material from the new GM varieties to the native plants.


The point is that we had to do the work, and the system proved that there were no risks. If the extent and comprehensive-ness of the safety analyses was seen and understood by the public, people would not give a second thought to approved GM varieties.


Fact 8: Over the years billions of meals have been made and consumed that contain one or more GM crop ingredients or whole foods.


While GM canola and cottonseed oils are pure oil  they contain no proteins  even if they did, theyd be broken down into basic amino-acids. It happens every meal: just think of what was for dinner last night!


In our gut all proteins, starches and fats/oils that are in lettuce, carrots, potatoes, pumpkin, tomatoes, corn, soybeans and canola dairy products, beef, lamb, chicken or fish are all broken down into the basic biochemical building blocks, and no genetic material becomes incorporated into our genes!


The reality of todays farming is that scientists are working for the betterment of society and GM crops are simply the next major agricultural technology.


Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited (AFAA) is an industry initiative, established to increase public awareness of, and encourage informed debate and decision-making about gene technology. AFAA is committed to providing quality, factual, science-based information on the use of gene technology in agriculture to allow for informed decisions. AFAA works broadly across the agriculture sector. The organisation has three founding members  CropLife Australia, Grains Research and Development Corporation and the National Farmers Federation  and our activities are also supported by the sugar industry, the Grain Growers Association and through a project partnership with the red meat industry.


Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited gives no warranty and makes no representation that the information contained in this document is suitable for any purpose or is free from error. Agrifood Awareness Australia Limited accepts no responsibility for any person acting or relying upon the information contained in this document, and disclaims all liability. August 2010.













Document Number: 9564 



 GM drought tolerant corn now legal as a food component in Australia 


 by  David Tribe  on 2 September 2010 


Food derived from drought-tolerant corn line MON87460  Food derived from insect-protected soybean line MON87701


Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code  Amendment No. 118  2010  Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991  Preamble  The variations set forth in the Schedule below are variations to Standards in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code published by the National Health and Medical Research Council in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, No. P 27, on 27 August 1987, which have been varied from time to time.  Citation  These variations may be collectively known as the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code  Amendment No. 118  2010.  Commencement  These variations commence on 2 September 2010.  Correction of Typographical Errors  Amendment No. 117 published on 8 April 2010 contained the following typographical errors   Under Items [1.3] and [1.4], the text to be inserted in Schedule 1 to Standard 1.  3.1 should have been Additives in Schedules 3 and 4 not Additives in Schedule 3 and 4.  SCHEDULE  [1] Standard 1.5.2 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is varied by inserting in Column 1 of the Table to clause 2   Food derived from drought-tolerant corn line MON87460  Food derived from insect-protected soybean line MON87701













Document Number: 5703 



 Genetic modification of insects as pest control part 2 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 29 November 2010 


In  part 1  of this series, I discussed the history of genetic modification in insects as pest control. We;ve been creating insect GMOs for the purposes of controlling pests for awhile. If you bombard insects with radiation, it can kill rapidly reproducing cells. High doses of radiation can also damage the DNA in quickly reproducing gamete producing cells to the point where it can;t be read, creating severe mutations that stop important proteins from being made. In other words, sperm are produced, but they aren;t healthy. If female flies mate with one of these males, she won;t produce any offspring. If this happens enough on a large scale, the population plummets because females aren;t producing viable offspring.


This technique has been used for years in various disciplines from  medicine  to agriculture. There;s always room for improvement, and this is no exception.


These guys like fruit and long walks on the beach.


Flash forward 50 years past the screwworm elimination program (discussed in  part 1  ) and several other wildly successful programs. Greatly increased international travel allows pests to spread all over the globe.


One pest, the Mediterranean fruit fly (   Ceratitis capitata  or Medfly for short), has a host range of over 200 plant species. It specializes on crops where just about any damage justifies control. Medfly larvae feed inside the fruit, so they;re really hard to control because there aren;t Bt crops available for everything and you can;t inject conventional pesticides into the fruit. These flies scare us so much that some agroterrorist groups actually claimed to have used them as weapons.


Seriously;I;m not kidding. From  Time  :


The most bizarre protest of all has been a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and local newspapers, sent by an ecoterrorist organization calling itself the Breeders, which claimed to be breeding and releasing its own medflies. The organization;s alleged purpose: to render the medfly problem ;unmanageable; and Malathion spraying ;financially intolerable.;


Don;t worry, the ecoterrorists don;t have the upper hand here. Medfly biology isn;t that much different from the standard model organism   Drosophila melanogaster  . Thanks to a TON of prior experience with rearing flies (like  Drosophila  ) and the unique characteristics of Medfly biology, we;re able to mess around with Medfly biology and figure stuff out.


For starters, insect genetics are weird; like  really  weird. Insect larvae are completely different from the adults. The medfly goes from a legless, rasping maggot to a flying, walking adult which feeds on a liquid diet. In fact, you need completely separate  keys  to identify the two. Accordingly, the two use almost completely different sets of genes. Some are only turned on during the larval stage, and others are only turned on during the adult.


Imagine that you could take a gene for a lethal protein which is only expressed in larvae and engineer it so that the gene only  expresses  when a specific chemical is present (the gene is off unless the chemical is there). Another option is to have a lethal gene that only expresses when a specific chemical is absent (the gene is on unless the chemical is there). You;ve now got a way to turn expression of that gene on or off. Either way, the chemical isn;t around in the wild; so the larvae thrive in the lab and die in the wild.


This type of conditional gene expression for Medfly larvae was described in 2005 by scientists from the University of Oxford. The lead scientist on this research,  Luke Alphey  , created a spin off company called  Oxitec  to develop and commercialize this type of insect control system. The system is called RIDL, Release of Insects carrying a Dominant Lethal.


The system they developed had a dominant lethal gene being expressed in larvae unless a specific chemical, tetracycline, was present. In the diagram below (from the  Oxitec website  ), that gene is for the ;tetracycline transactivator; protein or tTA for short. When tetracycline (Tc) is present, it binds to the tTA protein so tTA can;t bind to the genetic regulatory element tetO. Mefly larvae with the RIFL transgene thrive when Tc is present.


If tetracycline (Tc) isn;t present, the protein produced by the tTA gene causes more expression of tTA by binding to tetO. Then, tTa accumulates and does some pretty nasty stuff to the larvae. We;re not quite sure what it does; but it;s lethal. Dead larvae can;t grow into adults and reproduce. Ideally, the majority of larvae will inherit the RIDL transgene which means that the majority of the larvae will die. This system protein works beautifully in the lab, but of course real-world tests need to be performed.


The larvae need high levels of the tTA protein in their systems in order for it to kill them. If the occasional larva is accidentally ingested by a mouse or human no ill effects will occur. Even in mice which have been engineered to express this gene, tTA can;t build up to harmful levels.


The RIDL system is a big improvement over the traditional technique of irradiating insects (as described in  part 1  ) for a number of ways.


First, we don;t have to sterilize the larvae because they;re going to die outside of the lab if they don;t get tetraycline. That means workers don;t have to work around radiation or other mutagens. We also don;t have to worry about an incompetent lab tech or a natural disaster accidentally releasing unsterilized insects into the wild. Even if the tTA system fails and the larvae are able to develop into adults, the tTA protein has a different mode of action from any pesticide so the RIDL gene won;t contribute to pesticide resistance.


Another way this is an improvement is its subtlety. Insects compete with each other all the time in the wild even within the same species. If you simply release insects that can;t reproduce, you;re opening up a bunch of resources for those who can. There;s less competition between larvae, so those which are lucky enough to have offspring find a plethora of resources available to their next generation. That doesn;t happen with this technique because the transgenic adults produce larvae which die while larvae; they;re still around and competing for resources with wild type larvae and edging some of them out.


Long time readers should notice something strange about this, I;m saying that allowing the insect to live is beneficial; especially for insects like the Screwworm and Medfly where it;s the larvae which are the most destructive. It is admittedly a bit counter intuitive, but this reduces the number of viable adults in the next generation by depriving this generation of resources.


Of course, remember that  not all pests are always pests  . Insects can feed on  vastly different food sources  between larvae and adults and one stage can be completely innocous. Mosquitoes are great examples of this, because it is only the  adult female  which transmits disease. The larvae eat bits of goo which build up in the small pools where they live and the adult males feed on nectar and usually don;t bother anybody. Because the medfly and screwworm cause problems as larvae we could argue about whether benefit number two is a huge benefit; but in the case of the mosquito this is fairly clear cut.


Gong P, Epton M, Fu G, Scaife S, Hiscox A, Condon K, Condon G, Morrison N, Kelly D, Dafa;alla T, Coleman P, &amp; Alphey L. (2005). A dominant lethal genetic system for autocidal control of the Mediterranean fruitfly.  Nature Biotechnology, 23  (4), 453-456 DOI:  10.1038/nbt1071













Document Number: 743 



 Genetic modification of insects as pest control ; Part 1 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 21 November 2010 


Vector borne diseases (VBDs) are generally pretty bad.  Yellow fever  , the disease which stopped the Panama canal dead in it;s tracks, makes your liver fail and turns you yellow; hence the name.  Malaria  is caused by a parasite which ruptures blood cells in unison.  African trypanosomiasis  makes you go to sleep and then die.  Dengue fever  lays you up in bed for six months in some of the worst agony imaginable. Hell, even veterinary VBDs are horrifying; outbreaks of  rift valley fever  usually present with random farm animal abortions.


In 2008, malaria alone killed 708,000 to over a million people, most of them young children in sub-Saharan Africa, and an estimated 190 to 311 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide, according to the  CDC  . Diseases like malaria, may actually work to keep poor regions poor. Control methods often  do not reach the poorest people  due to high cost; vector borne diseases tend to be diseases of poverty.


Check out this video made as a public service announcement in 1943 by Disney. Some of the control methods have changed, such as specific chemicals, but not that much.


So; what can be done to help save lives in regions with VBD problems? We can vaccinate, in those few cases where vaccines have been developed, and we can kill the vectors, but vector control efforts can be expensive. Education and awareness is great, too; let the locals know what the potential harm is and send them on search and destroy missions to remove insect breeding grounds.


But; and this is the cool part; we;ve got a new tool in our arsenal.


Genetically modified mosquitoes.


First, a history lesson for part 1, which will continue in part 2. We;ll get around to the whole mosquito thing in part 3.


Screw-worm larva.


A lot of techniques used in vector control actually originated in agriculture. Pesticides and  degree-day  systems that help predict growth of insects were both developed to help fight crop pests. Prior to the 1950s, one of the biggest pests of cattle in the US was a critter called  Cochliomyia homnivorax  , the  New World Screw-worm  . For cattle (and rarely; humans) this disease is even more horrifying than anything I;ve mentioned yet. This fly lays eggs in major or minor wounds of cattle, and the maggots proceeded to eat the animal from the outside in. Once one female lays her eggs, the smell of the infested wound would draw more and more females.


There were some rather fortunate quirks to the biology of this pest, though. It couldn;t overwinter in most areas of the US and the females only mated once while the males tended to be really ugly six-legged Casanovas. This meant that if we could eliminate them from their overwintering grounds, they wouldn;t spread over the US over the following year. They;d be gone.


Enter Raymond Bushland and Edward Knipling. They hypothesized that if we could sterilize male flies, each male would each prevent multiple females from laying eggs. If you kept this up, eventually the population would drop. If you kept it up a bit longer, eventually the sterile males would outnumber the fertile males.


This pretty little blue fly can mess up a cow pretty good. The number on the back is a sticker used to track the flies in recapture programs. We want to make sure they go out and get laid instead of hanging around their release sites.


So, this is what they did. They raised thousands upon thousands of screw-worms, bombarded them with radioactive cobalt which shredded the DNA in their quickly reproducing gametes, rendering them unable to bear children, and released them. The screw-worm was quickly eliminated and remains only in South America to this day, held at bay by release programs. Drs. Bushland and Knipling were the  1992 World Food Prize Laureates  in recognition of their work.


There are some problems with this technique, though. Sometimes, the males which have gone through the radiation aren;t as competitive as the fertile males which results in the females favoring the wrong males from our point of view (you know; the one which matters) and sometimes the females mate multiple times which means that there;s only a decrease in reproductive output instead of elimination. There;s also the problem of working around radiation; we;re not talking about chernobyl grade material here, but whenever you can you;d ideally like to eliminate the risk to the people who work around these things.


Of course, science is by no means a rigid process. We try to refine our techniques whenever we can, and this will be the focus of  Genetic modification of insects as pest control Part 2  .













Document Number: 8057 



 Genetic modification of insects as pest control part 3 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 7 December 2010 


In  part 1  of this series, I explained how we;ve been using genetic engineering of sorts for nearly half a century to control insects by using radiation to induce sterility or other dominant lethal mutations in insects. In  part 2  , I explained how we can use genetic engineering to make these projects safer and easier.


So; part 3. What;s the next step? Put it to the test!


A system is only good if we can actually use it. We can test stuff in a laboratory and under cages all we want, but the tests only matter if they have an effect on real-world populations. This step has now been taken. Mosquitoes which have been modified by the Oxford-based company  Oxitec  to carry tetracycline repressible lethal genes (as described in  part 2  ) are being released into the wild to combat outbreaks of  Dengue fever  in the  Cayman Islands  (see  press release  ). This real-world test will help us to see if this technique will work in real-world situations.


It;s kind of pretty in a ;they;re gonna kill us all; kind of way. Image via Wikimedia.


Dengue is largely spread by  Aedes aegypti  mosquitoes which feed pretty much only on humans and are present in the highest populations around our cities;they;re mosquitoes which have adapted to an urban lifestyle. They bite during the day, so we can;t use bed nets. They;re notoriously resistant to many insect repellents; and  they;re evolving resistance  to insecticides used in vector control programs. Carbamates, pyrethroids; even DDT shows resistance in many populations of these guys. We simply need new tools.


Thanks to Medfly research, we now have new tools. One of these new tools, the RIDL genes explained in part two, is what is currently being tested in the Cayman Islands. Genetically modified  Aedes aegypti  have been released in an effort to bring the mosquito populations down past the number where they can spread disease. They;re only releasing male mosquitoes which don;t feed on blood, so they can;t transmit the disease to humans.


An Aedes aegypti larva. Image via Wikimedia.


There;s an even cooler ecological quirk to this technique, though. The lethal protein takes awhile to build up in the mosquito larvae, which means the mosquito larvae take a while to die. Before they die, they actually compete with wild type larvae for resources which should help to keep populations from quickly rebounding. The larvae of  Aedes aegypti  live in water where they feed on detritus. They don;t feed on blood and are unable to transmit disease.


In an AP article titled  Mutant mosquitoes fight dengue in Cayman Islands  , Oxitec is predicting an 80% reduction in  Aedes  mosquitoes from their test release of modified mosquitoes. I;m muting my enthusiasm until I see some data from this test as well as an decrease in Dengue transmission. It;s one thing to release the mosquitoes with a prediction the populations will fall, but ultimately I;d still like to see proof that this will work on this system. This is a good step in the right direction, though.


However, the program is meeting a lot of resistance from many including anti-GMO groups. From the AP article:


;If we remove an insect like the mosquito from the ecosystem, we don;t know what the impact will be,; said Pete Riley, campaign director of GM Freeze, a British non-profit group that opposes genetic modification.


He said mosquito larvae might be food for other species, which could starve if the larvae disappear. Or taking out adult mosquito predators might open up a slot for other insect species to slide in, potentially introducing new diseases.


Human ecology is a weird, wonderful thing. We bring in all sorts of animals wherever we go from dogs to birds to rats, and there are urban mosquitoes which specialize on all of these. RIDL relies on species-specific patterns of mating and reproduction, so we can target it pretty effectively. If the  Aedes aegypti  mosquitoes die out, something else will take its place and Riley is correct on this. It could be something like  Aedes albopictus  which also spreads Dengue or  Culex quinquefasciatus  which also spreads disease (not Dengue, though) but the mosquitoes could also be potentially be replaced by something which feeds on birds and rarely bites humans. We won;t know until this happens because nobody can predict the future.


Of course, because there are mosquito species other than  Aedes aegypti  those poor mossie predators will be OK because that will be the only species affected by the program. Either way, though; Riley;s arguing against mosquito control rather than the genetic modification of mosquitoes as a tool. I think this is weird because, vector borne diseases kill millions of people across the globe every year. I think it;s simply a good idea to try to eliminate the disease.


The next statement I found more than a bit odd because Riley seems to be using the concept of accidental species introduction or removal as an argument against pest control:


Humans have a patchy track record of interfering with natural ecosystems, Riley said. In the past, such interventions have led to the overpopulation of species including rabbits and deer. ;Nature often does just fine controlling its problems until we come along and blunder into it.;


More than  half the world;s population  is at risk for dengue and over  50 million cases  occur per year around the world. I;m not sure why he;s concluding nature;s doing just fine on this one because from the perspective of dengue sufferers; nature;s doing a crappy job managing this problem.


We have a patchy track record when it comes to ecology, and we should take it for exactly what it is. There are  both  successes and failures embedded in our history, even in mosquito control. The point is that we learn from both our failures and our successes. If something doesn;t work, we try again with a new technique. The Sterile Insect Technique has been a smashing success for all pests that it has been used for so far, and this is merely a re-invention of the technique which is an improvement over the original.


Consider this, though; the main reason the Panama Canal took two attempts to finish was because of yellow fever. We eventually figured out that if we eliminate mosquitoes from our living areas, yellow fever cases dropped. We were then able to finish the Panama Canal, and today it;s one of the main hubs for international trade routes.


This problem did not ;work itself out;. Nature did not ;do just fine controlling the problem;.  We  did this;  we  triumphed over the hostile forces of nature.













Document Number: 1703 



 Genetic modification of insects part 4 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 4 January 2011 


Using Mosquitoes to Conquer Disease Through Vaccination


One of the things I;ve been talking about here on Biofortified is the concept of a ;pest;, which is a completely  anthropocentric  term. Different insects can be pests at one part of their life cycle and be totally cool in another. It;s one of those weird science paradoxes which make the field of entomology so much fun.


In my last series of posts I discussed a new way to bring down pest populations by letting transgenic insects mate with wildtype insects and letting their offspring wither and die from a toxin which builds up inside of them. It;s really just a variation of a technique that;s been around since the ;50s that uses a gene that codes for a toxin (  part 2  ) in place of radiation (  part 1  ). It;s great for everyone involved (except for the mosquitoes ;  part 3  ), and it could even lead to the technique becoming more widespread by nixing the use of radiation all together.


It turns out that on top of all that we may be able to make mosquitoes work to our advantage.


Vaccines work by stimulating an immune response. In short, vaccines are made by either injecting a weakened version of the pathogen or a part of a pathogen like an important protein that;s part of the pathogen into a person. This coaxes the body into producing proteins called ;antibodies; which bind to the pathogen. From here, one of two things may happen; either a white blood cell finds the antibody-coated intruder and eats it (think pac-man) or a complex forms on the surface of the intruder and makes lots of holes all over the intruder which will eventually kill it. Injecting bits of pathogens or weakened pathogens into the body essentially gives your immune system a ;cheat-sheet; for something it may eventually encounter.


Your body can make antibodies to pretty much any non-self protein, which is incredibly useful. When mosquitoes bite you, they inject numerous proteins in their saliva which act as local anesthetics, anti-coagulants,  vasodialators  , so on and so forth. You actually  make antibodies  to these proteins and that itching after a mosquito bite is actually an immune reaction to the saliva. I work with antibodies in my lab. I essentially look for insect proteins which allow cells to communicate by using antibodies bound to enzymes to cause a chemical reaction that I can see. These antibodies are produced by injecting a protein into an animal and then harvesting them so we can work with them.


So in short you have an immune system which creates antibodies to foreign biomolecules and uses them mark targets for destruction. You;re constantly under assault from parasitic flies which inject you with proteins to which you create antibodies. We can use antibodies raised in other animals to look for proteins by using antibodies raised to antibodies that are attached to enzymes.


If you put these two bits of information together, you begin to see how this could be a useful tool because you may potentially be able to use mosquitoes to produce and distribute vaccines. A paper was recently published in the journal  Insect Molecular Biology  which I think is a good start towards this goal and makes me grumble a bit near the end; but we;ll get to that when the time comes.


Let;s first walk through the image above to explain how everything works (click to see larger image). When a gene gets turned to RNA and then protein, the first step is binding of an enzyme called ;RNA Polymerase; at a promoter. Promoters essentially tell RNA polymerase how much RNA to make and where to make it. Above, Yoshida et. al took a sequence that;s almost always expressed and put it close to a promoter for a protein called ;Anopheline antiplatelet protein (AAPP); that is expressed in mosquito saliva. Doing this allowed them to create a protein which is always expressed, but only in the saliva.


Now for the big question; what did they put into the mosquito;s saliva?


You know how I love paradoxes? Sand flies are an awesome example of paradoxes in action. Sand flies carry  Leishmania  which is a horrible parasite which causes your flesh to form a giant sore and pretty much melts your flesh off. Different  Leishmania  species cause sores in different areas. Some cause mucocutaneous leishmaniasis which is where the victim;s face slowly gets eaten away, and there;s another form called visceral leishmaniasis which is almost always fatal. It;s a gruesome, devastating disease.


Here;s the odd part: Sand fly saliva aids in parasite transmission, but can also protect those who have been bitten. When a sand fly bites someone, something in their saliva seems to help along the infection. However, those who have been bitten by a sand fly recently are better able to fight off  Leishmania  infection. It;s weird, I know. Those who are vaccinated with SP-15 from sand flies are protected against Leishmania infection.


The test below the picture of the gene;s set up is a Southern blot, which is essentially the scientists looking for the DNA of the genes they inserted to make sure they got there.


There;s some other stuff on there, as well. They fused SP-15 with a red fluorescent protein to be able to see if SP-15 was being produced because production of the desired proteins are just as important as making sure the DNA actually got into the mosquito. The results, shown below, are pretty neat looking (click to see larger image).


What you;re seeing is a fluorescent red protein fused with SP-15, which allows us to see that SP-15 is being produced (along with a western blot of SP-15 to make sure nothing funky;s going on).


To look to see if they could use the mosquitoes to vaccinate mice, they fed the mosquitoes on the mice repeatedly with the mice receiving 1500 bites over the course of four days. After feeding the mosquitoes on the mice, they looked for mouse antibodies by immobilizing recombinant or synthetically produced SP-15 and then washing it with filtered mouse blood, which would let any antibodies present bind to SP-15. The mouse antibodies which bound to the SP-15 then were detected with goat antibodies raised to mouse antibodies linked to an enzyme which allowed the researchers to visualize that mouse antibodies had bound to the SP-15.


So; I think they showed that mice could potentially be vaccinated against SP-15. Their titers were low (activity at 1:300 dilutions was the highest), and the authors correctly noted this. To give you an idea of what ;normal; activity would be, I use 1:5,000 and 1:10,000 dilutions of antibodies for my work and that;s a bit high. Not seeing activity at a 1:300 dilution means the antibody concentrations are pretty low in that plasma.


They also didn;t actually do tests which would allow them to see if the mice actually fought the  Leishmania  parasites off. I also don;t like the fact they didn;t do a western blot on the mosquito saliva, but the fact the saliva was glowing red from the red fluorescent protein fused to SP-15 means that chances were pretty good the mosquito was salivating the protein. I don;t like the fact they didn;t make an effort to quantify how much SP-15 was coming out in the saliva. The fact the mice produced antibodies to SP-15 is good enough for now because it shows that the SP-15 protein was actually leaving the mosquito, but it seems like a big step to go from SP-15 in the salivary glands straight to vaccination. Minor gripe; it shows the same thing but with a lot of extra added effort. It;s not a fatal flaw, but I would have done things a bit differently.


Moving this system to humans would be another story altogether. 1500 bites over four days is about par for the course when it comes to animals. Humans, on the other hand; I;m not sure 400 bites a day would happen on most Americans. Also, if you consider the mouse;s size and the low antibody titers they got, I;m not even sure this would be sufficient to replace traditional needle delivered vaccines. I;m just not convinced that this would be useful in it;s current form. As proof of the concept, however, I think it shows potential and warrants further development. Not much more than that at this point, though.


The authors conclude with a statement I disagree with:


The concept of a flying vaccinator transgenic mosquito is not likely to be a practicable method of disease control, because a flying vaccinator is an unacceptable way to deliver vaccine without issues of dosage and informed consent against current vaccine programmes. These difficulties are further complicated by the issues of public acceptance to release of transgenic mosquitoes. Therefore, we intend only that the present study makes available a model system using a salivary gland-specific promoter as a potential tool to elucidate the salivamalaria sporozoite interactions


I think they;re right in that this couldn;t be used directly for humans, but I think this could still be very useful in the elimination of diseases. I think they;re right in that there are pretty serious ethical concerns as well as practical concerns with using these guys as vaccine vectors. Gene linkage, pathogen mutation (such as what we see the flu do yearly), and and a bunch of other things like how quickly we;re able to produce new vaxquitoes could potentially render this approach untenable. More research is needed before we can even consider this as a public health tool.


Despite the ethical concerns, I still think this might have some use because not all diseases are strictly human diseases. Many have animal counterparts in their lifecycle and we could potentially use these mosquitoes to vaccinate potential reservoirs.


Let;s ignore their crappy titers for a second and assume we can get this working to the point where we could get this working on a large scale. Introduce the mosquitoes to the wild, get them feeding on non-human hosts by; say, removing the equipment that allows them to find mammalian hosts. We could potentially use this system to vaccinate a massive amount of wildlife with the intention of eliminating disease reservoirs which are important in the transmission cycles of many different diseases.


Let;s take  West Nile  as an example. West Nile is mainly transmittesd between birds by bird-feeding mosquitoes. It only gets into humans when a bird-feeding mosquito feeds on humans in lieu of avian bloodmeals. If we were to take mosquitoes which feed exclusively on birds, transform them with this gene and then make it so their larvae die using the last set of genes I talked about (  part 2  ) and then release them before their hosts migrate for the winter, this would create a system which would vaccinate birds of something like West Nile without the issues of informed consent raised in humans.


If we look at this as a tool to vaccinate disease reservoirs, we could achieve the same goal of reducing the prevalence of or eliminating the disease while avoiding the ethical concerns of informed consent raised by using these guys to vaccinate people. I;d say it;s a win all around.


Being able to use mosquitoes to deliver vaccines is a pretty neat tool, but let;s face it; I can see the antivaxxers needlessly freaking out over this.


Yamamoto, D., Nagumo, H., &amp; Yoshida, S. (2010). Flying vaccinator; a transgenic mosquito delivers a Leishmania vaccine via blood feeding  Insect Molecular Biology, 19  (3), 391-398 DOI:  10.1111/j.1365-2583.2010.01000.x













Document Number: 2045 



 GM regulations move slowly forward in Africa 


 by  David Tribe  on 8 October 2010 


Transgenic harvest  Editorial. Published online 06 October 2010  African nations are laying foundations to extend the use of GM technology on the continent.


The use of genetically modified (GM) crops for food divides opinion, especially when it comes to Africa. Sharp views on the technology in the developed world, honed by more than a decade of arguments in Europe and elsewhere, are too easily projected onto Africa, with the continent portrayed as a passive participant in the global melodrama over GM food. So it is heartening to see a group of 19 African nations working to develop policies that should make it clear to all sides in the debate that Africa can make up its own mind.


After more than nine years, talks between member states of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) have produced a draft policy on GM technology, which was sent for national consultation last month. COMESA is a trade bloc, and its proposals aim to develop research and trade in GM crops. But they also state that decisions should be based on sound science and evidence;more at link


Nature 467 , 633634 (07 October 2010) doi:10.1038/467633b













Document Number: 4887 



 GM Report Adds Twist to Peruvian Defamation Case 


 by  David Tribe  on 26 August 2010 


SciDev Net


- Zoraida Portillo, &nbsp;August 25, 2010 &nbsp;http://www.scidev.net/


;New report failed to find GM crops whose existence Bustamante challenged before being convicted of defamation;


An official study in Peru has found no evidence of transgenic maize crops in the valley of Barranca, casting doubt on earlier claims by a researcher of their illegal existence.


Those claims were central to a recent court case in which Ernesto Bustamante Donayre, a molecular biologist and vice-president of the Peruvian College of Biologists, was convicted of defamation after criticising research by Antonietta Ornella Gutirrez Rosati ; that purported to find evidence of such crops.


The existence of the official report was revealed during an international biotechnology workshop organised by Peru;s National Institute of Agrarian Innovation (INIA) in June. Although it has not yet been published, SciDev.Net has gained access to it. The report examines 164 maize samples from the area, and concludes that there was not enough evidence to determine the presence of transgenic crops in the Barranca valley.


In November 2007 Gutirrez, a biologist at the National Agricultural University of La Molina (UNALM), Peru, claimed in a newspaper article that she had found unauthorised transgenic maize in the valley. Such maize would have been illegal because any release of GM crops must have prior government approval, although the procedure is not clear as the country;s biosafety regulation is still under discussion.


When Bustamante criticised Gutirrez;s study in the media, she filed a defamation case against him, leading to his conviction in 2010. Scientists have protested against the court decision. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/scientists-rally-round-convicted-peruvian-researcher.html


Since then, the Peruvian government has conducted research in an attempt to check Gutirrez;s findings. The results are presented in the report, peer-reviewed by a panel of independent international scientists. Several sources told SciDev.Net the government had come under strong political pressure and lobbying by anti-transgenic groups to prevent its publication.


But Jorge Alcntara Delgado, head of the department of genetic resources and biotechnology at INIA, denied this, and told SciDev.Net that the report would be published in the first half of September. The delay occurred because the peer-review panel were late in sending their comments, he said.


Santiago Pastor Soplin of the biological diversity division at the Ministry of Environment, told SciDev.Net that the ministry had not received the report from INIA and was not aware of its publication date. ;Our institutional interpretation is that to wait two years [since the first suggested evidence of GM crops emerged] before taking samples, and more than seven months before carrying out monitoring, reveals a dangerous regulatory weakness for a mega-diverse country such as Peru,; he noted.


He criticised INIA for appearing to be waiting for clear evidence of transgenic material in the crops instead of taking precautionary action ;even in the absence of scientific certainty;.


Rolando Estrada, a professor at National University of San Marcos, in Lima, and former director of INIA;s department of genetic resources and biotechnology said although the publication delay had generated suspicion, that was ;healthy; if it was because of the need for rigorous peer-review. However, he also called for periodic further assessments in the valley.


Ernesto Bustamante, who received a one-year suspended prison sentence and cannot leave Lima without the court;s permission, told SciDev.Net that he hoped Gutirrez would withdraw her complaint after the report is published. ;My criticism was of her work, not of her person, and I only emphasised that it was not possible to derive such conclusions from what I feel to be shoddy science,; he said.


Gutirrez did not respond to SciDev.Net;s requests for comment.













Document Number: 165 



 GM soybeans giving you a healthy heart and arteries and making you brainy. 


 by  David Tribe  on 22 January 2009 


Hi. I;m    David Tribe a.k.a. GMO Pundit  and this is my first post here.


I am really different from the other people at this blog because have got grey hair and I   come from down under ; the land of Vegemite and kangeroos. But it;s really nice to also be part of Biofortified.


I;m passing on some old news and some fresher news in this post.


Fish make you brainy, or so my dear, sadly missed mother used to tell me.


But it is not just fish that makes you brainy. It;s also genetically modified soybean oils.


And like fish, these new GM soybean oils can also make you healthier and live longer.


Prof Bill Harris, a research group in South Dakota has announced that when overweight human volunteers are given food supplemented with a special new soybean oil, their blood chemistry changes quickly to have the healthy blood profile of omega-3 fats.


Omega-3 content in the blood is a good index of improved health.


The special soya bean oil that these human volunteers took in their diets was enriched in a natural omega-3 fatty acid called SDA.


Genetic modification of soybeans is the best way to coax food crops to make healthy SDA fatty acid.


Many other scientific reports establish that the blood composition change seen in people by Prof Harris correlates with improved cardiovascular health.


Prof Bill Harris himself was quoted by  The Times  in London as saying that this blood chemistry improvement indicates a 50% lower risk of heart attacks.


Soybean varieties that are substantially boosted SDA levels by genetic modification have been thoroughly documented in the scientific literature since 2006. They should reach commercial markets within about four years, according to the Monsanto Co.


In terms of practical health benefits from foods the average person can afford to buy and eat on a regular basis, this news is a very major step forward.


Until now most of the credible health benefits from omega-3 fatty acids hinged on supplementing diets with other omega-3 oils than SDA that are very difficult to obtain in high quantities from plants, and are naturally expensive.


Price and availability matter when it comes to human health. Poor people can;t afford expensive food sources.


We have so far had to rely on fish to get health enhancing omega-3 oils, and meeting the projected huge demand for omega-3 oils from fish harvests is environmentally unsustainable.


Although many research labs are trying to use genetic modification get healthy oils that we currently get from fish produced by plants, the research is difficult and the levels of healthy oils in genetically modified plants have so far been relatively low. Except for SDA. The quantities of SDA omega-3 oil produced in genetically modified soybean are pretty high (20-29% of total oils).


Achievement of measurable health benefits with SDA in the diet as shown by Prof Harris has accelerated the entry of nutritionally enhanced GM soybeans into the consumer marketplace by several years. He has shown that SDA will do the job. The plenty of SDA in the new GM soybeans.


Investors take note.


The announcement in  The Times  (in November 2008) is something that serious stock market investors will have been taking note of.


Earlier, in March 2007  Monsanto announced a commercial collaboration with the Solae company  (which in turn is an investment vehicle of two other major commodity players, DuPont, and Bunge) to accelerate delivery of plant technology with consumer benefits ; including omega-3 oils. In those 2007 announcements there were projections that growth of omega-3 supplemented food sales will surge forward at 60% compound growth from 2002 through 2011.  (See  )


I would hazard a guess that that a rapidly growing American food market getting health benefits from GM soybean oils will change perceptions about safety of genetically modified foods













Document Number: 3018 



 GM Watch admits joke 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 8 April 2009 


The April Fools joke that fooled an OpEd ;News; contributor last week, has  admittedly  been started by GM Watch.


And in case anyone;s still in the slightest doubt, the Times article by ;Mark Handerson; (GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit) that GMWatch circulated on the morning of April 1, and also posted onto its website, was also an April Fool.  Although the bogus article was authored by us, some others joined in the joke by posting the piece on their websites too, while others presumably took it at face value.


They also noticed  my post  :


Someone even went to the trouble of checking with the GM-adoring science correspondent of the Times, Mark Henderson (sic) that he hadn;t written our piece.


Yeah, well, my first thought was that it could have been a joke started by Henderson ; why not hear it from the horse;s mouth? Although I didn;t guess ;out loud; in my post that GM Watch authored it, they were the prime suspect. They were evidently pleased with the attention they were getting. But honestly, was it that funny? I thought that Lendman being fooled by the bogus article was 10 times funnier than the article itself.


Tragically, his article  remains unaltered  . Except on his personal blog, of course.  Edited without note  ; down the memory hole it goes!













Document Number: 5899 



 GMO Discussion at IHC2010 


 by  Kevin Folta  on 31 August 2010 


The International Horticulture Congress (IHC2010) recently convened in Lisbon, Portugal. Presentations illustrated repeatedly how adjustment of gene expression, via transgenics or breeding, could lead to enhanced quality of fruits and vegetables.


During a workshop on August 25 I had the opportunity to listen to several experts in the field of biotechnology and public perception. The workshop was centered on making the technology more palatable for the general public- allowing these valuable, safe and environmentally friendly technologies to flirt with commercialization.


Unfortunately, one central theme was that science is letting the tail wag the dog.  Because much of the public refuses to accept the hard science of transgenic plant safety and efficacy, scientists find themselves concocting unique and clever ways to circumvent the traditional use of transgenic technologies. In a sad way it is kind of like scientists inventing a new way to recondition melting glaciers because so many people vehemently oppose the science of climate change.


The conference was filled with beautiful science; new solutions to many problems in food growth, production and post-harvest treatment. Technology is poised to help feed the world with better and more nutritious products. On the other hand, the disconnect between hard science and public perception, driven to the outright lies of the vocal biotech opponents, stands as a palpable barrier to implementation of even the most sound and promising technologies.


Over the next several postings I will summarize the discussion of the panel and the presentations of its constituents. All provide excellent insight into the state of transgenic plant science and its multitude of applications to real world problems.


Kevin Folta is an Associate Professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. Armed with a fist-full of genome data and the molecular toolkit to put it to work, his goal is to exploit technology to its fullest to feed more people, more nutritious food, with less environmental impact. Unfortunately, well-meaning science deniers stand to obstruct this mission. Wielding the steely sword of science and the velveteen fist of rhetoric, Kevin seeks to win their hearts and change their minds so that we can advance the cause of using biotechnology to feed more people with less harm to our planet.













Document Number: 8283 



 GMO Pundit vs MADGE in the Monthly Argument 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 11 March 2011 


A month ago, our own  David Tribe  participated in a debate on GE foods against two members of Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering (  MADGE Australia  ). The debate was hosted by  The Monthly Argument  , and the statement debated was ;GM crops are good for us.; Arguing in the negative was Madeleine Love and Jessica Harrison from MADGE, and arguing in the affirmative was David Tribe and David McMullen, the author of  Bright Future  . The videos were just posted online, so let;s have a watch and comment about the debate, shall we?


Part 1:


Part 2:


Highlights:


(For those with short attention spans)


I have watched most of it already, and I;ll have some comments to make soon enough, but rather than push the discussion one way off the bat, let;s see what everyone here thinks. What was good, bad, stuck out, or  should  have stuck out in this debate? Was it productive, did anybody win or lose?













Document Number: 1259 



 GMO statistics Part 10: the King of Hearts is NOT equivalent to the King of England 


 by  David Tribe  on 20 February 2011 


Repeatedly claims are being made about food safety based on searches for differences between foods based on the concept of statistical significance (see for example  Academics Review Genetic Roulette 1.3  ).


In many cases the differences that are claimed are not even statistically significant because the wrong statistical models are used. Quite often the assumptions used when apply the test are violated , and the old saying, &nbsp;a garbage in garbage out applies .When using statistical &nbsp;tests based on certain assumptions it is always important to always ask whether or not the assumptions are justified.


But other statistical mistakes are being made when making claims about GM feed safety. A common one is to confuse statistical with practical and biological significance.


Even when the assumptions of use a statistical test are justified, a statistical indicator that comes out of them may be of no practical medical or clinical importance. The results &nbsp;may be statistically significant but of no practical or biological importance. Indeed the differences can occur between feeds and foods which are of no importance whatsoever for food safety or nutrition. Most meals we eat are different from one another, but this usually does not matter.


The basics of the common misinterpretation of statistical significance is explained extremely well by statistician Schuyler Huck in his great little book about the common misconceptions about statistics.


GMO Pundit


QUOTE: Statistical Significance Versus Practical Significance  From &nbsp;  Schuyler W Huck 2008 Statistical Misconceptions. Chapter 11


The Misconception  Statistically significant results signify strong relationships between variables or big differences between comparison groups.


Evidence That This Misconception Exists  The first of the following statements comes from a peer-reviewed journal article in the behavioral sciences. The second statement comes from a book designed to help people become better able to understand research in applied linguistics. The third statement comes from a book dealing with a subfield of statistics called forecasting. (In these passages, note the words common, misconception, often, and confuse.)


A common misuse ; is the implication that statistical significance means theoretical or practical significance. This misconception involves interpreting a statistically significant difference as a difference that has practical or clinical implications.  Two other misconceptions are common regarding statistical significance. One is to think that because something is statistically significant, there is a strong relationship between variables or a big difference between groups;. The other common misconception about statistical significance is to confuse it with practical significance.  [Researchers often misinterpret statistical significance.... One problem is that researchers (and editors and reviewers) often confuse statistical significance with practical significance.


Why This Misconception Is Dangerous  There are two kinds of significancestatistical significance and practical significanceand they refer to entirely different concepts. To think that one implies the other is tantamount to thinking that a bridal shower and a bathroom shower are the same thing, or that the King of Hearts is equivalent to the King of England. Whereas few people would ever confuse these two kinds of showers or these two kinds of kings, it unfortunately is the case that statistical significance is often interpretedeven by some researchersto mean significance in a practical manner.


If you think that statistical significance implies practical significance, you are likely to disappoint others or be disappointed yourself. If you are a researcher and talk about your statistically significant findings in a way that makes others think that you;ve discovered something big, important, and noteworthy, the recipients of your results may be disappointed (or even angry) when they discover, after taking action on your study;s findings, that what they expected to be large or strong in reality is small or weak. If you are the one who spends time, energy, or money on something and expect your actions to make a big difference (because you think statistical significance = practical significance), it may be you who gets disappointed.  If you or others fail to distinguish between these two kinds of significance, what appears to you or them to be a mountain may actually be only a molehill!


Undoing the Misconception  ;Practical significance, in contrast to statistical significance, is focused on a study;s possible impact on the work of practitioners or other researchers. Here, the question being asked is: Will people who read or hear about a study;s findings consider altering what they do or think?













Document Number: 3551 



 GMO Statistics Part 11: To find a harm you have to measure harm 


 by  David Tribe  on 15 March 2011 


Gilles- Eric Seralini has won a court case in Paris over the issue of whether his funding by Greenpeace may have influenced his scientific judgement.


Richard Hudson of ABC radio in Western Australia interviewed Seralini on this matte  r[link to ABC webpage], and also asked David Tribe to comment about the merits of Seralini;s scientific arguments (strongly criticised elsewhere on GMO Pundit website, for instance in &nbsp;  Sad Seralini Statistical Saga  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  GMO statistics Part 5. FSANZ say non-validated statistical dredging doesn;t mean much  ).


Seralini has also been strongly criticised by expert statisticians for the mistakes he has made in analysing of experiments done with rats to see how they react to genetically modified corn feed.


In this  interview &nbsp;with David Tribe  &nbsp;&nbsp;we hear about the difference between statistical significance (mentioned by Seralini) and biological significance (not properly evaluated by Seralini).


Statistics by itself &nbsp;has very little to say about  whether effects that can qualify as being ;statistically significant; are biologically or practically meaningful  . Tiny differences that are practically not of any importance to all, or which have no medical or nutritional significance, can still be statistically significant.


Many scientists have read the European Food Safety Authority;s demonstration that Seralini;s main conclusions are baseless, but we have yet to hear from Seralini about the comprehensive refutation of his statistical methods made by the European Food Safety Authority.


Listen to David Tribe;s comments about this and other matters in the links below to a &nbsp;recording of the &nbsp;interview:


Have a listen to the extended interviews below.  In this report: Professor Professor Gille ; Eric Seralini- Molecular biologist who has advised the French Government and European Union on GMO;s&nbsp;   http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rural/wa/countryhour/listen_to_m1968990.mp3  David Tribe- Senior lecturer in Food Science and Safety at the University of Melbourne&nbsp;   http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rural/wa/countryhour/listen_to_m1968988.mp3


ABC Radio website:  Western Australia Country Hour  Wednesday, March 9, 2011  Listen to the Country Hour 09/03/11  Are GM crops safe to eat?  Report: Richard Hudson   A European molecular biologist had a win in court recently that;s been described as the first of its kind against big companies involved in genetically modified crops.  The court ruled in favour of Professor Seralini, but does this mean GM foods are not safe?  Professor Professor Gille ; Eric Seralini has dedicated his life to research specialising in the affect GMO;s and pesticides have on animals and embryonic human cells.  Professor Seralini is happy with his win in the Paris courts; a defamation case against a fellow molecular biologist.  [SNIP]  David Tribe thinks Professor Seralini is only focusing on the evidence that suits him.  ;The problem is he is picking on a tiny little bit of variation thinking that means there;s evidence of harm when there;s a huge amount of variation that;s much greater than that that;s obviously not causing any harm.;  [SNIP]













Document Number: 6909 



 GMOs could render important antibiotics worthless 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 19 March 2010 


That headline catches your eye, doesn;t it?


Antibiotics by AJC1 via Flickr.


We;ve seen such claims made in popular media such as the March 2010  Fury as EU approves GM potato: Critics claim plant could spread antibiotic-resistant diseases to humans  in the Independent: ;Opponents fear bacteria inside the guts of animals fed the GM potato  which can cause human diseases  may develop resistance to antibiotics.; Groups that actively work against deregulation of genetically engineered crops have been making such claims for years.


We;ve also seen these claims in peer-reviewed journals (although, far less frequently than in non-peer reviewed media and reports). For example, in the February 2009 issue of  Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition  , the review  Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods  : ;An area of concern focuses on the possibility that antibiotic resistance genes used as markers in transgenic crops may be horizontally transferred to pathogenic gut bacteria, thereby reducing the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy.;


Are antibiotic marker genes in genetically engineered crops really a risk to human health? Many people have raised this question and there seems to be a lot of confusion about the issue. It;s time to look into the risks and reasons more deeply.


What are antibiotic resistance genes for?


Growing plants up from cells. By Mirkov via Michigan State University.


In order to understand why these genes are used, we have to look a little at the process of genetic engineering. For some plant types, including corn and rice, immature seeds are dissected to expose the developing embryo. Pieces of carrot roots can be transformed, as can the leaves of tobacco. The desired genes are transferred into the plant cells with either a gene gun or Agrobacterium. The plant cells are then grown up into whole plants in petri dishes, with the help of plant hormones. The process is similar to other  asexual plant propagation techniques  , but much smaller!


Not every cell receives the gene of interest, however, so researchers need a way to find the cells that have it. Enter antibiotic resistance genes. If the cells are transformed with the gene of interest and an antibiotic resistance gene, the appropriate antibiotic can be added to the media in the petri dish so that any cells that didn;t get the genes will die. The antibiotic resistance gene is being used as a  selectable marker  , since it allows the researcher to select only the desired cells.


Of course, just because these genes are useful doesn;t mean that they are safe or that they should be used. What does the research tell us?


Risk: Gene transfer from plants to bacteria


Soil bacteria by Michigan State University.


Fear of antibiotic resistance markers is mainly due to fear of gene transfer from genetically modified plants to bacteria in the soil or bacteria in human or animal guts. There are at least two reasons why this fear is unwarranted. First, soil and gut bacteria naturally contain a variety of antibiotic resistance genes without any human intervention. Second, transfer of genes from a plant to a bacterium is extremely unlikely.


Natural antibiotic resistance


Life for a bacterium isn;t easy. They have to compete fiercely for resources, so it;s not surprising that some bacteria have evolved to produce poison that kills their competitors: antibiotics. The producers of these antibiotics also evolved antibiotic resistance mechanisms so they could survive their own weapons. Additionally, bacteria develop resistance to antibacterial compounds in the environment.


Often, antibiotic resistance is conferred by a single gene. Any bacteria that can find that resistance gene and use it have an advantage. Consequently, antibiotic resistance genes are widespread in natural environments. When humans intervene, using antibiotics in ways that encourage development of resistance in bacteria, that resistance is passed around even faster (no GMOs needed). For some information on how humans, check out the CDCs pages on  antibiotic resistance  .


Gene swapping


Genetically modified crops: methodology, benefits, regulation and public concerns  , a 2000 review in the  British Medical Bulletin  has a summary of the risks of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified crops:


;horizontal transfer of a gene from ingested plant material to bacteria has never been demonstrated, and there is no indication that it has ever occurred during evolution. The probability that it could occur is, therefore, considered to be so low that it is not relevant when compared with the natural occurrence of antibiotic resistance genes.


They sound awfully confident, don;t they?


Bacteria (prokaryotes) are fairly promiscuous when it comes to genes. Many types of bacteria (not all) have the ability to take up DNA from the environment and from other bacteria and integrate it into their own genome during parts or all of their life cycle. This process is called horizontal gene transfer, and the bacteria that have this ability are called  competent  . Since they have this ability, it makes sense to worry about bacteria picking up antibiotic resistance genes (and other genes as well) from other organisms, including genetically modified crops.


Interestingly, eukaryotes (multicellular organisms like plants and people) also have the ability to take up DNA into their genomes. For example, the August 2007  Widespread lateral gene transfer from intracellular bacteria to multicellular eukaryotes  shows transfer of the entire genome from endosymbiotic bacteria into their hosts; genomes. A more recent example appeared in January 2010 in the New York Times:  Hunting Fossil Viruses in Human DNA  . An entire virus genome resides in the human genome, and has been passed down from our simian ancestors.


So we know that bacteria can swap DNA and that eukaryotes can take up DNA from bacteria and viruses. Can prokaryotes take up DNA from eukaryotes?


It doesn;t look like it.


The European Food Safety Authority has the following to say about the subject in their excellent 2009  Statement of EFSA on the consolidated presentation of opinions on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants  (section 2.1.1.2., edited slightly for clarity):


While many studies support the evolutionary significance of horizontal gene transfer between bacteria, eukaryotic genes in prokaryotic genomes are a rarity. There is no definitive report of DNA transfer from eukaryotes to bacteria.   As of 24 September 2008 the  public genome databases  included more than 750 completed prokaryotic genomes. In the first annotation of the putative genes there are frequent cases where closest matches are found with eukaryotic genes, but these preliminary results have not manifested into demonstrations of horizontal gene transfer from eukaryotes to prokaryotes, as judged by the scientific publications interpreting the genomic sequencing data. For one functional gene (phosphoglucose isomerase), phylogenetic analyses indicated that the gene might have been transferred from a eukaryote to bacteria. The transfer was estimated to have happened approximately 500 million years ago.


Homologous recombination from Duke University.


Multiple studies have found that bacteria can take up eukaryote DNA, but only in certain conditions, where the researchers used a sort of genetic trick called homologous recombination. In short, homologous recombination can occur when the ends of the donor DNA have sequences similar to part of the acceptor DNA. The homologous sequences can bind together, and in the next round of replication, the donor DNA can be integrated. In studies that aimed to find evidence of transfer of DNA from eukaryotes to prokaryotes without genetic tricks, none was found.


Table 1 of the EFSA  Statement  lists all studies prior to its publishing that examined horizontal gene transfer in bacteria (25 studies in all). Of the 18 studies that looked for gene transfer with homologous recombination, 15 found gene transfer and 3 did not. Of the 16 studies that looked for gene transfer without homologous recombination, no evidence of gene transfer was found.


In short, there are many DNA sequences that look like eukaryote genes in prokaryote genomes, but so far only one has been found that might be an actual functional gene. All evidence to date shows that gene transfer from eukaryotes to prokaryotes can only occur when homologous DNA sequences are present in donor and acceptor genomes. The lack of evidence for horizontal gene transfer in the wild suggests that there are some sort of barriers to gene transfer from eukaryotes to prokaryotes.


Barriers to gene swapping


Prokaryotic DNA and eukaryotic DNA are sort of like different computer languages. In fact, each species has slightly different ways of ;personalizing; its own DNA with things like  methylation  and other DNA modifications, different  codon preference  , post translational modification of RNA, and whether or not introns are present. Eukaryotic DNA is so different from prokaryotic DNA that the bacteria just cant take it up and use it as they would other bacterial DNA. Additionally, even if all of the barriers to gene uptake occur and all the barriers to gene expression are overcome, the likelihood that the gene will confer a positive trait for the bacterium is low. Most eukaryotic genes arent going to be helpful for a prokaryote, such that the few useful genes are few and far between. Even if a bacterium was able to uptake and express an antibiotic resistance gene from a genetically engineered plant, there would have to be selective pressure (i.e. an environment that included the antibiotic that the gene conferred resistance to) in order for the gene to be maintained in a bacterial colony. For more information about barriers to gene swapping, check out the EFSA  Statement  .


Avoiding the unlikely


Despite the fact that horizontal gene transfer from eukaryotes to prokaryotes is so unlikely (the only known example was estimated to have happened 500 million years ago), there are still precautions that can be taken to make it even more unlikely. For example, if antibiotic resistance genes are used as selectable markers in genetically modified organisms, researchers can avoid using sequences with homology to known bacterial genomes, they can be sure to only use antibiotic resistance genes that include features that make the gene unusable in bacteria, and they can avoid using promoters that are active in bacteria, just to name a few.


Alternative markers


Transformed rice cells expressing GFP via Scuola Superiore Sant;Anna.


Another option is to find alternative marker genes and alternative strategies. Herbicide resistance genes are an alternative selectable marker. Visible markers like  GFP  or  GUS  are screenable markers. Marker genes can be bred out, meaning that the final plant line will not contain the marker gene. Finally, it is possible to use no marker genes at all, but that does require far more screening of adult plants which can add expense and time to any project.


Peer-reviewed works cited


Dona A, &amp; Arvanitoyannis I (2009). Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods  Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49  (2), 164-175 DOI:  10.1080/10408390701855993


Halford NG &amp; Shewry PR (2000). Genetically modified crops: methodology, benefits, regulation and public concerns.  British medical bulletin, 56  (1), 62-73 PMID:  10885105


Hotopp JC,  et al  . (2007). Widespread lateral gene transfer from intracellular bacteria to multicellular eukaryotes.  Science (New York, N.Y.), 317  (5845), 1753-6 PMID:  17761848


Other works cited


Collins JD,  et al.  (2009).  Statement of EFSA on the consolidated presentation of opinions on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants  . European Food Safety Authority.


Hickman M &amp; Roberts G (2010).  Fury as EU approves GM potato: Critics claim plant could spread antibiotic-resistant diseases to humans  . The Independent.


Zimmer, C (2010).  Hunting Fossil Viruses in Human DNA  . New York Times.


Note: This work was originally posted at  Scientific Blogging  as an entry in their  2010 Scientific Blogging Contest  .













Document Number: 9371 



 GMOs as aid that grows 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 6 April 2008 


Author Robert Paarlberg reported that the Gates Foundation would be contributing to the development of drought tolerant maize varieties for Africa. Details can be found in a  press release  from  AATF  (African Agricultural Technology Foundation), via  ISAAA  ;s March 28  Crop Biotech Update  . I;ve posted the release below the cut for your convenience.


One of the most exciting parts of the WEMA (Water Efficient Maize for Africa) project is that it pulls in such a diverse group ; including research entities from the participating countries, the well known non-profit  CIMMYT  , and the corporations Monsanto and BASF.


In this project, the corporations will not charge any royalties to small scale farmers. I;m assuming they plan to make their profits from large farmers in the developed world that are now or will soon be experiencing destructive droughts, such as Australia. Clearing up licensing issues before a project begins seems to be the best course, especially if we consider the fate of Golden Rice. This ensures that the people who most need the technology will be able to afford it, and that protracted legal battles will be avoided.


It;s easy to hate Monsanto at times (especially if you are anti-establishment), but it seems that the company is trying to be a better global citizen, if not for any other reason  than to increase their potential customer pool. Who, besides Monsanto and a handful of other biotech companies, has the resources to conduct the research and produce desperately needed varieties like WEMA? Non-profits and government programs will never be able to do it alone.


Monsanto has information about the WEMA project on their  website  , including this telling photo with the caption: ;Field trial of corn with the drought tolerant gene (on right) and control hybrid (on left). Note the greater size and healthier structure of the drought tolerant corn.;


[AATF] today announced a public-private partnership to develop drought-tolerant maize varieties for Africa. The partnership, known as Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA), was formed in response to a growing call by African farmers, leaders, and scientists to address the devastating effects of drought on small-scale farmers and their families. Frequent drought leads to crop failure, hunger, and poverty. Climate change will only worsen the problem.


AATF announced the effort at the end of a two-day planning meeting that included representatives from each of the countries participating in the project: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa. The partners will use marker-assisted breeding and biotechnology to develop African maize varieties with the long-term goal of making drought-tolerant maize available royalty-free to African small-scale farmers. The benefits and safety of these maize varieties will be assessed by national authorities according to the regulatory requirements in each country.


This partnership fits well with the AATF mandate of facilitating innovative public/private partnerships that bring to smallholder farmers in Africa the tools needed to increase productivity for better food and income security, Said Mpoko Bokanga, Executive Director AATF.


AATF will work with the non-profit International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); the private agricultural company, Monsanto; and the national agricultural research systems in the participating countries. The new drought-tolerance technologies have already been licensed without charge to AATF so they can be developed, tested, and eventually distributed to African seed companies through AATF without royalty and made available to smallholder farmers.


Bokanga added that the project will involve local institutions, both public and private, and in the process expand their capacity and experience in crop breeding, biotechnology, and biosafety.


The Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation contributed a total of $47 million to this effort.


The Director General of the National Agricultural Research Organisation of Uganda Dr. Dennis Kyetere presided over the official announcement of the initiative and said that the project will help address drought and contribute to food security in Africa.


Drought is a source of suffering and food insecurity for many people in Uganda and it is recognised as a challenge by the government. Drought causes up to 100 percent crop failure in Uganda in some instances, said Dr. Kyetere.


Africa is a drought-prone continent, making farming risky for millions of small-scale farmers who rely on rainfall to water their crops. Maize is the most widely grown staple crop in Africa: more than 300 million Africans depend on it as their main food source. It is severely affected by frequent drought.


In the next five years, the partnership will develop the new maize varieties, incorporating the best drought-tolerance technologies available internationally. CIMMYT will provide conventionally developed drought tolerant high-yielding maize varieties that are adapted to African conditions and expertise in conventional breeding and testing for drought tolerance. Monsanto will provide proprietary germplasm, advanced breeding tools and expertise. Additionally, Monsanto and BASF will provide drought-tolerance transgenes that they have developed through their collaboration. These contributions will be provided without royalty. The national agricultural research systems, farmers groups, and seed companies participating in the project will contribute their expertise in breeding, regulatory issues and will be responsible for country-specific implementation including project governance, testing, germplasm evaluation, seed production and distribution.


The Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation has funded an independent program at the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health (University of Toronto) to assess and monitor social, cultural, ethical and commercial issues related to the WEMA Project. The independent organization will conduct annual audits of WEMA and serve as an additional communication channel for stakeholders.


According to eminent scientist Professor Calestous Juma, who is the Director of the Science, Technology and Globalisation Project at Harvard University, the WEMA project is a powerful signal of the relevance of biotechnology to African agriculture.


The collaboration between CIMMYT and national agricultural research systems has already yielded excellent gains in drought tolerance through conventional breeding. The partners in the WEMA project expect the combination of advanced breeding and biotechnology to bring even greater gains. The partners estimate that the maize products developed over the next 10 years could increase yields by 20 to 35 percent under moderate drought, compared to current varieties. This increase would translate into about two million additional tons of food during drought years in the participating countries, meaning 14 to 21 million people would have more to eat and sell.


The first conventional varieties developed by WEMA could be available after six to seven years of research and development. The transgenic drought-tolerant maize hybrids will be available in about ten years.


Risk of crop failure from drought is one of the primary reasons why small-scale farmers in Africa do not adopt improved farming practices. A more reliable harvest could give farmers the confidence to improve their techniques. Good soil health, improved training and support, pest and disease management, and access to markets to sell their surplus are all necessary for small-scale farmers to boost their yields and incomes. To date, the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation has invested more than $660 million as part of a broad agricultural development strategy that includes efforts in all of these areas so small-scale farmers could have access to the tools and opportunities they need to build better lives.













Document Number: 3083 



 Goals for nutrition 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 18 November 2010 


A diverse diet, made up of a variety of grains, beans, vegetables, fruits, and animal products is the best way to get all the essential macro and micro nutrients.


Over at  Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog  , Jeremy has been critical of information coming out of the First Global Conference on Biofortification. He wonders if the organizers and attendees were/are too focused on a techno-fix rather than on diverse diets as a solution. This being a conference on biofortification, we talked about biofortification a lot, and it could be argued that biofortification is a techno-fix, whether by breeding or biotechnology.


However, we talked about a  lot  more at the conference, including supplementation and fortification, diverse diets and education, cooking and farming methods. To say that diverse diets were ignored would be incorrect. That obviously isn;t getting through in the materials coming out of the conference through the organizers or media, which is a problem.


If we polled each conference attendee, I think most if not all would say that a diverse diet for every human on the planet is the ultimate goal. Many of the sessions addressed this specifically, getting into the details of how diet and nutrition are intertwined. Here are just three examples:


Percentage of funds spent by families on different items before and after a 50% increase in food prices. The red and green blocks represent high-nutrient foods from plant and animal sources. Image from Howie Bouis;s plenary talk at the Global Conference on Biofortification.


For example,  Merideth Bonierbale  , of the International Potato Center, described how consumption of some potatoes that are high in vitamin C but low in iron can assist with absorption of iron in other foods for low-income people in rural areas of Peru.


Mark Failla  , Professor of Human Nutrition at Ohio State, talked about how cooking methods can change bioavailability of nutrients. Pro-vitamin A in cassava is  more bioavailable  in  fufu  than in  gari  , possibly because the high temperature used in roasting gari breaks the nutrient down. Because pro-vitamin A is fat soluble, adding oil helps make the vitamin more bioavailable, but even the type of oil can make a big difference.


Howarth Bouis  , Director of Harvest Plus, in his plenary  The Five Big Challenges  , reminded us that the percentage of the diet that has the most vitamins isn;t grains but the leafy greens, animal products, etc. When the price of grain goes up, consumption of nutrient rich foods goes down, because the grains provide more calories per dollar. The people buying these foods might still have full stomachs but the nutrients aren;t there. Ideally, people would be able to buy those nutrient rich foods and eat a diverse diet, but we know that;s not what is happening out there, especially when food prices are high.


Why vitamins and minerals matter


While starvation due to lack of food is a problem that certainly needs attention, malnutrition due to lack of vitamins and minerals has gone virtually unnoticed. The hidden hunger of malnutrition affects an astonishing 1 in 3 people worldwide, according to the  Micronutrient Initiative  . Lack of key micronutrients, especially in the  first 1000 days of life  (from conception to the second birthday), results in adverse effects to cognitive and physical development as well as a reduction in immune function. Those key nutrients include iodine, vitamin A, iron, zinc, and folate.


The sad truth is that, in many places, whole generations of people are growing up with brains and bodies that aren;t what they should be. How can we expect these people to find ways to bring themselves, their families, their villages, and their countries out of poverty? The truth is, they can;t, or at least the task is far more difficult than it would be for people who weren;t malnourished. This is the real tragedy of malnutition. If we can find ways to deliver nutrition to this generation;s mothers and their young children, those children will grow up strong and smart, and able to fight off disease as they should be. If we can improve the nutrition of just one or two generations then they will be able to make change for themselves and those around them, including those who do not have enough food. We need to help these people receive adequate nutrition through any methods that are appropriate for the situation. The goal is not just a healthy diet, but a self-sufficient healthy diet.


What can we do?


Impoverished people aren;t getting the nutrients they need because they don;t have access to a diverse diet, often because they can;t afford to purchase anything but grains. The long term goal is to enable people to have access to a diet that includes vegetables, fruits, and animal products. That will take global, regional, and national efforts to increase incomes for the poor. These changes are obviously something we all want to do but also obviously something that is going to take a very long time. While we work on reducing poverty, we can make nutritional improvements to the foods people are eating. In the mean time, there are a lot of people who are getting enough calories but who can;t afford nutrient dense foods.


Can we improve staple foods to meet more of the nutritional needs of the people eating them? The answer is, in a lot of cases, yes. In the developed world, we have fortified foods, including iodized salt, iron and folic acid fortified flour. These interventions have been successful in eliminating deficiencies of those nutrients. Similar efforts have worked in the developing world, but rural areas, distant from roads, have not received the benefits. Another problem with fortified foods is that they do add to the cost of the food, which doesn;t work well for rural or urban poor who can;t afford even a few extra pennies. Some government fortification initiatives have worked, but require constant monetary input.


Another option for nutrient delivery is supplementation as pills, shots, vitamin packets that can be added to foods, or food products like  Plumpy;nut  . These can be very effective in certain circumstances, such as for disaster relief, or while longer-term fortification programs are being initiated. But they have some significant drawbacks, including the requirement for frequent delivery of often perishable products, low acceptance rates by the people who might benefit from them, side effects like nausea, and health problems from over-supplementation. And again, rural people often don;t have access to such products.


What can we do for those people in rural areas who don;t have access to fortified foods? Most people in rural areas farm, even if only a small plot of land. Can they farm more diverse foods? In some cases, yes, depending on soil and rain and other factors. In some cases, the people are lucky if they get a few potatoes or cassava or a few ears of corn or stalks of rice out of the ground, and adding additional crops isn;t possible. One of the speakers at the conference said that many farmers in developing countries only produce enough food for part of the year, and must purchase the rest (I unfortunately don;t remember who said this). If we can put the ability to accumulate more nutrients in the seeds themselves (or cuttings, in the case of potatoes and cassava), then those few staple foods can be that much more valuable nutritionally.


Biofortified crops


Biofortified crops have many advantages over fortified foods or supplements. First, the nutrients can be packaged in biological molecules are easily absorbed by the body yet recognized by the body so over-consumption (within reason) won;t result in overdose of the nutrient. Second, the seeds only have to be distributed once, if they are non-hybrid varieties, and each generation the seeds will still have increased nutrients. If they are hybrids, the seeds can be distributed via existing seed distribution channels (if they exist ; obviously hybrids would not be a good solution where there is no way to purchase or otherwise obtain seed each year). Finally, the improved seed can be bred or engineered to contain not only improved nutrients but also disease resistance, stress tolerance, and other traits that will help the plants be more productive without additional inputs. The same is true for plants propagated by cuttings or tubers, but even more so because each plant is clonal so there is no chance of  genetic drift  reducing nutrient content or other traits.


Biofortified and otherwise improved plants would allow farmers to have a higher income due to greater yields, as well as providing nutrients to allow the farmer;s family to be strong and healthy. Biofortified crops have the potential for big impacts on urban and non-farming malnourished persons as well. If all someone can afford is a bowl of rice or a little corn for  arepas  , and biofortified varieties are available, then their food dollar can go much further nutritionally. Biofortified crops aren;t just useful for people in the developing world, either. We in the developed world often don;t get the nutrients we need despite access to a diverse diet, fortified foods, and supplements.


Of course, biofortification isn;t without problems. For example, there are unique economic issues that could arise. There is potential for biofortified varieties of a crop to be considered more valuable than non-biofortified varieties, so the biofortified food would actually be more expensive, just like the fortified food can be more expensive. This would benefit farmers but wouldn;t help non-farmers. However, unlike fortified food, after some time, the seeds could be passed from farmer to farmer until most of the available food is biofortified, so the price differential would no longer be there. Another option would be for a country to make rules about new seed varieties, such as saying that they must contain certain levels of a nutrient, so that over time all seed would be biofortified.


Moving forward


Ideally, biofortified crops would be developed in ways that would benefit small farmers in developing countries the most. There are many issues to consider but I think there are two that are the most important.


Golden Rice, just another improved rice strain, yet it has a great potential to cover micronutrient needs of rural, rice-based societies. Photo from Goldenrice.org.


First, the traits must be developed with the intent for free distribution to those who need it most. Governments and non-profit organizations like Harvest Plus are doing good work, but partnerships with corporations have a lot of potential.  Golden rice  (set to debut in 2012 with enough pro-vitamin A to meet nutritional needs with regular rice consumption levels) is the first example of a public-private partnership, although because it was the first, securing a  humanitarian license  wasn;t quite as smooth as it could have been.


Now, there is evidence that corporations see value in such partnerships, and the process is much smoother. The method being pursued by the Gates Foundation and Monsanto with  Water Efficient Maize for Africa  (PDF) could be used as a model for new public-private partnerships. They plan to distribute improved seed with the water efficient trait to low income farmers at no cost, while relatively wealthy farmers may be required to pay for the seed.


Second, the plants must come with education. In  Kenya  , for example, education of the health benefits of orange sweet potato over white sweet potato has been key to acceptance. One way to distribute information that was discussed at the conference is to train one trusted person in each village who will then be able to disseminate the information. If a foreigner just drops off some stuff, whether it;s seeds, medicine, or anything else, without information, the items might not be accepted.


I think it was Denis Kyetere, Director General of the National Agriculture Research Organisation in Uganda who said ; imagine an African villager walking into your neighborhood and telling you what you need to do to be healthy, to exercise and eat more vegetables. Would you listen to an outsider? We don;t even listen to our doctors, but we might listen to a friend.


Community based education has been shown to work. One example is  Living Goods  , an Avon style service that provides life-saving medicines, supplements, condoms, and more at a low cost. Education comes along with the products. The ;Health Promoters; who sell the goods are members of the community so are much more likely to be trusted.













Document Number: 2191 



 God is ok with evolution, really. 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 29 April 2008 


Theres been a bit of controversy lately at Iowa State on the subject of intellectual suppression of intelligent design. Some pent-up drama from Dr. Guillermo Gonzalezs tenure denial is still around, and  Expelled  brought the beast back to life. Of course, having Dr. Hector Avalos here helps to keep things interesting. The first ISU Daily article in this round,   Avalos: Expelled wrong on Holocaust   has accrued almost as many comments and letters to the editor as the articles about Gay Pride week. The whole subject is frustrating, because I dont think there is a controversy. No one should dictate what religious beliefs a person can or can not have.


In this country, separation of church and state is a necessity (due to the many faiths or absence of faith present). Therefore, religion can not be taught in state funded schools. Period. If people want to study things other than approved evidence based curricula, they are welcome to do so at home. Dr. Gonzalez is also welcome to study these things, but not while he is on the payroll of a public university to study science. If he was a religious studies professor, things would have been entirely different. The NY Times reports today about Dr. Francisco Ayala, a former Dominican priest and current evolutionary biologist and geneticist at UC, Irvine. Dr. Ayalas thoughts on the ID / Evolution controversy are amazing, unlike any I have every seen. The article is:   Roving Defender of Evolution, and of Room for God  , which I learned about from the  Knight Science Journalism Tracker  .


Dr. Ayala [said] that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.


Consider, he said, that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in  spontaneous abortion  . If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, Dr. Ayala said, God is the greatest abortionist of them all.


Or consider, he said, the sadism in parasites that live by devouring their hosts, or the mating habits of insects like female midges, tiny flies that fertilize their eggs by consuming their mates genitals, along with all their other parts.


These things makes sense when we consider evolution, but seem absolutely horrible if directed by intelligent design! These and other examples are presented in his book:   Darwins Gift to Science and Religion  . According to the comments on Amazon, the book is a straightforward introduction to the ID / evolution controversy. COI Statement: I was elected President of ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society on the day of Dr. Avaloss lecture (thats me in the front row of the top photo).


Media Credit: Manfred Strait. Caption:Hector Avalos, professor of religious studies, is applauded at the end of his lecture in response to the anti-evolutionary film Expelled by members of the Atheist and Agnostic Society along with the rest of the room on Tuesday, April 22nd. Avalos was highly critical of the emotional, rather than fact-based approach of the documentary. Photo: Manfred Strait/Iowa State Daily













Document Number: 1901 



 Going to MOSES 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 24 February 2010 


This Friday and Saturday, I will be attending the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (  MOSES  ) Organic Farming Conference (  OFC  ) in La Crosse, Wisconsin. By the time I had hear about it last year, it was too late to go, so this year I had it marked on my calendar, and I contacted the organizers months ago about a media pass. Now with my cheap hotel room reserved and fuel in the car I;m all set to go. What will I find at the conference?


This is the first conference of this type that I have gone to, although I have been to an organic show-and-tell shindig here at the UW, this conference will be new to me. From looking at the  schedule  , it seems that it is mostly oriented toward farmers, but there should be plenty for me to  check out  .


The first thing I will see when I get there is the seed swap, which will be a first for me. There is a possibility that I will be able to interview someone about seed saving and/or backyard breeding. Otherwise I;ll take a good look around and maybe get some comments from people.


Saturday will be an interesting day for me, though.  At 8:30 in the morning, Charles Benbrook from The Organic Center will be giving a talk:


Telling the Story of Organic Food Health  Saturday I ; 8:30am  More than raw data about the environmental impact of pesticides or the benefits of organic food, stories and illustrative examples provide an effective way to communicate about organic agriculture. The Organic Center;s  Chuck Benbrook  will share meaningful ways to provide a clear understanding of the consumer and environmental health benefits of organic farming.


Then, at 10:30 am, Margaret Mellon from the Union of Concerned Scientists will be giving a  keynote  address:


DR. MARGARET MELLON ;Two Views of Food Safety: Organic Agriculture and Biotechnology;  Saturday, February 27th  Dr. Margaret Mellon directs the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. The program promotes a transition to sustainable agriculture and focuses on critically evaluating the use of biotechnology in plant and animal agriculture as well as assessing animal agriculture;s contribution to the rise of antibiotic-resistant disease. Trained as both a scientist and a lawyer, Mellon considers food safety through two lenses: organic agriculture and biotechnology. Exploring how people relate to food safety in these contexts as well as through scientific and legal perspectives, Mellon;s work considers how to put the issue of food safety into the context of the ongoing debates about the future of agriculture.


I have requested an interview with both Benbrook and Mellon, and as of today they both agreed. Their talks are back-to-back, however if I have to skip part of lunch to do it I will! I will be interviewing them by audio, and I will post the interviews to the blog. If there is something that you would like me to ask them, please let me know in the comments below, or send me a message through our  contact  form.


There is also another talk at 2 pm which I would like to catch.


GMOs and the Fight for Organic Integrity  Saturday II ; 2:00pm  While evidence mounts to show that GMOs harm humans, fail to increase crop yields, and will contaminate organic crops, a new wave of GMOs is being introduced, threatening the ability of consumers to choose non-GMO foods. Join Center for Food Safety staff attorney  Zelig Golden  to learn about legal strategies to protect organic crops from contamination.


I wonder what he thinks about protecting the integrity of conventional white cotton from contamination by  colorful organic cotton  ? Pollen flows both ways.


But one talk I am certainly looking forward to is this one!


Managing Nests for Native Bees  Saturday III ; 4:00pm  Artificial nests can boost local populations of native pollinators, but they must be actively managed to avoid negative impacts on local bee populations. Join the Xerces Society;s  Eric Mader  for an overview of native bee biology, and guidance on how to construct and manage artificial nests for native pollinators in an ecologically sound manner.


Eric Mader is actually speaking in my building on Friday, but I will miss his seminar due to the conference, so it is great that he will be there because I;ve been meaning to build some artificial nests for bumblebees this year and I bet he will know what I need to do. This talk will be a great way to end the day before the 4-hour drive back to Madison.













Document Number: 5776 



 Gordon Conway on Orgenics 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 13 January 2010 


Mark Henderson at the Times Online has just published an article about Genetic Engineering and Organic Agriculture.  Organic farmers must embrace GM crops if we are to feed the world, says scientist.  The scientist is non other than Agricultural Ecologist  Sir Gordon Conway  , and he argues that Organic Ag should be open to GE crops, which we here like to call  Orgenic  agriculture.


Farmers, he said, should use the best aspects of organic methods and GM technology to maximise yields while limiting damage to ecosystems. He accepted that organic lobbyists would regard the idea as heresy, but said that genetic engineering could create better organic crops than those grown today with further environmental benefits.  What frustrates me is there is a real potential for combining GM technology and organic approaches, said Professor Conway, who stepped down last year as chief scientific adviser to the Department for International Development. To say that is probably heretical, but there would be real benefits if we got over this notion that GM is somehow not organic.


He continues, explaining how the pure philosophical basis and underlying assumptions may work against the overall goal.  And I;m glad to see that he pointed out how conventional breeding is just as artificial as genetic engineering. (It;s called  artificial selection  for a reason!)


While the processes used to create GM crops are unnatural, so too is the conventional breeding that has created todays non-GM varieties. Both methods involve genes that are natural in origin, but genetic engineering can create crops with significant advantages.  The rigidity of organic certification rules can thus work against sustainability by blocking the use of helpful technologies, Professor Conway said.


Current Organic orthodoxy doesn;t currently allow for it, and organic customers aren;t too likely to go for it, yet Conway is optimistic about the future of such an approach.


I think we are going to end up in a very interesting hybrid world in which we choose the technology because it is appropriate, not because of where it has come from. And 2050 will be like that: it will not be completely high-technology, and it will not be a completely back-tonature world.


Can we do it in 40 years? I wonder what could be accomplished in 10.













Document Number: 9142 



 Gosh! Whoever would have believed that anti-technology lobbyists would be biased and misleading with claims they make in public? No-wonder George Monbiot was fooled for years. 


 by  David Tribe  on 5 April 2011 


Fill in the XXXs below as you see fit.


How the anti-XXX lobby misled us all with dodgy claims  George Monbiot,  The Ag  e, Melbourne  April 6, 2011   When the facts don;t suit, the movement resorts to the folly of cover-up allegations.  OVER the past fortnight I;ve made a deeply troubling discovery. The anti-XXX movement to which I once belonged has misled the world about the impacts of XXX on human health. The claims we have made are ungrounded in science, unsupportable when challenged, and wildly wrong. We have done other people, and ourselves, a terrible disservice.  I began to see the extent of the problem after a debate last week with XXX XXXX, the world;s foremost anti-XXX campaigner. She has received 21 honorary degrees and scores of awards.  In the debate she made some striking statements about the dangers of XXX. I asked for the sources. XXXs response has profoundly shaken me.  First she sent me nine documents: newspaper articles, press releases and an advertisement. None were scientific publications; none contained sources for the claims she had made. But one of the press releases referred to a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, which she urged me to read. I have now done so. It supports none of the statements I questioned; in fact, it strongly contradicts her claims about the health effects of XXX.  I pressed her further and she gave me a series of answers that made my heart sink ; in most cases they referred to publications that had little or no scientific standing, which did not support her claims or which contradicted them. (Excerpt from the start of the full article provided at the link)


GMO Pundit;s thoughts:  Interestingly, an editorial in the same newspaper issue calls for open-minded treatment of GM technology on a case by case basis. Clearly blinkers are starting to fall from many journalist;s eyes when it comes to appreciating potential benefits from controversial science and technology.


But the most revealing thing about this item is that famous journalist Monbiot had strong views about a topic for years,  while never checking the primary evidence for himself  . Hopefully we are seeing a road to Damascus moment for Monbiot, and he will actually check the primary evidence himself on other issues he writes so enthusiastically about. I;d really like to see that!













Document Number: 4658 



 Government funded TV program discusses GM food risks but gives no scrutiny to those who speculate about hazards. 


 by  David Tribe  on 5 November 2010 


Australian government funded TV program   The 7.30 Report  has just run an item about a purportedly new risk in GM food. To discuss this risk, the program featured an abundance of voices from antitechnology organisations but gave no effective scrutiny of their scientific arguments or credentials.


The object of  The 7.30 Report  discussion was a the new variety of corn bred by cross pollinating different existing corn varieties so that it contains eight different agriculturally advantageous traits. This is the so-called SmartStax corn. This contains six different protections against insect damage and two different versions of herbicide tolerance.


SmartStax corn is a genetically modified food product so that component varieties of SmartStax corn have each been tested to ensure that they are completely equivalent to the non-GM parental variety in terms of nutritional and other effects on animals.


ABC TV quotes a representative of the Adelaide-based organisation  Institute of Health and Environment Research  saying that this new corn is akin to a cocktail of drugs in terms of its hazard potential. The words polypharmacy effect are used, presumably meaning that the corn is like a cocktail of drugs.


What is missing from this discussion is an analysis of whether a food is a drug.


Staple foods and drugs are fundamentally different*.  Corn is a food staple, and is digested to its harmless and nutritionally valuable component parts in the digestive canal. Drugs on the other hand, are not digested to small harmless components, but enter into into the body as novel chemicals which very definitely  do  have an effect on some target or other inside the body. That;s why they are called drugs: because they have an detectable and proven effect on how the body works. Indeed, they are extensively tested to ensure that they do have a pharmacological effect on animals and humans. Tests on genetically modified foods are the opposite: they are tested to see that they have no effect.


So when we get to examining this idea that a corn that is bred to contain eight traits is like a cocktail of drugs, we can;t find any logic to confirm that &nbsp;the analogy makes sense. Food is not a drug; it is digested in the digestive canal to harmless nutrients and the eight traits in this corn are not substances that enter the body. Drugs on the other hand are known into into the body and it is indeed possible for these drug chemicals to interact with one another. Genetically modified foods are tested to make sure they have no effect on the body, at least in terms of observable effects on animals in experiments carried out over 90 days of testing.


It is interesting is that the physical resources or labs of  Institute of Health and Environment Research  &nbsp;quoted by  The 7.30 Report  do not feature in the TV program. They would be extremely newsworthy. It is in fact difficult to find out where the facilities of this institute are. All the GMO Pundit can find is a post office box in Adelaide as their only identifiable physical facility in Australia. You;d think that ABC TV would be more transparent about the missing credentials of an organisation they represent as having significant research abilities.


Institute of Health and Environmental Research  facility, Kensington Park, South Australia


Although this was a TV program about risks in of corn food components, &nbsp;there was no discussion of one very real chemical risk of any food component derived from corn and other cereal crops. This is the possibility that the corn had spoilt by mould and contains the potent toxins that can be produced by mould fungi. One of these chemicals found in corn is called fumonisin, and fumonisin is a potent toxin that can cause liver and throat cancer. Unfortunately, insect damage to corn can increase the likelihood that the corn is contaminated with fumonisin or similar mould toxins. Since the SmartStax corn has multiple protections against insect damage is it is highly unlikely to contain any of the dangerous fungal toxins that can occur when crops are damaged by insects  as they often are in the practical field conditions .


Thus the balance of probabilities would seem to be that the multiple genetic protections present in this corn would decrease the likelihood of it being harmful due to the presence of fungal toxins, and it is in that sense safer and better protected against possible hazards than non-genetically modified corn.


The intriguing thing is, none of the organisations that are campaigning against GM-foods ever want to talk about this aspect of food safety, even though they are fully aware of it. It is a pity that the ABC TV didn;t see this issue as an item suitable for discussion in their program.


*  Added Note:  Here is a link and a quote from a website section of the Australian regulatory agency &nbsp;  Therapeutic Goods Administration  (otherwise known as the TGA). This agency regulates drugs in Australia. The legal definitions of therapeutic goods (which includes includes drugs) &nbsp;and foods are mutually exclusive. Legally, drugs cannot be foods and  vice versa  .


How do I determine whether my product is a ;therapeutic good;?  In ordinary circumstances, the main issues which the TGA considers initially are:


What is this product/substance for? Is it for therapeutic use in humans?   Is it in the Food Standard or has a tradition of use as a food?  Is it exempt or excluded under the provisions of the Act?  The formal definition (from the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989) is as follows:


;therapeutic goods; means goods:


that are represented in any way to be, or that are, whether because of the way in which the goods are presented or for any other reason, likely to be taken to be:  for therapeutic use; or  for use as an ingredient or component in the manufacture of therapeutic goods; or  for use as a container or part of a container for goods of the kind referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii); or  included in a class of goods the sole or principal use of which is, or ordinarily is, a therapeutic use or a use of a kind referred to in subparagraph (a)(ii) or (iii);  and includes medical devices and goods declared to be therapeutic goods under an order in force under section 7,   but does not include:


goods declared not to be therapeutic goods under an order in force under section 7; or  goods in respect of which such an order is in force, being an order that declares the goods not to be therapeutic goods when used, advertised, or presented for supply in the way specified in the order where the goods are used, advertised, or presented for supply in that way; or   goods (other than goods declared to be therapeutic goods under an order in force under section 7) for which there is a prescribed standard in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991; or   goods which, in Australia or New Zealand, have a tradition of use as foods for humans in the form in which they are presented.













Document Number: 2326 



 Group-think in action: Greens who don;t toe the party line vilified by traditional sections of the environmental movement. 


 by  David Tribe  on 3 November 2010 


&nbsp;In the Pundit;s opinion, serious difficulty with solving global environmental problems is lack of open-minded and objective evaluation of all of the options on the table. Another difficulty is that without full knowledge about how the world works, without practical engagement with the challenges of findingsolutions to real world problems, it;s easy to regard distant problems as being unimportant. The proverb out of sight out of mind comes to mind. One example of this is bad take-up in industrialised countries of vaccination programs for diseases which have seemingly been brought under control because of active vaccination programs.


In the absence of raging disease parents think that diseases such as measles will not strike their own children. In the area of food production and abundant availability of food over the last 30 or 40 years seems to make future food security something we don;t have to worry about.


So we should listen to debates about new technologies particularly keenly even though they are unpopular among many people:&nbsp;


Leading environmental campaigners support nuclear and GM  Leading environmental campaigners have performed a u-turn on two key technologies they have opposed for decades by openly calling for greater use of nuclear power and genetically modified crops to help the world tackle climate change.


Daily Telegraph, UK,&nbsp;By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent  Published: 10:15AM GMT 31 Oct 2010


The activists now say that by opposing nuclear power they encouraged the use of polluting coal-fired power stations.


For years they campaigned against nuclear power and genetically-modified food. But now some leading environmental campaigners have performed a U-turn and said that they got it wrong;


;The activists feature in the Channel 4 documentary What the Green Movement Got Wrong, which will be broadcast this week.


They say that by successfully lobbying against the building of new nuclear power stations, environmentalists forced governments around the world to build new coal fired power stations instead, resulting in billions of extra tonnes of carbon dioxide and pollution being poured into the atmosphere.  Mr Lynas, who along with other activists ripped up trial GM crops in the 1990s, said that GM food had now been consumed by millions of people in the US for more than 10 years without harm, and this had convinced him to change his views.  The campaigners say that since they expressed their change of position, they have been vilified by traditional sections of the environmental movement.


Update:


Comments at  Ferrari;s for all  &nbsp;:


mong the many comments on the Channel 4 documentary were:


* A&nbsp;   range of comments by greens  &nbsp;in a&nbsp;  Guardian  &nbsp;feature including by representatives of Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the New Economics Foundation (Andrew Simms).


*&nbsp;    George Monbiot in the&nbsp;  Guardian  &nbsp;accusing the programme of being imbued with corporate thinking.&nbsp; This is his standard technique for avoiding hard arguments on difficult topics.


* A&nbsp;   critique  &nbsp;by Tom Levitt in the&nbsp;  Ecologist  .


* Matt Ridley, one of the most eloquent critics of environmentalism, in a blog post entitled    sinners that repent  .


For more general background:


* Rob Lyons&nbsp;   wrote a review  &nbsp;of Stewart Brands&nbsp;  Whole Earth Discipline  &nbsp;for&nbsp;  spiked  .


* The main proponents of progressive environmentalism in America are Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of&nbsp;   the Breakthrough Institute  , authors of&nbsp;    The death of environmentalism  . However, they were not mentioned in Thursdays Channel 4 documentary.













Document Number: 8992 



 Grow Your Own Garden Pie 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 28 June 2010 


For the  Grow your Own Bakeoff  , a blogging event that celebrates the foods we grow or raise ourselves and the dishes we make using our homegrown products, I baked a Swiss chard-Gruyere pie.


Here is the recipe: First, gather as many ingredients as you can from your garden. In our garden, I found multi-colored swiss chard, Kale, chives, thyme and parsley. Our young hens, Snickerdoodle, Lemon Drop, Raven, Cheez-It and Oreo provided the eggs.


The backdrop to our garden is a mural on the side of our barn, painted with California poppies, rice plants, sunflowers and (look closely) a red double helix. Artist:  Jim McCall, Elastic Media  .


Next, prepare the crust:


1 cup barley flour  2 cups white flour


1 tsp salt


1 cup unsalted butter


1/2 cup unsalted margarine, frozen


grated rind of 1 lemon


1/2-3/4 c iced water


Measure flours and salt into a Cuisinart fitted with a steel blade. Mix briefly. Add in diced butter and margarine. Chop until mixture resembles consistency of cornmeal. Remove from cuisinart and mix in the water an lemon rind with a fork. Shape into one large ball and one small ball. Refrigerate for 20 minutes or so.


Roll out chilled dough on floured surface, in between 2 floured sheets of waxed paper. Place larger crust into a pie pan with a circumference of 28.3 inches (r=4.5 inches). Layer the rest of the cheese on the base. Trim away extra crust. Flute the edges.


Next prepare the filling:


2 TB olive oil  2 Tb butter  1/2 c onion, finely chopped  2 TB fresh chives, finely chopped  1 clove garlic, smashed and then finely chopped  &nbsp;6 cups multi-colored swiss chard, chopped  1 tsp salt  1 tsp pepper


5 eggs  1 cup milk  1 cup half and half  3 TB fresh parsley  1 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg  pinch of thyme  1.5 cups grated gruyere


Melt butter and oil in skillet. Add in onion, chives and garlic. Cook over medium heat until browned. Add in chard and cook until tasty. Add salt and pepper to taste.


In a separate bowl, blend eggs together. Stir in milk, half and half, parsley, thyme and 1/2 of the gruyere. Mix in cooled vegetable mixture.


Add filling to prepared crust. Decorate the top with a strip of dough representing the radius and the symbol for pi.


Bake in a preheated oven (425 degree F) for 25 minutes. Then cover with foil, reduce heat to 350 and cook until filling is cooked through (another 30 minutes or so).


Remove from oven, cool slightly and serve up your pi.


Variation: use milk instead of Half and Half. use other vegetables from your garden instead of chard and kale. Broccoli is good, too!


This post is modified version of a previous post entitled ;  Pie is a constant in my life  ;













Document Number: 8550 



 Growing of transgenic crops can contribute in all three traditional pillars of sustainability ; economic, environmental and social. 


 by  David Tribe  on 15 December 2010 


Review article   The role of transgenic crops in sustainable development  Julian Raymond Park, Ian McFarlane, Richard Hartley Phipps and Graziano Ceddia  School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AR, UK  Summary  The concept of sustainable development forms the basis for a wide variety of international and national policy making. World population continues to expand at about 80 M people per year, while the demand for natural resources continues to escalate.  Important policies, treaties and goals underpin the notion of sustainable development. In this paper, we discuss and evaluate a range of scientific literature pertaining to the use of transgenic crops in meeting sustainable development goals. It is concluded that a considerable body of evidence has accrued since the first commercial  growing of transgenic crops, which suggests that they can contribute in all three traditional pillars of sustainability, i.e. economically, environmentally and socially.  Management of herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant transgenic crops to minimize the risk of weeds and pests developing resistance is discussed, together with the associated concern about the risk of loss of biodiversity. As the world population continues to rise, the evidence reviewed here suggests it would be unwise to ignore  transgenic crops as one of the tools that can help meet aspirations for increasingly sustainable global development.


Plant Biotechnology Journal (2011) 9, pp.  221 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00565.x













Document Number: 6273 



 Guest blogger Raoul Adamchak on corporate transparency 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 5 March 2009 


Science based information is critical to Sustainable Agriculture.


Agricultural scientists (26) from corn producing states have sent a letter to the EPA criticizing GE seed companies for limiting access to seeds for scientific research. (Pollack, Andrew, NYT, 2/20/09)  All of the scientists have been active participants of the Regional Research Projects NCCC-46 ;Development, Optimization, and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms and Other Below-ground Insect Pests of Maize; and/or related projects with corn insect pests. The comment appears as follows:


;Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good, unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.;


It appears that the leaders at these seed companies have not yet embraced the idea that the acceptance of GE crops is dependent upon peer-reviewed, scientific research that evaluates effectiveness, safety, or impact on non-target species. Without access and transparency and evaluation by independent scientists, it becomes impossible to determine the suitability of GE crops for agriculture. Hopefully, in the light of these comments to the EPA, the companies will develop methods to facilitate access by university researchers who are a necessary part of our system of scientific checks and balances.


In this specific case, the evaluation of effectiveness of BT corn for rootworm control is critical in helping farmers determine if the extra cost of the GE seed is justified by increased yield due to presence of the BT toxin gene. One reason that BT corn has been adapted at a lower rate (@35%) than herbicide tolerant soybeans (@90%), is that in some regions of the U.S. the pests (European Corn Borer or corn root worm) do not attack corn in sufficiently high numbers to reach the economic threshold that justifies the expense of BT corn. Research done by land grant university scientists has been essential in determining the economic thresholds for these pests. This work helps reduce farmer expenses and increases economic return, an important goal of a sustainable ag system.


Science based information is critical to Sustainable Agriculture.


Agricultural scientists (26) from corn producing states have sent a letter to the EPA criticizing GE seed companies for limiting access to seeds for scientific research. (Pollack, Andrew, NYT, 2/20/09)  All of the scientists have been active participants of the Regional Research Projects NCCC-46 ;Development, Optimization, and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms and Other Below-ground Insect Pests of Maize; and/or related projects with corn insect pests. The comment appears as follows:


;Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good, unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.;


It appears that the leaders at these seed companies have not yet embraced the idea that the acceptance of GE crops is dependent upon peer-reviewed, scientific research that evaluates effectiveness, safety, or impact on non-target species. Without access and transparency and evaluation by independent scientists, it becomes impossible to determine the suitability of GE crops for agriculture. Hopefully, in the light of these comments to the EPA, the companies will develop methods to facilitate access by university researchers who are a necessary part of our system of scientific checks and balances.


In this specific case, the evaluation of effectiveness of BT corn for rootworm control is critical in helping farmers determine if the extra cost of the GE seed is justified by increased yield due to presence of the BT toxin gene. One reason that BT corn has been adapted at a lower rate (@35%) than herbicide tolerant soybeans (@90%), is that in some regions of the U.S. the pests (European Corn Borer or corn root worm) do not attack corn in sufficiently high numbers to reach the economic threshold that justifies the expense of BT corn. Research done by land grant university scientists has been essential in determining the economic thresholds for these pests. This work helps reduce farmer expenses and increases economic return, an important goal of a sustainable ag system.


Raoul Adamchak is co-author of Tomorrow;s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food;. He has grown organic crops for twenty years, part of the time as a partner in Full Belly Farm, a private 150-acre organic vegetable farm that provided weekly produce boxes to over five hundred subscribers. Raoul has sold produce at three high-volume farmers markets, and to wholesalers and retailers in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. He has also spent many hours discussing organic certification issues as a member and president of California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and Board of Directors and inspected over one hundred organic farms for CCOF. He received a bachelors degree in economics from Clark University and also received a master of science degree in International Agricultural Development from the University of California, Davis, where he also studied entomology. He now works at the University of California, Davis Student Farm, where he teaches organic production practices and manages a five-acre market garden.













Document Number: 5687 



 Happy Biofortified Biennial! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 1 November 2010 


Hi everyone, Frank N. Foode here giving you the latest update on some exciting things.


First, I am (belatedly) proud to announce the winner of the  second Community Contest  , and that illustrious distinction goes to  Bernarda  , who swept the competition in a landslide! Any moment now they will be the proud owner of a new Biofortified tote bag. Thanks for disagreeing with someone with politeness and respect and above all ;  constructively  !


Second, it seems that no one has yet entered our inaugural annual  frankenfood carving contest  , and the deadline was set for this coming Wednesday. Now I;m sure as you ghosts and goblins go to bed tonight on Halloween, there are scary pumpkins smoldering outside on your doorstep. Don;t throw them out ; take a picture and upload them to your profile and have a chance to share in a glorious victory. As of now, the contest deadline has been extended to Sunday, November 7th, at midnight Pacific, as always. And to sweeten the pot, the winner will not only get a cotton canvas tote bag with the blog emblem emblazoned on its side, they will be the first here to receive a very special gift  ;  A mint-condition Norman Borlaug commemorative coin!  Fantastic!


This special prize is courtesy of MaryM. A big thanks to Mary;s generosity! The coin is in its original plastic wrapper for you crop coin collectors.


So now;s your chance to carve up something fun ; you have until the 7th!  Comment here to enter.


Next, of course, I have to say a thing or two about our second birthday here at Biofortified. *Sniff* It seems like so long ago when there were a few lonely voices out there trying to educate people about plant genetics, and then we started to find each other and wound up starting this blog. We won a contest together last year, and this year the posts and comments have really been rockin;! With post syndication, new guest posts, and readers coming from all over the place, we;ve got a great discussion going and it will get better and better. And then look what happened to our readership this year:


Biofortified is here to stay!


Heh, if this blog was a beet, it would be setting seed now, seeds to spread across the blogosphere! Pat yourselves on the back.


And while we;re talking about the perennial permanence of this blog, finally, I have an announcement to make.  And that is that on Tuesday, November 2nd 2010 we will have an announcement!  So now that I have announced the impending announcement, you need only wait for the announcement. Once post-announcement, you will see why this needed a pre-announcement.  Ok that;s this corn;s best impression of John Stewart. (He was awesome at the Rally to Restore Reason. We need that for GMOs.)


I must be a little jet-lagged. This week, in all my travels, I find myself in Long Beach, CA, attending the ACS (ASA-CSA-SSSA) Annual Meeting, filled with thousands of scientists who study agronomy, crop, and soil science. Karl Haro von Mogel is also here, but he;s been so busy up until now with his research and making sure his  oral presentation for Monday morning  is perfect that I guess he forgot to put something up on the blog. I;ll be sure to prod him tomorrow after his talk about plant sex videos. For those who may be attending the ACS Meeting, there will be a photo op with Yours Truly from 4-6 pm on Tuesday at poster board number 716. That;s right, at  the Biofortified poster  ! Sweeet. Happy Birthday all!













Document Number: 4585 



 Hawaii;s curious relationship with GE 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 9 December 2008 


Hawai;i is a remote archipelago of islands with a declining sugar industry. The new expanses of open acreage are now being filled with GE crop trials, and controversy.


PRSV-Resistant Papaya


The University of Hawai;i produced the first GE Papaya resistant to Papaya Ringspot Virus, which grows there today (and even surrounds and protects organic plots of Papaya), and is currently investigating several other crops and their potential for improvement. Those efforts have been put in jeopardy recently as the council of the big island of Hawai;i  banned  the growing of GE taro and coffee with no allowance for continued academic research. Mayor Kim vetoed the ban, which was  overturned  by the council.


In the debate over genetic engineering in Hawai;i, it is interesting to see anti-GE groups claim that farmers do not want the technology. First, it is the farmers who ultimately decide what to grow on their farms, and the mere fact that they are choosing to grow it wherever it is legal to do so is a testament to the fact that many actively do want to grow it.


Another interesting point of contention is whether or not farmers will be helped or harmed by GE crops. In what I have read of the Hawai;ian debates, few actually depended upon the argument that GE crops aren;t tested enough for human consumption. It has been brought up, but the argument hasn;t held much weight because GE crops have been tested more thoroughly than any other new crop varieties, and there hasn;t been a single confirmed case of anyone being harmed by it. And maybe people are tired of hearing that argument, too.


Instead, one of the primary arguments being advanced against allowing it to be grown in any locale is how people  outside  that area will treat the food being grown from that region. ;Sure it may be safe and the farmers may want to grow it, but if people on the mainland don;t want to buy GE coffee, our market will suffer if they decide to stop buying from us.; This is a more indirect argument, depending on the  perceived  attitudes of coffee buyers.


The counter-argument from the farmers that do not want the GE coffee banned is that when disaster strikes, like with Papaya Ringspot Virus, they are worried that there will not be a ready solution for the calamity, and they won;t even have coffee to sell ; to even  possibly  be rejected by consumers.


PRSV-resistant papaya is a good example of this issue. Without this genetically engineered trait, there would be virtually no Hawai;ian Papaya industry, even organic papaya would be failing. So in the sense of protecting the crop, genetic engineering saved the Hawai;ian papaya. But some markets have rejected the GE papaya, and anti-GE groups (Greenpeace, et al) have claimed that genetic engineering is instead hurting the farmers.


But it is not. The opposition to GE crops on the end of the importers is what is hurting those farmers, but rather than address the role of those people rejecting what the farmers choose to grow (or are compelled to grow in order to escape a devastating disease), the blame is put on the technology itself. But you have to keep in mind that the groups making this mistake are biased against interpreting it this way because they are opposed to genetic engineering, and blaming GE meshes well with their goal of fomenting opposition to GE crops amongst consumers.


As I mentioned above, Hawai;i has become a site for a wide range of field trials for GE crops. University research projects elsewhere will also grow their winter nurseries in Hawai;i to squeeze two rounds of selection in their breeding projects each year. The land rented out for these purposes has not only been good for the farmers who have been losing sugar cane acreage to cheaper sugar producers elsewhere, but it has also been good for GE crop developers who need somewhere remote so as to eliminate any possibility of cross-pollination with varieties being grown on farms.


But the language being used to describe this situation takes a whole different turn. In her new book Uncertain Peril,  Claire Hope Cummings  has called growing GE crops on Hawai;i a new form of colonialism ; when the obviousness of mainland Americans determining what Hawai;ian farmers can grow escapes her analysis. The belief that gigantic biotech companies are trying to rule the world through Hawai;i is pervasive, and thus they have made the state a battleground to try to nip GE research in the bud.


Genetic engineering only benefits the companies that develop it, and can only destroy farmer;s livelihood, right?


But even Deborah Koons Garcia, who filmed the anti-GE documentary  The Future of Food  , after claiming that genetic engineering was not a benevolent technology (technologies are neutral IMHO), said in an interview on my show years ago that the GE Papaya project was indeed a benevolent project. Whoops! I got that one on tape.


So if this was about helping Hawai;ian farmers defend themselves against Monsanto and worried coffee consumers, why was there no provision to allow University GE research on the big island of Hawai;i? UH researchers can take heart in the fact that this ordinance only applies to GE coffee and Taro that is grown on the big island ; other Hawai;ian islands are not affected by the ban.


In the case of Taro, a religious argument is being made against genetically engineering the crop. Folklore puts Taro in a position of reverence (hey, it;s a reliable source of food in tropical climates), and the argument goes that genetic engineering would be violating the sanctity of the plant. One obvious counter-argument (besides that it is based on myth) is that by protecting Taro against pests and disease is instead strengthening the plant ; and that allowing it to be destroyed is instead disrespectful to the holy root.


It also appears that GE crops are the new Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY). Hawaiian coffee growers, when and if a problem hits that can only be addressed by genetic engineering, will probably lobby to lift the ban and decide to grow biotech beans. But if you cut off the public research that is trying to address impending agricultural problems, will the remedy be available when you need it? I guess some who know they might grow it just want someone else to take the market risk for now.


This post was inspired by  a new article in Scientific American titled Genetically Modified Hawaii  , which is a pretty good read.













Document Number: 7151 



 Are there unintended health effects of genetic engineering? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 27 January 2011 


Caduceus with DNA via Ancestry.com


Francis Thicke  , agronomist and organic dairy farmer in Iowa,  asks  :


Do you think there are unanswered questions about the health effects of GE foods? I have heard GE critiques frequently contend that there have been very few feeding trials on the health effects of GE foods, and that in the feeding trials that have been done, the results have raised questions about the safety of GE foods.


For starters, what is your opinion on the case of Arpad Pusztai and the results of his GE potato feeding trials that abruptly got him fired. Has anyone ever replicated his experiment?


There are a lot of important things to discuss in relation to these questions. Since it is so important, I have a few guidelines to suggest. To make this discussion easy to follow, please be careful to use the ;Reply; button next to each comment if you want to stay in the same line of conversation (there should be up to 10 levels of replies allowed), or scroll to the bottom to the comment box if you want to start a new line of conversation. If you are making a specific claim, please provide a source, preferably a reliable one such as a scientific journal, government or university website, etc. Lastly, please try to stay away from fallacies such as the ones listed  here  . If we stick with sound information, we;ll all learn a lot more from the discussion.


The study that Dr. Thicke refers to is   Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing  Galanthus nivalis  lectin on rat small intestine  (pdf) by Stanley W B Ewen and Arpad Pusztai. It appeared in the  Lancet on 16 October 1999  after some controversy, alongside two commentaries:  Genetically modified foods: absurd concern or welcome dialogue?  (pdf) and  Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods  (pdf).


Ewen SW, &amp; Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.  Lancet, 354  (9187), 1353-4 PMID:  10533866













Document Number: 8504 



 &quot;Hidden GMOs&quot; : anti-GMO campaigners change target but not strategy ; OGM : environnement, sante; et politique 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 July 2010 


;Hidden GMOs; : anti-GMO campaigners change target but not strategy ; OGM : environnement, sante; et politique  : ;;Hidden GMOs; : anti-GMO campaigners change target but not strategy;   ;Hidden GMOs; : anti-GMO campaigners change target but not strategy  par Marcel Kuntz   Having no GM crops or trials to destroy in France (since there are almost no GMO culture any longer in this country, apart from two small field trials), anti-GMO activists have found a new enemy: on Saturday July 24 2010 at Sorigny and St. Branchs (Indre-et-Loire, France), they vandalized plots of sunflowers they termed as  mutated  and herbicide tolerant. They are not GM, but opponents call them ;hidden-GMOs; to continue to use the arguments successfully developed against GMOs and to mobilize their supporters.  What the anti-GMO activists are targeting now is mutagenesis use in plant breeding and, in particular, to produce herbicide resistance, such as those of Clearfield or Express Sun sunflower varieties (the former having actually been originally obtained by a spontaneous mutation).  Actually, the destruction at Sorigny concerned a high-oleic variety of sunflower. Oleic varieties do result from mutagenesis, and some are also used in organic farming. Therefore, if one follows the anti-GMO opponents rhetoric, it is ironic that organic farmers are using  hidden-GMOs !  In requesting that ;the regulation on transgenic GMOs also applies to GMOs obtained by mutagenesis, cell fusion or other manipulations of life;, opponents who are basically radical anti-capitalists hope to achieve for the entire plant breeding industry, and consequently for all major agricultural crops, the same economic sabotage as the one which has been so successful against GMOs in Europe.  The argument is the same:  against the new seed privatization thatagain represents a strategy for corporate confiscation of life . Despite being wrong, this rhetoric is highly efficient in mobilizing anti-capitalist protesters.  Similarly, claims of  unintended effects that can cause serious damage to health ;  are without factual basis, but aims to frighten consumers (who do not realize they have always eaten  mutants ;).   Pundit;s thoughts.  Another bizarre incident that reveals the irrational root cause of anti-GM activism ; anti-capitalisme.













Document Number: 3647 



 High Health Care Costs Lead to Healthier Eating? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 30 November 2009 


As employers desperately try to keep health care costs down, some are turning to unexpected measures, according to  Health Care Savings Could Start in the Cafeteria  in Sunday;s New York Times. Employers, including some big ones like IBM, have programs that reward their employees for joining a gym or following a preventive health care regimen. Now, some employers are trying to affect their employees diets by offering healthier foods in their cafeterias and giving employees coupons for healthy prepared food items stocked in local grocery stores. Full Yield (a company that does not seem to have a website!) is a new company working to prepare the healthy food offerings that employees are encouraged to buy. Together with Harvard Pilgrim, an insurance company, Full Yield will track employee health to see if it improves with their food options.


Why am I bringing this up at Biofortified?


Sunshine quinoa salad by sonicwalker. Click the photo for the recipe. Via flickr.


The prepared food from Full Yield is not your typical prepared food. ;The choices may include turkey chili, quinoa salads, salmon cakes, chicken tagine, mixed bean wraps and whole-grain peanut butter cookies,; according to the Times article. Employees in the program are encouraged to eat only Full Yield items or similar whole food meals prepared at home. In these few menu items I see a swath of biodiversity, things never seen in the typical American;s diet. If the people on the program can lean about (and enjoy!) food options that are more healthy and more varied, maybe they will continue to choose these healthy varied items when they are done with the program. Maybe, just maybe, this will lead to an increase in demand for small grains and legumes and a decrease in demand for foods like feedlot beef and white bread. Maybe, just maybe, this could lead to big changes in farming.


Michael Pollan, not surprisingly, is way ahead of me on this idea. His editorial  Big Food vs. Big Insurance  appeared in the Times in September. Pollan argues that the proposed changes in health insurance regulation, particularly requiring companies to take everyone (no more pre-existing conditions), will cause the health insurance lobby to start fighting for changes in things like the Farm Bill. Pollan suggests: ;Insurers will quickly figure out that every case of Type 2 diabetes they can prevent adds $400,000 to their bottom line. Suddenly, every can of soda or Happy Meal or chicken nugget on a school lunch menu will look like a threat to future profits.;


I agree with Pollan that national food policies have an effect on what people eat, particularly when it comes to affecting how much food costs. When we subsidize commodity crops but don;t subsidize fruits and vegetables, we;re effectively reducing the cost to the consumer of processed foods and grain-fed meat. However, I don;t think a potential battle between ;Big Food; and ;Big Insurance; will lead to as much change as many of us would like to see.


Kid Cuisine photo by Matt, via the very odd but quite funny review of the product on the X-Entertainment blog.


Even if food subsides and policies are balanced to make healthy foods more affordable, people will still make the choices they;ve always made. Even if healthy foods become cheaper than unhealthy food, I;m not convinced that people will choose the cheaper option. People who grew up on box mac n; cheese and ;fun-shaped; chicken nuggets will not suddenly make and eat quinoa salad (maybe quinoa needs a snowboarding penguin?). But, if their workplace encourages them to try new foods, then maybe they;ll want to try them again.


We can;t just leave it up to a few scattered employers, though. We all have a responsibility, if we want farms to grow a larger variety of crops, to eat those crops, and to encourage our friends to eat them. Yum! Quinoa salad, anyone?













Document Number: 6927 



 High wheat prices and Middle-East turmoil linked? 


 by  David Tribe  on 17 March 2011 


The global food crunch


By Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post  Monday, March 14, 2011  Here;s a question about the Mideast turmoil for future historians: How much did food inflation contribute? We know some basic facts. Middle East countries import 50 percent or more of their wheat, a staple food for many. Beginning in mid-2010, world grain prices exploded. At $8.56 a bushel in February, wheat prices had doubled in eight months. Despite massive subsidies, some higher prices filtered through to consumers. Did that create a tinderbox for protest?


;In both Tunisia and Egypt, women in TV interviews screamed about food prices,; says Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations.  ;Food inflation was a contributor. How much we don;t know.; Whatever the verdict, it;s not an idle curiosity. As much as oil, scarce food could shape global politics for decades.


Call it the Great Food Crunch. Global food demand is colliding with strained supply. High prices or shortages could destabilize poor countries and trigger global scrambles for scarce foodstuffs. The present price surge is the second in three years. In 2008, run-ups in rice and wheat triggered protests and riots in about two dozen countries, including Egypt, Haiti and the Philippines. Then and now, some suppliers (India and Vietnam in 2008 for rice and Russia now for wheat) restricted exports, increasing world prices and shifting risk to countries with food deficits.  (More at link)













Document Number: 5090 



 Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: A Literature Review 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 23 November 2008 


Photo by Yvan leduc via Wikipedia.


There is so much information out there on Colony Collapse Disorder. Wouldn;t it be nice if someone summarized it in one place? Kyle Bailey, undergraduate in biology at Iowa State, has done just that. The following, posted with permission, is an up-to-date review of CCD research. It includes information from a variety of sources, from fact sheets to peer-reviewed journal articles.


Introduction


Honeybees (  apis mellifera  ) are the primary pollinator available to agriculturalists in the United States. This makes them a critical part of US agriculture. Crops such as ;almonds (82% of the world;s supply and 100% dependent on interstate pollinators); apples; cherries; blueberries; broccoli; carrots; cranberries; cucurbits like cucumber, melons, squash, pumpkins, and gourds; (Stankus 2008) are heavily reliant on honey bees for pollination. Traveling hives provided by commercial apiary services pollinates many of these crops.


A current epidemic, called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), affecting honeybee hives throughout the US threatens the apiarist industry. In the US during 2006-2007 29% of beekeepers reported some loss to CCD with some losing up to 75% of their stock (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al). CCD is characterized as a mysterious loss of worker bees in the hive. There are no corpses to be found as the bees apparently wander far from the hive to die. The hive generally has sufficient food stores to maintain the population. The hives also generally still have undeveloped brood stock. The new brood (as well as the queen) is of course doomed without any adult workers present to care for them and they soon die. Because the bees travel far from the hive there are no bodies to necropsy and attempt to determine a cause (Stankus 2008).


This paper will explore the US economic and agricultural impacts of pollinator loss, and recent research into the causes of and potential solutions to CCD.


US Economic and Agricultural Impacts


The monoculture nature of agriculture tends to produce large numbers of flowers that all need pollinating simultaneously. A lack of honeybee colonies available to ship and set up for pollinating the variety of crops throughout the US will have a major impact on production. Dr. Caird Rexroad, an associate administrator of agricultural research for the United States Department of Agriculture, in testimony before the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee states:


;CCD poses a problem for many segments of the agricultural community, particularly the pollination industry and many growers that depend on pollinating services. In total, bee pollination is responsible for $15 billion in added crop value, particularly for specialty crops such as almonds and other tree nuts, berries, fruits, and vegetables. The California almond crop alone requires 1.3 million colonies of bees, a need that is projected to grow significantly by 2010. Due to CCD, the bee industry is facing great difficulty meeting the demand of almond producers. If researchers are unable to solve the problem and beekeepers are unable to meet demands for this and other crops, agriculture will be significantly impacted.; (2007).


Recent Research on CCD


CCD is far from explained. There is apparently no single explanatory factor. There is strong evidence, however, that it is biologically transmitted (Cox-Foster, Conlan, Holmes, et.al.). It would appear to be a combination of factors. Most of them well known and others new, emerging, or as yet unknown. CCD is however strongly associated with hives that have been under stress from any of a number of known stressors (Stankus 2008). These include mites, bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and insecticides. The various fungi, and bacteria are not thought to be major contributors to CCD directly. A major indicator for CCD is, however, hive stress and any infection or infestation could contribute.


There are two mites that are of significant impact to  A. mellifera  . They are  Varroa destructor  and  Acarapis woodi.  A. woodi  is a very small mite that lives in the tracheal tubes of the adult worker honeybee (http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/frames/beemites.html). It is also associated with additional bacterial infections (Stankus 2008).  V. destructor  is by far the more important mite and is more strongly associated with CCD.  V. destructor  is a mite that primarily infects the brood while it is still capped off in the comb. When out of the comb such as when the colony is over wintering and there is no brood left the mite infests the adult worker bee piercing the exoskeleton on the back and sucking hemolymph (Bowen-Walker, Martin, and Gunn 1996).  V. destructor  is also associated with additional infections, this time viral. Infestation by  V. destructor  affects bee size, weight, population, timeliness of emergence, lifespan and even the ability of bees to learn (Stankus 2008).


Viruses affecting honeybees are more diverse. There are at least 15 serious strains. Strongly associated with  Varroa  mite infestation is deformed wing virus (DWV). DWV is usually spread by the mites to developing larvae who develop small non-functional wings. The resulting adult can crawl but not fly. It has also been shown that the learning ability of bees may be affected (Stankus 2008).


A 2007 study looked at samples from 51 separate colonies, all of them mobile. In all 25 hives suffering from CCD they found Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) and they found the virus in only one healthy hive. This strongly correlates IAPV with CCD (Cox-Foster, Conlan, Holmes, et al.). The causal relationship of IAPV to CCD is currently under study (Cox-Foster 2008). Vertical transmission from Queen to offspring has also been shown for a variety of viruses (Chen, Pettis, Collins et al. 2005).


The most common protozoans found in honeybees are cryptosporidian called  Nosema apis  and a close cousin  Nosema ceranae.  N. ceranae is a more serious disease and is jumping the species barrier from Asian bees (  Apis ceranae  ) to European bees (  Apis mellifera).  N. ceranae  reduces hive survivability to one in six (Martin-Hernandez, Meana, Prieto, et al. 2007). Given the recent emergence of  N. ceranae  and the uncanny similarity in hive survival rates, the prospect of finding a link to CCD seems promising (Stankus 2008).


Certain pesticides in wide use in the US have also been suggested to be players. Specifically a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. The most widely used of these in the US is imidacloprid. It is used as a seed coat and can show up in plant tissues such as pollen and nectar in low doses. It is known to be toxic to bees, but when used in this way the bees receive a sub-lethal dose. One of the principal effects of imidacloprid on honeybees is a loss of learning ability (Decourtye, Lacassie, and Pham-Delegue 2003). Learning ability in bees is considered critical for the hive to continue thriving (Stankus 2008). The use of neonicotinoid pesticides varies widely by region, but the occurrence of CCD is fairly uniform. The manufacturer of imidacloprid has released a press release strongly denying its product plays any part in CCD and suggesting studies that show this to be true (Bayer CropScience, 2008).


Dr. Cox-Foster, one of the leading researchers in CCD also suggests the unnatural diet bees are subjected to may be a factor. One day bees can be in a field with nothing but almonds, another day nothing but watermelon, and in between fed an artificial sugar syrup. This is not the diet bees evolved with and as such may be a stressor. She also mentioned the practice of frequent hive splitting. This produces new hives more often than bees would choose to do so on their own. The last possible factor mentioned is the decrease in genetic diversity. Beekeepers who have some Africanized bees have not suffered from CCD (Bodn  ar 2008).


Possible Solutions


There is a study looking at how Africanized bees seem to be resistant to many of the diseases currently stressing European bees (Frazier Tumlinson, Tomasko 2008). One possibility is to breed resistance into our bees.


There is also the possibility of moving away from our dependence on a single species to do all of our pollinating. Unfortunately not many other bees are social so keeping them in very large numbers is difficult. The solitary bees tend to wander away when they perceive their population is too high. One study currently under way has as one of its main goals to ;Improve management of bumble bee pollinators through research aimed at identifying factors believed to affect worker pollen foraging and pollination efficiency.; (Delaplane Visscher,Eitzer 2008). In some areas native pollinators may be able to pick up the slack and provide sufficient pollination (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al. 2007).


Depending on the findings of some current studies, we may simply find that a few changes in our managements of bees could make all the difference. The careful use of novel miticides, maintaining more diverse food sources such as wild flowers in proximity to the crops we want pollinated, and maintaining a larger portion of the bee population as stationary hives instead of mobile operations that move state to state would all seem to be prudent, easy, and inexpensive first steps to staving off CCD.


Conclusion


CCD is obviously an important disease. It is currently a major area of study and our government through the USDA is pouring millions of dollars into research projects all over the country. At this point we are just beginning to understand the possible mitigating factors to CCD and how they may interplay with each other. The coming few years will likely be hard ones on the apiary and agricultural industries. Hopefully, solutions will be swift in coming and cheap in implementing.


Works Cited


Bee safety and Colony Collapse Disorder. (2008) Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.press.bayercropscience.com


Bodnar, A.  Colony Collapse Disorder  (2008) Retrieved November 18, 2008 From http://www.geneticmaize.com/2008/06/colony-collapse-disorder/


Chen, Y. P., Pettis, J. S., Collins, A., Feldlaufer, M. F. (2006). Prevalence and Transmission of Honeybee Viruses. [Electronic version]  Applied And Environmental Microbiology,  72, 606-611.


Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008)  Colony Collapse Disorder ; Determination Of Role Of Pathogens In Unique-Colony Losses Of Honey Bees And Funding Of Workshop On Ccd  Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&amp;id=anon&amp;pass=&amp;search=R=15893&amp;format=WEBLINK


Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008)  A New Collaboration To Understand African Bee Biology, Ecology, And Management As A Key To Sustaining Honey Bee Health In The U.S.  [Electronic version]  Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&amp;id=anon&amp;pass=&amp;search=R=23624&amp;format=WEBLINK


Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008)  SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS AFFECTING HEALTH OF MANAGED BEES  [Electronic version]  Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&amp;id=anon&amp;pass=&amp;search=R=8439&amp;format=WEBLINK


Cox-Foster, D.L.,Conlan, S., Holmes, E.C., Palacios, G., Evans, J.D., Moran N.A. (2008).  A Metagenomic Survey of Microbes in Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder.  [Electronic version]  Science 318, 283-287


Decourtye, A., Lacassie, E., Pham-Dele`gue M. (2003)  Learning performances of honeybees (Apis mellifera L) are differentially affected by imidacloprid according to the season.  [Electronic version] Pest Management Science 59, 269-278


Martn-Hernandez, R., Meana, A., Prieto, L., Salvador, A. M., Garrido-Bailon, E., Higes M. (2007). Outcome of Colonization of  Apis mellifera  by  Nosema ceranae.  [Electronic version] 73(20), 6331-6338.


P. L. BOWEN-WALKER, S. J. MARTIN,  A. GUNN (1996). Preferential distribution of the parasitic mite,  Varroa jacobsoni  Oud. on overwintering honeybee (  Apis mellifera  L.) workers and changes in the level of parasitism.[Electonic version] Parasitology, 114, 151-157


Stankus, T. (2008). A Review and Bibliography of the Literature of Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: A Poorly Understood Epidemic that Clearly Threatens the Successful Pollination of Billions of Dollars of Crops in America. Journal of Agricultural &amp; Food Information. [Electronic version] 9(2), 115-143.


Subcommittee On Horticulture And Organic Agriculture Of The Committee On Agriculture House Of Representatives (1997) Review Colony Collapse Disorder In Honey Bee Colonies Across The United States (36-465 PDF) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office


;Tracheal Mites; Tarsonemidae. (n.d.) Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/frames/beemites.html


Winfree, R., Williams, N., Dushoff, J., Kremen, C. (2007) Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. [Electronic version] Ecology, 10, 1105-1113













Document Number: 4357 



 How do polydnaviruses work? 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 29 March 2010 


Braconid wasp from Forestry Images.


In  Polydnaviruses: Natures GMOs  , I wrote about how wasps use viruses to disable the immune defenses of their hosts. Braconid and ichneumonid wasps use a system that genetically modifies their hosts in order to shut their immune systems down.


So how does this all work?


A good system to use to describe how polydnavirus proteins work is the ankyrin/vankyrin pathways. It;s easy to visualize how they function and many other functions (Toll, Phenoloxidase silencing, etc) work in an indentical manner.


Apoptosis is a vital immune defense where the cell begins producing enzymes called capsases which indiscriminately chew proteins up in the cell. If there;s a virus infecting the cell, the simplest way to save the whole organism is to destroy the infected cell. Destroy the infected cell, ensure no viral replication takes place, save the whole critter. Lots viruses have antiapoptotic proteins, and polydnaviruses use similar proteins to stop other immune processes which would kill the parasitoid larvae.


In the simplest apoptosis pathway, we start with NFkB proteins floating around the cytoplasm of the cell bound to an IkB protein in a fashion that;s not unlike a zipper. What would be comparable to the ;teeth; of the zipper is a specific structure called an ankyrin domain which links the proteins together.


There are two proteins linked together in the picture below. The one on the right is a protein which binds to a regulatory portion of a gene and tells RNA polymerase to transcribe a certain gene;in this example, capsase. The other protein, the IkB (Inhibitor kB protein) prevents this protein from going into the nucleus and triggering the capsases.


In normal circumstances, this only happens when a receptor binds to some sort of negative signal which signals bad news for the cell. In an actual system, this could be viral or bacterial proteins. Maybe even a burst of ultraviolet light. In this example, I;ve used a picture of actor Gary Busey as an example of an immune challenge.


After the ;bad; signal binds to the receptor, a cascade of events commences within the cell. The IkB protein dissociates from the cell and gets broken down. The NFkB protein then travels to the nucleus where it induces the production of capsases which results in the destruction of proteins within the cells.


The polydnavirus proteins encode a hacked version of the IkB proteins. They;re the same as the proteins encoded in the wasp, except they;re missing the part of the protein which responds to the signals sent by the receptor. This results in an IkB protein which doesn;t disassociate from the NFkB when the apoptosis signal goes out. If the IkB and NFkB proteins don;t disassociate, the NFkB proteins can;t induce apoptosis.


If you look at the pictures above, you can pretty easily tell which cell culture is expressing the vankyrin (viral ankyrin) proteins. The cells were exposed to a burst of ultraviolet light, and the cells on the right were expressing the protein which inhibits apoptosis.


Gene duplication with modification is a common theme in polydnavirus systems. Another of my favorite proteins, the  Cotesia plutellae  Bracovirus H4 actually works through epigenetics. H4 is a histone protein which changes the structure of DNA and regulates gene expression when acetyl groups are added to the amino acids at the end of the protein. A bracovirus symbiotic with Cotesia plutellae (CpBV) encodes a version of this histone protein which is essentially the same as that of it;s host with the exception of the amino acids at the end of the protein. These modified histone proteins have an effect on another part of the immune system, the blood cells which surround invaders and encapsulate them. These ;blood cells; are also known as hemocytes. The CpBV H4 protein severely reduces hemocyte spreading, and eliminates this threat to the wasp.


In short, in polydnaviral proteins, there is a very common theme which emerges. Many of them exist in the wasp genome and have been slightly modified so that they can;t be activated at the correct time, thereby interfering with vital cell processes.


Fath-Goodin A, Kroemer JA, &amp; Webb BA (2009). The Campoletis sonorensis ichnovirus vankyrin protein P-vank-1 inhibits apoptosis in insect Sf9 cells.  Insect molecular biology, 18  (4), 497-506 PMID:  19453763


Gad W, &amp; Kim Y (2008). A viral histone H4 encoded by Cotesia plutellae bracovirus inhibits haemocyte-spreading behaviour of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella.  The Journal of general virology, 89  (Pt 4), 931-8 PMID:  18343834


Thoetkiattikul H, Beck MH, &amp; Strand MR (2005). Inhibitor kappaB-like proteins from a polydnavirus inhibit NF-kappaB activation and suppress the insect immune response.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102  (32), 11426-31 PMID:  16061795













Document Number: 9231 



 How I Became A Science Writer 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 1 August 2010 


Ed Yong recently  published a post called ;On the origin of science writers;  asking that science writers (anyone who regularly writes about science) tell the story of how they got started. The idea is to establish a resource for future writers. I joined the thread and have reprinted it here.


As far back as I can remember I loved to read and I loved the wilderness. In fact my favorite times were reading in the wilderness, preferably in a tree near our mountain cabin, high enough where my brothers could not reach me with stones or snowballs.


I did not think much about being a writer myself until long after I was a scientist.


My first opportunity came when Scientific American asked me to write about  a discovery  my laboratory had recently made.  I found that I loved writing in a different way to reach a broader audience.


That was in 1997.


From that time on I occasionally would write an  article  or  review  for Science magazine if asked but not much more.


Then in 2005, I was approached by a publisher to write a book about  a class I was teaching called Genetics and Society  . I agreed readily as it seemed like it would be a great project and then did nothing about it. I was quite busy with teaching, research, writing papers and grants.


The editor was quite persistent and finally convinced me to put in a proper book proposal. By that time the project had morphed into a joint project with my husband, an organic farmer.


It seemed that every time we went to a party, someone wanted to talk about genetic engineering and organic agriculture as both were hot topics at the time. That gave us the idea of the join project. We would write a book about our experiences as a geneticist and farmer.


The proposal was accepted and then we sat around some more.


Finally when we received the contract we started moving. We first attended a writing workshop, which helped get us in the groove of writing for non-scientists. The only non-fiction teacher was a memoir writer. At first our project seemed completely incompatible with her expertise. But, by the end of the class, you guessed it, our project became a memoir, called ;  Tomorrow;s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food  ;.


Once the book came out we found many opportunities to write. For example,  the Boston Globe  and  The New York Times  both asked for opinion pieces. That was quite fun because I had been politically oriented for years but never had any of my letters to the editor accepted. Then my friend and colleague Jonathan Eisen informed me that as a writer I must have a blog and taught me how to set it up. That led me to  ScienceBlogs  , which has been a lot of fun.


What next? I did start a novel;













Document Number: 2977 



 How to Breed Cucurbits 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 8 March 2009 


Are you a backyard breeder? Do you want to be? Well with this video, now you can!


Well, I think if you are a plant breeding student, a breeder looking to train a new workforce, or someone who;s really just curious about how you can possibly make seeds to grow ;seedless; watermelons, you;ll like this video. Written and narrated by Yours Truly, and painstakingly stitched together by UW;s own Clark Thompson, with help from a whole array of resources and experts, I give you:


Pollination Methods: Cucurbits


(It may take a minute to load)


Previously, I have also completed one on corn, which you can see at the University of Wisconsin;s Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics website  here  . If you want to see a higher-resolution version of the cucurbit video, go  here  . Enjoy!


If you really like it, I would appreciate a good rating on  this video on Youtube  !


Podcast:  Play in new window  |  Download













Document Number: 5185 



 How to breed peppers 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 19 February 2011 


Did you hear the news this week about the new hottest pepper in the world* ;  the Infinity pepper  ? Want to try your hand at breeding something better? Well just in time, I have the next video in my pollination methods series of videos available for you to watch: Yes, peppers. The pepper genus, Capsicum is complex and although there may be different species, you can still make crosses between them if you know which crosses to make. The video explains it all. Enjoy!


*Shortly after I recorded audio for this video, it was announced that the Naga Jolokia (or Naga Morich) pepper which I had described as the hottest pepper in the world at 1 million Scoville units, was apparently unseated by another pepper called the  Naga Viper  .  At 1.36 million Scoville units, here is the spicy fruit:


I had to do a little re-working of the video to make sure it could never get dated as backyard breeders continue to breed crazier and crazier peppers. The fresh news about the Infinity Pepper has me a little puzzled, because it is supposed to be 1.18 million Scoville units, which is not as hot as the Viper. The Viper apparently  may need to go through a little more testing  to have its level of heat confirmed, but then again, how much confirmation as the Infinity had?


I also found the Wikipedia explanation of the tentativeness of the Viper;s status confusing. It says that being an ;unstable; hybrid puts the result in question. If you can regenerate a three-parent or two-parent hybrid consistently so that it is a recognizable variety, its hybrid status should not matter when it comes to determining if it has a consistently high level of spice.


Breeding true should not be necessary in my humble opinion as a plant geneticist, because if you watch my video, you will know that you can generate hybrid pepper seeds on a large enough scale for that not to matter!













Document Number: 2447 



 Hybrids in Haiti 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 4 June 2010 


You may have heard about Monsanto;s donation of $4 million worth of seed to Haiti. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of confusion about exactly what;s happening. In this post, I hope to help clear up some of the biological questions up as well as addressing some of the intellectual property questions. If you have specific questions about Monsanto*, I hope you;ll bring them to Monsanto;s blog  Beyond the Rows  or ask some of the many Monsanto employees on Twitter such as  @Mica_MON  and  @JPlovesCOTTON  .


The donation


Monsanto;s May 13 Press Release  Monsanto Company Donates Conventional Corn and Vegetable Seeds to Haitian Farmers to Help Address Food Security Needs  is a good place to start to find out exactly what was donated and how it got there. Importantly, the donation was approved and by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry was involved in selecting seeds that would be ;appropriate for the growing conditions and farming practices in Haiti.; The exact way the seeds are being distributed ensures long term benefits from this one time donation:


The initial seed shipment will be distributed to Haitian farmers by the  WINNER  project, a five-year program to increase farmer productivity funded by the  United States Agency for International Development  (USAID). WINNER will provide the in-country expertise, technical services and other inputs, such as fertilizer, needed by farmers to manage the crops.  ;Our goal is to reach 10,000 farmers this growing season with these seeds,; said Jean Robert Estime, the director of the WINNER project. ;The vegetables and grain these seeds will produce will help feed and provide economic opportunities for farmers, their families and the broader community. Agriculture is key to the long-term recovery.;  The seeds are being provided free of charge by Monsanto. The WINNER project will distribute the seeds through farmer association stores to be sold at a significantly reduced price. The farmer stores will use the revenue to reinvest in other inputs to support farmers in the future. The farmer associations alone will receive revenue from the sales.


I can;t think of a better way for this donation to be distributed. There are a lot of problems with the way international food and agriculture aid have been handled in the past, but the situation certainly seems to be improving as private and public donors as well as  governments  see the need for education and infrastructure, not handouts.


Food aid is the worst. It;s good enough in the very short term, but as soon as the food is consumed, there is no lasting benefit. Donations of seed are better, but again, once they are used there is no lasting benefit. Seed donations in combination with development of infrastructure that farmers need to distribute their products and to obtain inputs are much better, and I;d argue that such infrastructure development in combination with extension is the best possible way to help farmers, particularly when local people are involved in the process ; which is exactly the case here. Ideally, part of the process would be to develop local seed production, but the information available on WINNER doesn;t say if that is included or not. The  Earth Institute  at Columbia University is also involved in improving agriculture in Haiti.


You may have noticed a distinct lack of terms like biotech, genetically modified, GMO, Roundup Ready, or Bt in the press release. Haiti has no system in place for regulation of biotechnology, according to  FAO  ;s  Biotechnology Country Profile  for Haiti. Haiti is ;party of the  Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol  ; which, as I understand it, requires member countries to develop precautionary-principle based rules to protect biosafety if they want to even have biotech seeds cross their boundaries. In short, the regulatory framework needed to grow biotech crops in Haiti does not exist. Without that framework, they can;t accept biotech seed as a donation, and as far as I know, Monsanto did not even consider donating GMO seed to Haiti.


The hyperbole


It seems that the details in the press release and the lack of biotech regulation in Haiti was missed by many in the days following the news. Some examples are  Timi Gerson  ;s appropriately civil  Five Questions Monsanto Needs to Answer about its Seed Donation to Haiti  at Civil Eats and Jean-Yves Urfie;s not so civil (and  completely  fabricated)  A New Earthquake Hits Haiti: Monsanto;s deadly gift of 475 tons of genetically-modified seeds to Haitian farmers  . These two articles seem to be the source of many of the erroneous posts and Tweets. Some of Timi;s questions are answered in the press release itself while some require a little background in crop science. Her questions are well thought out, if not well researched, so I think they are a good place to start, even though I;m obviously not the intended answerer. I don;t think Jean-Yves;s article is even worth addressing, it;s so completely made up ; but I thought it should be included here since it has been cited in so many other blog posts and articles.


Five questions


1. What do Haitians think? Do Haitian farmers actually want these seeds?


Members of the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture and Haitians in the WINNER project were involved in approving the donation and making it happen, so that;s at least some Haitians who want the seeds. As for the farmers, they have the choice to buy the seed or to not in the stores run by farmer associations listed in the press release. No one is forcing them to take, buy, or grow the seeds. Even if  individual farmers  don;t want the seed, is that a good reason to prevent every farmer from having the seed? Is it fair to keep farmers from having a choice because organizations outside Haiti like the  Organic Consumers Association  (based in the US) don;t want them to? Anything other than letting the farmers for themselves choose is tantamount to paternalism.


2. Will Haitian farmers be able to save the seed?


Yes. Haiti doesn;t have any laws in place to protect plant intellectual property such as Plant Variety Protection (at least according to Haiti;s  Biotechnology Country Profile  ), so even if Monsanto wanted to prevent the farmers from planting the seed from this year;s harvest, there would be no legal basis for the contract. On Beyond the Rows, Monsanto employees have clearly stated that these seeds can be replanted without any intellectually property interference. There will be no Haitian  Percy Schmeiser  , even if the seeds are brought into local breeding programs.


Some of the seeds are hybrid. Hybrid seed can be replanted, but many farmers choose to purchase hybrid seed each year due to the superior qualities that hybrids can have. (more on this in a minute)


3. Will Haitian farmers be able to use existing farming methods?


Per the press release: the seeds were selected by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, to be ;appropriate for the growing conditions and farming practices in Haiti.; To me, the big question is: how are Haitian farmers currently farming? Are they using de facto organic (put the seeds in the ground and hope)? Certified organic? Sustainable agriculture ? Conventional agriculture?


There;s not much info out there on the web to answer the question, but  Manuel Rivas  (Monsanto;s Regulatory Affairs Lead in the Andean Region, Central America &amp; Caribbean) has shared some pertinent info on one of the  Beyond the Rows  posts:


;the corn hybrids sent to Haiti have been tested in the region with no fertilizer use and the yield obtained with them has been higher than the average yield Haitian farmers currently obtain using their open pollinated varieties.  ;although farmers there have very limited resources in general, the use of fertilizers and pesticides is quite normal among them. Many times Hatian farmers dont have the resources to purchase those inputs, but they know how to use them and they do use them whenever they have access to them.  The assumption that almost everyone has when they see the state of poverty in Haiti is that agriculture in the country is in the pre-historic ages. However, keep in mind that Haiti has a long tradition in agriculture since colonial times and not so long ago (in the 70s) the country was an important exporter of sugar, coffee, tobacco, and mangoes, just like other countries in the Caribbean. The use of agricultural inputs in those crops and in rice (the most important local crop) has been very common with most of them coming across the border from the Dominican Republic. Political problems in the last 25 years or so have practically destroyed the countrys agriculture sector and made the country dependent on foreign aid; but the farmers are still there trying to survive and willing to make their land productive again.


What;s exciting about this seed donation, in combination with the WIN


NER program, is that there is potential for a lasting improvement of farmer;s ability to purchase inputs if they wish to, along with the in-country expertise to help them choose the best farming methods for their situation. While the WINNER program won;t last forever, five years is a long time to get a strong, sustainable system started.


4. Will Monsanto donate GMO seeds to Haiti?


No, for the aforementioned reasons.


5. Will indigenous seeds be ;contaminated; by Monsanto;s seeds?


Yes and no. Gene flow is simple and complex at the same time. For the most part, pollen stays near the source, but in a country as small as Haiti (10,714 mi), wind and pollinators could conceivably carry pollen all over the country. If farmers who choose to plant traditional varieties, they will be able to maintain those varieties. Some percentage of the seed that they harvest at the end of this growing season will be a hybrid between the traditional variety and the new seed, depending on how close they are physically to a farmer who planted the new seed. Conversely, the farmer who planted the new seed will have a certain percentage of his harvest ;contaminated; with the traditional variety. They can keep their two varieties separate (for the most part) generation after generation by keeping seeds from plants that are similar to the variety they want and avoiding keeping seeds from plants that look different. Importing heirloom or open-pollinated seeds would ;contaminate; the local varieties as much as the seeds from Monsanto. For more details on gene flow, check out  Those naughty pla  nts!


There are actually potential benefits of crossing the donated seeds with the local varieties (remember, there are no intellectual property restrictions with this donation). After an initial cross, a farmer could simply select the plants that do best in his or her microclimate. They would be gaining alleles for disease resistance, high yield, and other traits, while maintaining local alleles that make the plants uniquely suited for their location. Done right, this could result in high yielding locally adapted varieties.


What are hybrids, anyway?


A hybrid is simply a cross between two different plant varieties. The two varieties can be inbred lines or populations like open pollinated varieties. The reason why hybrids are used is a phenomenon called heterosis, or hybrid vigor. While the exact mechanisms of this phenomenon aren;t completely understood, its effects are striking! In maize, hybrids have been used  since the 1920s  . A classic maize hybrid is B73 x Mo17. B73 and Mo17 are divergent inbred lines, meaning that they have different sets of alleles for each gene in the maize genome. When crossed, the resulting plants are much stronger and have much higher yields than the inbreds alone.


Hybrid vigor: Corn lines B73 (left) and Mo17 (right) produce the hybrid F1 (center). From Iowa State University News Service.


Some people argue against hybrid seed by saying it  has to be purchased every year  , but this isn;t quite true. First, the seed from hybrids can be planted ; there is no biological reason why they wouldn;t produce seeds that grow perfectly well. However, if you cross hybrid plants together, the resulting plants won;t be quite as good as that first generation hybrid, though they will likely be better than the original inbred lines. Second, farmers and gardeners are perfectly capable of producing their own hybrid seed, and some do,  if they like a challenge  . Most, however, let seed companies big and  small  do the work of keeping the inbred lines separate and producing the hybrid seed for farmers to buy.


Some people argue against hybrid seed by saying that it that it  requires more inputs  , but this isn;t quite true either. Seeds are seeds. That is an over-simplification, but a given seed  no matter its genetics  can be grown with high inputs or with no inputs at all. The difference is that the seed grown with fertilizer and pesticides will, on average, yield more than the seed with no inputs. The ability of a plant to respond to fertilizer can be changed with breeding, but that doesn;t mean you can;t grow a seed with high fertilizer response without inputs. Breeding specifically for low inputs can be done simply by selecting the best preforming plants under low input conditions ; the breeding process remains the same. The specific corn hybrids donated have been tested under low input condtions, as mentioned by Manuel Rivas.


Some people argue against hybrid seed by saying that it that it is  less nutritious  , but this isn;t quite true either. It is true that most of the commercially available seed was bred for high yield without consideration for characteristics like taste and nutritional composition that are important to consumers. The reason for this is obvious ; consumers don;t buy seed, farmers do. And farmers (particularly grain farmers, but fruit and vegetable farmers too) are paid for quantity not quality. This is not a characteristic of hybrids but of the system in general. Heirloom varieties are typically selected for taste, not yield, and taste is affected by nutrition. Gains in yield from breeding do suffer if selection for too many other characteristics are added, but it isn;t impossible, especially with the advent of precision breeding.


Toxic chemicals on the seeds?


Besides the confusion over hybrids, there has been quite a bit of confusion over the fungicides that protect the seeds. First, the Hatian Ministry of Agriculture was made aware of the fungicide, to which they responded: The products listed are used everyday in Haitian agriculture and should pose no problem, according to  Between the Rows  . The specific details were provided by Monsanto employee Mica:


The corn seeds were treated with  Maxim XL  , which is a Syngenta product. According to Syngenta, approximately 90 percent of U.S. corn seeds are treated with Maxim XL; Its also used in Western Europe and Latin America.   Thiram  , a Bayer Crop Science product, was used to treat the vegetable seeds. Thiram has been registered for use in the U.S. for more than 60 years and is used to treat approximately 1.3 billion pounds of seed annually. (Source: U.S. EPA)


It might seem strange to treat seeds with these chemicals, but it helps protect the seeds from being destroyed by fungus before they germinate. They are used safely by farmers all over the world. The fungicides also help prevent the spread of fungus on seeds from place to place ; such as from the US to Haiti.


Reasons for seed treatment. North Dakota State Extension.


Marcia McMullen and Arthur Lamey,  Extension Plant Pathologists at North Dakota State, provide  three reasons to use fungicidal seed treatments  :


to control soil-borne fungal disease organisms (pathogens) that cause seed rots, damping-off, seedling blights and root rot  to control fungal pathogens that are surface-borne on the seed, such as those that cause covered smuts of barley and oats, bunt of wheat, black point of cereal grains, and seed-borne safflower rust; and  to control internally seed-borne fungal pathogens such as the loose smut fungi of cereals.


Let the Farmers Decide


There is nothing inherently dangerous with the seeds being donated or with the WINNER program. Farmers may choose to purchase the seeds or not. Burning the seeds or demanding that the seeds be turned away just takes away options for farmers. I hope that the people calling for burning the seeds will stop and think about the consequences of their actions for those farmers who might want to try planting the donated seed and instead think of ways to help farmers who don;t want seed from Monsanto for whatever reason.


.


* Disclaimer: I do not have any personal or financial connection to Monsanto, I;m only writing in hopes of dispelling some confusion about things like hybrid seed that could ultimately have a negative effect on farmers in Haiti and other places. I had been avoiding writing this post but the confusion about what hybrids are and what they do just became too much to ignore!













Document Number: 6905 



 I Have a Dream 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 18 January 2010 


Frank at Big Heart Park in Atlanta, GA. &quot;Doesn;t this look like wheat or have I gone starchy?&quot;


I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great field trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow test plots. And some of you have come from areas where your quest ; quest for acreage left you battered by the storms of uninformed pundits and ripped out by the hands of Greenpeace brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that biotic and abiotic stresses are redemptive. Go back to Colorado, go back to Oregon, go back to Southeast Asia, go back to Africa, go back to Europe, go back to the broken greenhouses of Germany, and the burned buildings in Michigan and California, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.


Let us not wallow in the laboratory with despair, I say to you today, my Frank ;N; Friends.


And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the Human dream.


I have a dream that one day the eaters will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ;We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all crops are bred equal.;


I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Boulder Colorado, the sibs of proprietary beets and the half-sibs of open-pollinated varieties will be able to sit down together at the table of beta-hood.


I have a dream that one day even Africa, a continent sweltering with the heat of climate change, sweltering with the heat of hunger, will be transformed into an oasis of healthy soil and food.


I have a dream that my many seedlings will one day live in a world where they will not be judged by the presence or absence of a gene but by the content of their endosperm.


I have a  dream  today!


I have a dream that one day, down in India, with its vicious activists, with their lips dripping with the words of ;poison; and ;suicide; ; one day right there in India little Bt Cottons and Bt Brinjals will be able to join roots with little conventional cottons and eggplants as sisters and brothers.


I have a  dream  today!


I have a dream that one day every grain of golden rice shall be exalted, and every trade barrier shall be made low, the politics will be made benign, and the wrong statements will be made right; ;and the glory of Humanity shall be revealed and all threshed shall see it together.;


This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the Soil with.


&quot;Let freedom ring&quot;













Document Number: 8235 



 I say tomato 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 7 February 2010 


Researchers at the National Institute of Plant Genome Research in India have found a surprisingly simple way to extend the shelf life of fresh tomatoes. Most tomatoes will last about 10-15 days before going unappealingly squishy. The enhanced tomatoes last 45 days or more and are firmer than unmodified tomatoes, which I imagine makes for great tomato sandwiches!


Before getting into the  how  , let;s talk about  why  this research is important. According to  Enhancement of fruit shelf life by suppressing N-glycan processing enzymes  in this week;s PNAS, post-harvest fruit and vegetable softening is a big problem, with losses accounting for almost 50% of all produce in developing countries. India, the country that funded the research, and the world;s 2nd largest fruit and vegetable producer, loses 35-40% of produce to softening.


Squished tomato by limaoscarjuliet via Flickr.


We all know that post-consumer food waste is a big problem, and we can alleviate this somewhat in our homes and by choosing restaurants that try to reduce waste. But there isn;t much we can do about pre-consumer waste ; from grain that rots in the silo due to fungus to tomatoes that rot in transit due to ripening. By reducing pre-consumer food waste, we can reduce the number of acres needed to produce the same amount of food. In India, preventing all fruit and vegetable softening would be like reducing the amount of land needed to grow fruits and vegetables by 35-40%!


So, how could that softening be prevented?


Researchers have been working for a long time on different parts of the ripening and spoiling process, trying to find ways to slow it down. Nothing has been  really  effective in getting produce to last longer, and we;ve ended up with produce that is more bland than it used to be, especially when it comes to tomatoes. In short, neither breeding nor genetic engineering has been successful; until now.


In  Enhancement of fruit shelf life by suppressing N-glycan processing enzymes  , Meli* and fellow researchers found two enzymes that contribute to fruit softening. The enzymes are -mannosidase and -D-N-acetylhexosaminidase, -Man and -Hex for short. Both of these enzymes break the  glycosidic bonds  between carbohydrates, as well as between carbohydrate and noncarbohydrate. The role of these enzymes in ripening and softening is to help break down the cell walls that keep the fruit firm. If the enzymes are stopped from breaking down the cell walls, the tomato stays fresh!


Meli and fellow researchers turned off the genes that code for these two enzymes -Man and -Hex with biotechnology, but they didn;t use any whole genes from tomatoes or any other species. Instead, they used some pieces of the tomato -Man and -Hex genes. These gene fragments are transcribed into RNA under control of the  constitutive  (always on)  CaMV 35S promoter  . They then twist and bind with themselves, resulting in double stranded RNA, which activate the RNA interference mechanism that plants and other organisms naturally use to combat double stranded RNA viruses.


The results are pretty striking, as you can see from these pictures. The control tomatoes were unappealingly wrinkly by 20 days, and rotten by 45 days. The tomatoes with -Man or -Hex turned off were still firm even at 45 days.


Control and experimental tomatoes over time, from the PNAS article &quot;Enhancement of fruit shelf life by suppressing N-glycan processing enzymes&quot; by Meli, et. al.


RNAi can be used just about any time you want to turn off a gene ; it;s even being tested for human use to help combat genetic diseases. For an overview of RNAi that;s a little more detailed than the picture below, check out the  RNA Interference  interactive video by Nature Reviews (via  ERV  . Note: the video wouldn;t play on my Mac in Firefox but worked great in Safari).


Overview of RNAi from Huntington;s Outreach Project for Education, at Stanford.


The researchers used   Agrobacterium  to carry the DNA sequences into very young tomato plants, along with a marker gene for kanamycin resistance. Biotech plants can be made without markers but it;s much easier to use them, and there is no risk (for more on antibiotic resistance markers, see  GMO Compass  ).


This work, as far as I can tell, is funded purely by the Indian government ; not by private corporations. Specifically, it is funded by the  Department of Biotechnology  which is part of the  Ministry of Science and Technology  . They have some pretty impressive goals, as listed in the  Plant Biotechnology  section, including:


Genetic engineering and molecular biology tools for forest tree improvement including reduction of generation time, production of horticultural and plantation crops with desired characteristics.  Transgenics for improved yield, stress tolerance, balanced nutrition, keeping quality of flowers, fruits and vegetables, better nutrient and water utilization capacity should be produced.  Cataloguing of accessions of wild and land races to study genetic diversity for resolving taxonomic problems.


Tomatoes at Union Square by Lindsay Beyerstein via Flickr.


One of the biggest arguments against biotechnology is that it has been under corporate control. Unfortunately, that;s been true in the United States, where publicly funded research in agriculture has been all but ended. Happily, that;s not the case in India and China. These governments are researching biotech traits for the benefit of their farmers, not for the benefit of shareholders.


If this biotech trait is available royalty-free, then it will presumably be available for breeding by small seed companies and by farmers. I;m imagining beautiful genetically-diverse heirloom tomatoes that have this amazing ability to stay firm on your counter well past the tomato growing season. This means that fewer tomatoes will need to be shipped around the world, and that more can be grown locally. I hope to see some long-lasting tomatoes in my  CSA share  soon!


* You may have noticed that I usually use the name of the first author rather than the name of the last author when I;m referring to a peer-reviewed paper. In biology-related papers, the first author is the graduate student, or sometimes post-doctoral researcher, who did most if not all of the labwork and writes most if not all of the paper.The last author is the PI (Primary Investigator), who generally provides guidance, helps with experimental design, and edits the paper. The authors in the middle are usually other grad students and their PIs who helped with the project. While all of the authors usually have put in a lot of time and effort, it;s that first author who worked the hardest, and I like to recognize that.


Meli V, Ghosh S, Prabha T, Chakraborty N, Chakraborty S, &amp; Datta A. (2010). Enhancement of fruit shelf life by suppressing N-glycan processing enzymes  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  DOI:  10.1073/pnas.0909329107













Document Number: 3525 



 I write letters: The Present Craziness 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 20 December 2008 


While I was browsing the genetic engineering news for something to write about, a letter in the San Diego Reader caught my attention. ;The Present Craziness; by Pat Palmer read had a very bizarre take on biology, have a read:


Thanks for the optimistic article Can We Create New Life? (Feature Story, November 26). One has to be suspicious of any government policy being fast-tracked, especially one as revolutionary as genetic-engineering promotion. From a rational perspective, such a mysterious business requires  more  caution than normal, not less. To express the problem/risk as simply as possible requires an analogy:  Think of GIGO  garbage in, garbage out  as used in information processing. The mal-ware, such as viruses, etc., which can damage computers, are created to appear to be normal information. In this way the computer is tricked and absorbs these programs into the computer software as if they are beneficial. Only later does the damage appear. But by then it is too late; your work is garbage, or lost altogether.   Science often regards humanitys existence as depending on a delicate balance of forces in nature. These forces evolved this balance over a long time with perhaps trillions of iterations of trial and error in genetic combinations to get to  us  and our environment  now.  With this in mind, think of the information that we must absorb in order for our life programs to exist, to continue, to improve. Food is not just energy that we consume to keep the machine going. Food contains genetic information that our bodies have evolved with since our beginnings. When we eat, we accept and integrate that information via our messenger RNA into our own DNA and are so modified. Genetic engineering tricks our cells into accepting new, unnatural information as if it were the familiar natural information.  Possible dangerous consequences may not appear right away, or even in the present lifetime of the unwitting victim, unlike the genetic damage caused by nuclear radiation, which seems to be limited to existent life. This makes genetically engineered products ingested by living beings even more dangerous than radiation poisoning. Why? Because once our DNA integrates the new information as if it were natural, the new characteristics will be passed on to the next generation and the next and the next. This is because it is not recognized as damaging and does not trigger the disabling of the germs of reproduction.  Bottom line: the closed testing of genetic engineering, before introduction into the environment, requires at least a couple of generations of experimentally reproduced human subjects. This is only rational. The present course is therefore irrational. I hope that nature somehow provides some remedy to our progeny to reverse or repair the results of our present craziness.   Pat Palmer  Normal Heights


Worse than radiation poisoning?! Hey, um, I;ll drink gallons of high fructose corn syrup from genetically engineered corn in one sitting before I expose myself to a high dose of radiation from a nuclear source.


So I did the only natural thing, I wrote a letter to the San Diego Reader in response, and they accepted it. Thanks to Chemjobber;s reminder, I can now share it with you:


A Dose Of Science  In response to The Present Craziness letter by Pat Palmer (December 4), I think a good dose of factual scientific information would be appropriate.  Pat said, When we eat, we accept and integrate that information via our messenger RNA into our own DNA and are so modified. Genetic engineering tricks our cells into accepting new, unnatural information as if it were the familiar natural information.   This is not true in the slightest. During digestion, our bodies break down whatever DNA is in our food into its individual building blocks, destroying whatever genetic information was present. It doesnt matter whether you think that DNA is natural or not, it all gets broken down the same way. And the part about messenger RNA is completely backwards. Messenger RNA carries the information from our own genes to a structure called the ribosome that translates the code into a sequence of amino acids for making a protein. It does  not  incorporate new genetic information into our DNA, least of all from our food!  The genetics of our food crops have been in constant change with and without human intervention. The kinds of changes occurring with genetic engineering are far less drastic than the majority of genetic changes that have been made through the history of these plants. Whole chromosomes have been duplicated, recombined, mutated, inserted, and deleted. Adding one or two new genes pales in comparison.  There are real issues and challenges facing our species as we figure out how to use genetic engineering to benefit us and the environment, but in order to properly address these questions, we need to educate ourselves about what is actually going on. Comparing genetic engineering to radiation poisoning is a form of hyperbole the likes of which I have never seen before. In the absence of knowledge about a new and complicated issue, people will often come up with ideas that speak of impending and widespread destruction rather than address those issues rationally. Thats the present craziness.   P.S. Im a plant genetics grad student. Our website,  biofortified.org,  is a group blog that I write with another grad student and two professors, where we try to educate people about plant genetics, including genetic engineering.   Karl Haro von Mogel  Madison, WI


As Chemjobber stopped by, maybe it worked a bit to help people find out a little bit more truthful information about genetic engineering. And maybe we might pick up a few readers. Welcome San Diego Reader readers!


One more comment about the Pat;s letter ; It also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about Mendelian Genetics ; Even if you were to accept a piece of DNA into some of your cells, it would not pass on to the next generation unless it was inserted into the germline. These are the cells that divide and turn into sperm and egg cells. What Pat is talking about is Lamarckian genetics ; the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Weirdness.


Pat is also saying that breeding a gene from a wild relative into a food crop (or using an obscure variety of a crop) would mess with the ;delicate balance; of genetic information being absorbed into Pat;s belly. A great many anti-GE arguments are equally (or even more so) applicable to plant breeding itself.













Document Number: 3634 



 I write letters: Urban myths about HR 875 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 September 2009 


Note: This one is a little old, it took Anastasia;s recent post on  food selling laws  to remind me to post it.


In the discussion about the food safety bill, HR 875, there are many urban myths going around. From  our friend  Stephen Lendman;s characterization of it as a ;  GMO proliferation bill  ,; to the claim that it will ban backyard gardens, many of the myths seem to follow a similar pattern. And almost no one who promotes these myths has even bothered to  read  the bills.


Point of fact ; if you  read the text of the bill  , there is  absolutely nothing  in it about genetic engineering, so where do they get this idea?


Nevertheless, myths such as these have traversed the intertubes and the lack of fact-checking combined with the sensationalism (and perceived plausibility?) of such a bill have put it on  youtube  , blogs, and some news sites.


Linn Cohen-Cole, who reads half of what she writes about genetic engineering, understands half of what she she reads, and fact-checks half of what she understands, wrote a prolific piece for OpEd  News  Blogs called  Monsanto;s Dream Bill, HR 875  . It was short, (not just short on facts) and  spread very widely  on the internet. The folks at the Monsanto Blog ended up writing a  post explaining how  their company doesn;t even have a position on the bill.


Marion Nestle  wrote a post  about the chain emails that went around trying to scare up opposition to the bill, and even after she pointed out the dubiousness of the claims, people kept opining on what the bill must be really about ; still without ever reading the thing.


So it came as no surprise that when I commented on  this other post  at OpEd  News  Blogs, I got what would otherwise be characterized as a bizarre denial ; but in internet food politics it seems to be standard fare. I said:


;  Currently, Monsanto is behind a Federal Government bill to stop all organic farming. Introduced by Rosa DeLauro, HR 875 is ultimately about one thing: defining ONLY Monsanto;s GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) products as ;safe.;"   I would like to direct your attention to Snopes.com ; the internet repository for debunked hoaxes.  http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/organic.asp  And this comes straight out of the hoax chain emails that are going around.


And the response I got from the author Barbara Metzler was:


I would also like to remind Karl Haro von Mogel that there is a distinct possibility that Snopes.com could be wrong. What proof is there that Snopes.com is always 100% correct? Get rational, Karl!


My counter:


The facts behind the Snopes.com article are widely available ; everyone connected to that chain email that has been going around has denied the link. The point is that you do not have a source for this claim that you repeat ; that is poor scholarship and bad journalism. It is your responsibility to determine that something is true before you put it into print. Get rational! (What does that even mean in this context?)


Sorry, but ;rational; is not code for any particular political or social viewpoint ; it refers to the means by which we reach our conclusions. You start with something that you can verify is true, and logically proceed from that information to drawing conclusions. Your conclusions are only as good as your starting information and your logic ; even if your logic is sound, the facts need to be true in order for your conclusions to be acceptable. Starting from your conclusion and steadfastly denying the need to verify the source is, well, not rational.


Several of the myths about the bill  have been addressed  by Rosa DeLauro;s office, and the Las Vegas Review Journal corrected one of its stories  here  , pointing out that it has been ten years since DeLauro;s husband;s firm had Monsanto as a client.


So when I came across  this letter to the editor  on BlueRidgeNow.com, I felt I had to respond.


Ag Biodiversity could be destroyed.   To The Editor: HR 875 is not about food safety, it has the potential to destroy agricultural biodiversity.   An extremely potentially dangerous bill is before Congress right now, in the sheeps clothing of so-called modernization of food safety. HR 875 (text of bill) is a bill lobbied for by Monsanto and other corporations whos interest is to control all agriculture.  It was introduced by Rosa DeLauro, whose husband works for Monsanto, and is ultimately about one thing, defining only their own GMO (genetically modified organism) products as safe.  What makes the bill so dangerous is that it is heavy on penalties including prison time, while at the same time being incredibly vague about what would actually trigger those sanctions. There are problems with food safety we can talk about, but HR 875 is not going to make us safer.  It must be stopped.  Kythera Grunge  Black Mountain


Letter passed on urban myths


To The Editor: Re: Ag biodiversity could be destroyed (T-N, April 27).


In the letter, the food safety bill HR 875 was discussed, which the writer seems to think is about one thing, defining (Monsantos) own GMO (genetically modified organism) products as safe.  I would humbly suggest that the writer actually read the bill before making such declarations, because it doesnt do that at all. For one thing, theres no need, because the USDA, FDA and the EPA already regulate genetically engineered crops effectively, and peer-reviewed studies that support their safety number in the hundreds.   If youll check out  www.snopes.com  , youll find a collection of mythology that has already sprung up about HR 875. To wit, that it will outlaw organic farms, make your backyard garden illegal, ban farmers markets, or that all farm animals would be tracked by GPS. Yes, even the writers claim that the husband of the person who introduced the bill works for Monsanto is false  he does not.  If we are to ever have a rational discussion over food, we are going to need to adopt a higher standard of evidence  something above the level of chain e-mails at least!  Karl Haro von Mogel  Madison, Wisc.  Personally, I don;t know much about this bill, nor the merits of its specifics. But one thing I do know, it is incredibly easy to spread false rumors in politics, whether it;s about ;death panels; or genetic engineering. I wonder who would have actually benefited by stopping HR 875? Or was it just a viral claim based upon popular food fears?













Document Number: 8936 



 Ignore poverty and hunger crises today, and dream of a new tomorrow with more biodiversity ; that;s the ticket! 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 March 2011 


Biodiversity doesnt feed people, but GM crops do  March 30, 2011, ACSH Despatch


During a United Nations meeting in Bali to discuss a treaty on plant genetics,  La Via Campesina  , which according to an article in  The Atlantic  , is said to be an international farmers movement comprised of 150 organizations in 70 countries, decided not to waste time addressing real agricultural problems like the rising cost of food, starvation in underdeveloped nations and the poor crop yields in certain areas. Instead, the group decided that real peace of mind can only be achieved when biodiversity is protected, which includes further restrictions and bans on the use of genetically-modified (GM) seeds.


In the article, reporter Anna Lapp  further promulgates these anti-agricultural biotech ideologies by quoting from a 2006 report by Doug Gurian-Sherman, currently a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists: With the recent approval of genetically engineered alfalfa in the United States, organic farmers here are ever more concerned about such a genetic trespass.


Organic farmers are concerned all right  about protecting their organic turf and protecting their crops from contamination with non-organic genes, not feeding millions of malnourished people worldwide or preventing the hundreds of thousands of deaths occurring annually due to starvation, fumes Dr. Ross. This is nothing more than pseudoscience since it is well-known that GM products increase crop yields and have the potential to actually enhance the nutritional benefits of crops. That is, if they were allowed to be harvested in the EU or several African nations, where they are currently barred from use.


Likewise, the banana industry in Uganda finds itself at such a crossroads. Thirty percent of its banana crop has been infected with banana Xanthomonas wilt (BXW), a disease that is wiping out entire plantations  and thats not okay for a country that is the second largest producer of bananas in the world. But scientists from the National Banana Research Program have found an answer to a problem that conventional methods were unable to solve. Using genes from a sweet pepper plant, they created bananas resistant to BXW, which sounds great  except that GM crops are illegal in Uganda, even though 95 percent of farmers are willing to grow them.


So perhaps activists such as  La Via Campesina   and Ms. Lapp, albeit her agenda is less obvious  should stop pushing a political program posing as science policy and start representing what real farmers are asking for, such as Ugandan farmer Arthur Kamenya: ;When someone is hungry, they;ve got to eat now! If people are going to die of hunger today, then we cannot be talking about the future, and if GM is going to provide that solution, then as Africa, we need to embrace that.













Document Number: 9212 



 Impossibility of Objectivity 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 5 December 2008 


A different view of environmental issues, a 3 part essay in the 5 December 2008 Newsletter of  The Scientific Alliance  , includes a useful discussion of objectivity. They conclude that we must all be able to recognize and accept facts, whether or not they support our arguments, and regardless of the source. I heartily agree, but place emphasis on the need for facts based on considerable research, not speculation based on one poorly done study. I also appreciate their discussion of mutagenesis (I;m hoping to post on the International Atomic Energy Agency;s reccomendations soon).


The impossibility of objectivity


Too often, disagreements on any issue ; including scientific ones ; are a dialogue of the deaf.&nbsp; It is rare indeed for two people with radically opposed views to be prepared to listen or accept that there may be nuggets of truth in their opponent;s arguments. This does not just apply to activists with a firm belief in a particular cause, it is also characteristic of professional scientists who we might naively expect to behave better. The reason for this is simple. We all have inbuilt world views and biases, and they inevitably colour our judgement, however objective we strive to be. We talk about scientific facts, but (at the risk of sounding too post-modernist) many of these are based on a particular accepted interpretation of the available evidence. Scientists should always strive to be objective and base their conclusions on hard data. As the newly-fashionable Keynes said ;when the facts change, I change my mind;. But the human mind all too often does not work like that. Consciously or unconsciously, we tend to look for evidence which supports our own views, and ignore or devalue contrary observations.  It is quite possible to persuade someone of your point of view if they have no strong opinion in the first place, but almost impossible if they have already made their own judgment. This is why rational, evidence based argument so often fails to convince. It does not mean that scientists (and others) should stop doing it, but they should be realistic about the chances of success. The aim must be to persuade the non-aligned members of an audience, rather than win over opponents. Of course, there are examples of people changing their deeply-held beliefs, but these tend to be in the form of damascene conversions rather than a dispassionate weighing of the facts. Conforming to group beliefs is part of human nature. And it is not just a question of changing their mind; in many cases it means becoming a heretic and outcast from the group whose beliefs they shared. So, for a whole raft of reasons, we are all biased to some degree. The same evidence will be seen through a different set of lenses by people with opposing views, who may come to quite different conclusions. Both are being true to their beliefs and neither sees anything wrong in what they are doing. In most cases, where there is already some frame of reference, true objectivity is all but impossible. But this should not make reasoned dialogue impossible. Rather than decrying one;s opponent and ignoring everything he or she says ; in the worst cases, simply indulging in ad hominem attacks ; we should all be honest about our own inbuilt bias and be aware of how this influences our judgment. In my own case, for example, I tend to be sceptical of the received wisdom in any case where dissenters are automatically slapped down without a proper response, or where a scientific ;consensus; in invoked. I do not instinctively distrust things which emerge from private industry. Yes, companies have their own commercial drivers, but they also have every reason to build a sustainable business rather than alienate their customers by going for a quick buck and ignoring environmental or health impacts. On the other hand, I am wary of reports from environmentalist NGOs, because in my experience they cherrypick facts to support their case, rather than drawing conclusions from the evidence. But this does not mean that I swallow everything coming from the private sector without question, nor that I assume everything Greenpeace says to be misleading. Judgments can rarely be black and white and we should not be blind to facts wherever we may find them. Readers of this newsletter will have their own particular preconceptions which will colour their own judgment. The same issue can generate both praise and criticism. And it is important that this is received with as open a mind as possible. We are all, after all, slaves to human nature, but we will only make real progress on thorny scientific issues if we are prepared to accept to valid evidence, whatever its source.


The next bubble?


Markets are usually created on the basis of scarcity but can sometimes get out of control. Keenness to invest in the next big thing leads to rapid inflation of prices and bubbles which finally burst when people begin to realise their folly. It started with tulip mania in the Netherlands in the 17th century, and the most recent example was the dot com boom at the turn of the present century. Could carbon markets form the next bubble? A whole industry sector has evolved in the last decade, based around tradable emission permits and the ;Clean Development Mechanism; whereby industrialised countries pay developing countries to undertake carbon-reduction projects (which may well happen regardless of this funding). For the man in the street, there is ;carbon off-setting; where the emissions from flights or other activities can be offset by paying for trees to be planted (for example). These are the papal indulgences of the 21st century. This means there is money to be made by the middlemen who act as brokers. And where there are new ways to create wealth, even if it may be illusory, a complex net of derivatives, futures and investment funds emerges. Private investors put their money into the funds in the expectation of making a better return than elsewhere. With backing for trading schemes from national governments and the EU, this looks to many like a safe bet. But the whole edifice is predicated on the orthodox view of anthropogenic climate change being right and the correct policy response being emissions reductions. However, some doubts must surely be creeping in across scientific and policy-making circles. There has been no rise in global temperatures for the last decade. We are assured by researchers that this is just a blip and the natural factors which have somehow masked the dominant effect of fossil fuel burning will soon recede and warming will return with a vengeance. But what if the present trend continues? How confident will national governments be in continuing with unpopular policies if the science which underpins them looks increasingly shaky? Already, we see ranks being broken, with the new governments of Canada and New Zealand taking a more cautious approach, and squabbling among EU Member States about coal-fired power stations and car manufacturers. What would it take to reach a tipping point where the carbon market bubble also bursts? Maybe we will not have too long to wait.  Mutation breeding


The International Atomic Energy Agency is calling for greater use of ;induced mutation; in plant breeding: subjecting seeds to radiation and screening the resulting mutants for useful traits. This, according to the IAEA spokesman, speeds up natural processes, and unlike genetic modification, does not introduce any new genetic material. Thus, in their view, it is safe and natural. This seems like semantics, since irradiation will randomly scramble the plant;s DNA. Among the majority of infertile seeds or deformed plants, there may be useful traits which emerge, but the damage done to the genome is uncharacterised. In one sense, this is of course what happens in the evolution of plants. Chance mutations occasionally provide some competitive benefit. But it seems illogical to characterise induced mutation as somehow natural, while the targeted and precise techniques of recombinant DNA technology are subject to far more stringent control and are suspect in the eyes of many. Surely it is the end result which matters, rather than how it is achieved. But organic agriculture, which aims to ;go with the grain of nature; happily accepts radiation-induced mutant plants while rejecting GM crops, even if they have environmental benefits. Hopefully, the future lies in using the best of all approaches, based on what they achieve rather than their process. Doctrinaire approaches benefit no-one.


Hat tip to  AgBioWorld  .













Document Number: 6128 



 Improved nutritional value from GM spud developed in India 


 by  David Tribe  on 21 September 2010 


Next-generation protein-rich potato expressing the seed protein gene AmA1 is a result of proteome rebalancing in transgenic tuber


Protein deficiency is the most crucial factor that affects physical growth and development and that increases morbidity and mortality especially in developing countries. Efforts have previously been made to improve protein quality and quantity in crop plants but with limited success. Here, we report the development of transgenic potatoes with enhanced nutritive value by tuber-specific expression of a seed protein. Up to 60% increase in total protein content was obtained.


Abstract


Protein deficiency is the most crucial factor that affects physical growth and development and that increases morbidity and mortality especially in developing countries. Efforts have been made to improve protein quality and quantity in crop plants but with limited success. Here, we report the development of transgenic potatoes with enhanced nutritive value by tuber-specific expression of a seed protein, AmA1 (Amaranth Albumin 1), in seven genotypic backgrounds suitable for cultivation in different agro-climatic regions. Analyses of the transgenic tubers revealed up to 60% increase in total protein content. In addition, the concentrations of several essential amino acids were increased significantly in transgenic tubers, which are otherwise limited in potato. Moreover, the transgenics also exhibited enhanced photosynthetic activity with a concomitant increase in total biomass. These results are striking because this genetic manipulation also resulted in a moderate increase in tuber yield. The comparative protein profiling suggests that the proteome rebalancing might cause increased protein content in transgenic tubers. Furthermore, the data on field performance and safety evaluation indicate that the transgenic potatoes are suitable for commercial cultivation. In vitro and in vivo studies on experimental animals demonstrate that the transgenic tubers are also safe for human consumption. Altogether, these results emphasize that the expression of AmA1 is a potential strategy for the nutritional improvement of food crops


Subhra Chakraborty, Niranjan Chakraborty, Lalit Agrawal, Sudip Ghosh, Kanika Narula, Shubhendu Shekhar, Prakash S. Naik, P. C. Pande, Swarup Kumar Chakrborti, and Asis Datta  Published online before print September 20, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006265107


Author Affiliations


aNational Institute of Plant Genome Research, New Delhi 110067, India;  bCentral Potato Research Institute, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171001, India; and  cCentral Potato Research Institute Campus, Modipuram, Uttar Pradesh 250110, India













Document Number: 1841 



 In demand, getting famous! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 5 February 2009 


I;ve got a couple things to report. The first is that Pamela Ronald, who has just uploaded her first post at Biofortified, has been in the news lately. It isn;t often that plant breeding makes the news, and when she made top-of-the-wire headlines on CNN, I not only heard from colleagues back in Davis and Google News, but folks in my department were sending emails around about it.


Read  Fighting Hunger with Flood-Tolerant Rice  .


I hear from Pam that she;s not only finishing up on another grant proposal, but that she and her husband Raoul are heading to Hawaii inside a week to give talks about their book, which recently received  Seed Magazine;s Best of 2008  distinction. (She;s been so busy she hasn;t blogged about the CNN article!)


Hawaii, as you know, if a focal point of genetic engineering activism. And as the new legislative session begins, coincidentally, Jeffrey Smith is also giving  a string of talks in Hawaii  . There;s no overlap, though.


Can anyone in Hawaii score me a recording of one of Smith;s talks?


Anyway, on her triumphant return, Pam Ronald will be introducing herself on this blog. Suffice to say she;s in demand, and we;re glad to have her here with us.


The second piece of news is that Biofortified has made two ;Top; lists assembled by other bloggers. With only a few posts so far, we have been included in the  Top 50 Genetics Blogs  by Jessica Merritt  and  in the  Top 100 Botany Blogs  listed by Christina Laun at Online College Blog. Pretty cool.













Document Number: 7982 



 Indians love their new rice! 


 by  Matt DiLeo  on 13 November 2010 


Indian smallholder farmers are adopting a new, improved rice variety at an ;unprecedented; rate.


It all started with the big discovery of a  gene  that allows a certain variety of rice to survive flooding for long periods of time. You probably heard about it before ; ;scuba rice; was all over the  news  a little while ago.


Since then, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has introgressed this natural allele from a somewhat obscure genotype to an elite ;mega; variety, Swarna, which is currently grown on six million hectares in India.* It took 25 years for this elite variety to reach this acreage ; the scientists are hoping that their new version of it,   Swarna-Sub1  , will reach this same popularity in 5 years!


Swarna-Sub1, thanks to this new allele, can survive completely submerged for 17 days. It does this by slowing its growth when flooded, allowing it to conserve its energy until the water subsides, when it begins growing again. When subjected to flooding, Swarna-Sub1 can produce an extra ton of yield per hectare over Swarna.


New variety releases generally require 4-5 years of field testing plus 2-3 years of seed multiplication and distribution before farmers are first able to plant it. The Swarna-Sub1 release required one fewer year of field testing since the parent genotype was already well-characterized. Additionally, IRRI decided to try an initial small targeted release of seed to especially flood-prone locations ; instead of taking 2-3 years to build up enough seed for a mass distribution. IRRI furthermore worked with government agencies and private seed companies to help multiple and distribute seeds quickly as 5 kg ;minikits.;  Since the initial release in August 2009, this variety has been adopted by 100,000 farmers in India. Technological diffusion usually travels extremely slowly in this flood-prone, low-yielding region, but thanks to a great product and innovative logistics, this submergence-tolerant variety is now helping farmers to feed themselves and their county.


h/t:   Plant Breeding News


*not to be confused with ;shawarma;













Document Number: 1233 



 Integrating Biotech and Organic ; Education 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 23 May 2008 


Understanding the benefits and drawbacks of both organic and conventional farming methods could be a boon for both types of farmers and researchers. As I see it, current college education in either one includes little about the other. How can a conventional farmer or researchers know how to make their farm more sustainable if they arent at least given an introduction to the subject? How can organic farmers apply new technologies that benefit their farming methods if they arent exposed to them? Obviously some methods are more transferable than others, but knowledge is always useful.


For example, a friend of mine in ISUs sustainable ag program has told me about a recent experiment that tested the yield and pest incidence of two farm layouts: one large field planted with alternating years of soy and maize, or planting the field in strips of soy and maize (wide enough for farm equipment) then alternating the strips each year. The second layout had higher yields and decreased pests, presumably because most pests (insect, fungus, virus) attack either soy or maize, not both. The strips isolated the pests, meaning that less pesticides were needed. There was also more biodiversity in the field. This method would certainly be considered more sustainable, and it is also more profitable for the farmer (minus slightly longer time on the tractor). Extension agents told farmers about the experiments results, but none switched, preferring to stay with the method they are used to. If their minds had been opened to the possibility of alternative ways of farming while they were in college, maybe they would have been more receptive to the idea.


There is much that organic farmers could gain from methods that arent conventional to their methods as well.


Walnut trees by Judi Berdis via Flickr.  One example is walnut farming. Walnut trees, like apple and other trees, are generally farmed as  chimeras  . Each tree is made up of roots from one variety (called a rootstock) and the crown from another variety (called a scion). They are  grafted  together to ensure that each tree has strong roots  and  good fruit (breeding for both is a lot harder than breeding for one or the other).


Walnut trees in some areas are devastated by a certain type of nematode, which conventional farmers kill with soil fumigation. There is no organic counterpart to the fumigant, so organic walnuts are very difficult and expensive to produce in these areas. A rootstock resistant to the nematodes could be developed with genetic engineering (probably using RNAi that targets a specific nematode pathway) and grafted to a non-GM scion.


The walnuts themselves come from the crown, so wouldnt be GM. Whether or not they are organic would be up to the regulators to decide, but they would certainly be lower in price and higher quality than walnuts not grown this way, and would be more sustainable than conventional walnuts.


Another example is  GM papaya  . Papaya plants are crippled by a virus that has become common. The only known way to control the virus to genetically engineer the plant to be resistant. The GM plants can be used in organic papaya farming by planting them around an organic plot. The GM plants serve as a barrier, so the non-GM plants dont get sick.


For an in depth explanation of both of these examples, check out  Tomorrows Table  .


Just think of the good that could be accomplished if all farmers were at least introduced to this creative way of thinking! I wonder if I can get something going at Iowa State


William Anderson, Professor of Agronomy at the University of Wisconsin at River Falls, is also considering the benefits of such collaboration. His research, which appears in the Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, was essentially a survey given to students before and after a sustainable agriculture course. After the course, students better understood both sustainable agriculture and genetic engineering.


My one complaint with his methodology is that they may have gone too much to extremes in their selection of two textbooks that differed greatly in the presentation of sustainability concepts. I dont feel that  Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic  by Dennis T. Avery or  Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture  edited by Andrew Kimbrel are very good representatives of their repective topics, as both are too fundamentalist, failing to recognize any benefits of the opposing ideology, and depending too much on deception and propaganda. I suppose that was the point, though.


If I was to design a course like this, I would attempt to choose textbooks that discuss each topic without railing too much on the opposing side. If I was teaching a course in politics, I certainly wouldnt assign anything by Ann Coulter. A variety of summaries of the paper College Students View of  Biotechnology Products and Practices in Sustainable Agriculture Systems  (pdf) can be found, but I dont think they effectively grasp the ideas in the paper. If nothing else, I recommend that you take a look at the survey Dr. Anderson gave to students along with the average answers before and after the course. He concludes his paper by saying:


This author feels that it is critically important for faculty to expose todays students to both sustainable agricultural systems and agricultural biotechnology without introducing personal biases. Students should be encouraged to hear contrasting opinions as well as express their own opinions. They should interject their own educated voices into the evolving debate.


He makes a strong point ; students need to be able to hear information from many sources without the introduction of bias. Its time to set aside the stereotypes and move forward to produce food, fuel, and fiber in the best possible ways.


Ronald Herring also promotes the idea that we need to separate past problems (real or perceived) from our future decisions regarding sustainability and biotechnology. We need more splitting and less lumping. See Herrings article  Opposition to transgenic technologies: ideology, interests and collective action frames  , or my comments  Science and Emotion  for more on the subject.













Document Number: 5015 



 Integrating Biotech and Organic ; Frame of Mind 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 27 May 2008 


There;s a new comment on my post  Exposed, Indeed  that perfectly encompasses the ideas I;m attempting to explain on this blog:


Oops, you;re forgetting something; The public has already seen movies like ;The World According to Monsanto; and Jeffrey Smith is all over youtube and google video too talking about his ;Seeds of Deception; book. This stuff thoroughly debunks you, dear. So whilst you waste your time on this, I;m buying 100% organic and so is everyone I know.


I don;t think the commenter bothered to read the post before commenting. If she had, she might have realized that at least some of the anti-GE information out there is based on lies and exaggerations, which indicates that I am not ;thoroughly debunked;.


Unfortunately, the writers of things like ;The World According to Monsanto; have an agenda, so are incapable of and/or unwilling to present information in a ;fair and balanced; manner. Instead, they twist the hard work of scientists to say things that the researchers never intended. They select studies that have been debunked, attribute unrelated problems to the ;evils of genetic engineering;, and so on.


I suppose one might say that I have an agenda, but in my defense, I am simply advocating that people keep an open mind and seek to understand the science before rushing to conclusions or succumbing to propaganda. The best sources of information are never those on the fringes, never the fundamentalists or extremists.


If I want to really understand politics, I don;t turn to Ann Coulter or Al Franken. If really want to really understand genetic engineering, I don;t read press material from seed companies or anything put out by Jeffrey Smith, the self-appointed figurehead of the US anti-GE movement. Frame of mind can make a big difference when trying to wrap our heads around a complex issue, and I don;t think people on the extremes are in the best frame of mind for this purpose.


As a vegetarian, I hear and read a lot of arguments for and against animal agriculture. I;d like to use some of these as an example of how frame of mind can change the way things look. Some vegetarians and vegans beleive that all animal agriculture should be stopped. It;s all unethical, they might say, so supporting any incremental changes (such as cage free eggs) goes against the ultimate goal. On the other hand, some former vegetarians beleive they can best achieve better conditions for animals by consuming animals from organic/free-range/pastured/etc farms. While I;m not willing to go so far as to eat pastured buffalo, I beleive that supporting these incremental changes is better than trying to convince people to go cold turkey.


The organic/GM debate is the same way. It would be wonderful if everyone grew their own organic produce in their yards, only purchasing local foods from small farms that care for their land, only eating foods in season, and so on. Unfortunately, this isn;t possible for a lot of reasons I won;t go into right now. So-called ;conventional; agriculture is here to stay whether we like it or not. Trying to change the entire system at once is futile. Instead, we should strive to make small changes that will add up.


We should support small farmers, encourage people to eat more produce and whole grains, decrease pesticide use, and whatever other things are deemed to be better than the status quo. In other words, every farmer is not going to go organic, if not for any other reason than cost. Those farmers could be farming in a more ecologically sustainable manner if they integrate some organic ideals into their methods.


Genetic engineering, if we keep an open mind and pay attention to the science, could help. With genetic engineering specifically, we need to stop making gut reactions. We need ;more splitting and less lumping;, as advocated by  Ronald Herring  in his recent article in Nature. We can;t put everything in one box anymore.


Most of the arguments against genetic engineering are being demolished by new research and new policy. Instead of clinging to old news, let;s all look towards the future. GMOs aren;t just for corporate farms anymore. On the near horizon are crops that will help farmers of all types (drought resistant, virus resistant, nitrogen efficient, nutrient enhanced, and more). Glyphosate resistant crops have increased the use of glyphosate but have decreased the use of far worse chemicals. Seed companies are releasing certain improved crops to poor farmers at little or no cost. Antibiotic resistance markers are being phased out,  cisgenics  are being investigated over transgenics;


Instead of following some hard line dictated by the likes of Jeffery Smith (who depends on successful fearmongering to sell books), we should all strive to find the most accurate information sources and make our own decisions.













Document Number: 4065 



 Integration is the key 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 16 October 2008 


Sir Gordon Conway spoke on Monday night at Iowa State. He is a champion for integrated farming, when most people are blinded to at least half of the options. This was a sober account of the problems we face and the solutions that are needed. The silver lining, though, is that solutions are out there. If we focus our efforts, we can feed the hungry, protect the environment, respond to new and old challenges.


The talk was videotaped, and the link will likely be posted by the ISU Lectures Program  here  . I purchased  The Doubly Green Revolution  , and had it signed! I;m looking forward to reading it and sharing my thoughts. You can read parts of the book on  Google Books  .


There were so many topics that my notes from the talk don;t flow very well, so please bear with me. My comments are  italicized  , the rest is approximately what Sir Gordon had to say. I;ve added a few links, if you would like more information.  Speculators triggered the food price crisis but speculators were triggered by 1) Australian droughts, 2) increased 1st generation biofuel production, and 3) increased fertilizer prices that were in turn a result of increased oil prices due to a decline in the dollar. Cost of both of the main ingredients of diammonium phosphate fertilizer has increased. Oil is needed to produce ammonia, and sulfur is in short supply.


Additionally, long term trends were pushing up food prices beneath the spike. The long term increase Is due to increased pressure on the land to produce more animal protein. Demand across the world has increased. China;s demand for pork has particularly skyrocketed. The world would be better off if we all became vegetarians, but that;s isn;t likely.  Those are his words, not mine. I can only say I heartily agree. If everyone chose to eat meat a few times less per week, pressure on land would decrease dramatically, and feeding everyone while preserving the environment would be much easier.


We need to assess why we would grow biofuels. There are many possible goals, and 1  st  generation biofuels are not meeting those goals. If we aren;t meeting those goals, we may reconsider whether or not to produce them. Movement to cellulosic ethanol will help, but 4  th  generation biofuels will be even better, including biodiesel from algae and bacteria. Fuel from algae can be produced in every little village that currently uses fossil fuels for generators. We will replace petroleum with plants.  What a wonderful idea. Every family could have clean fuel to power lights so their children can study.  Yield gain in Africa is stagnant at about 1 bushel per hectare, which is what the British were getting under the Roman Empire.


All of these drivers created about 100 to 150 million more hungry people on top of the starving and malnourished people that already exist. Included among the malnourished are 400 million anemic women of childbearing age who are at increased risk of death, miscarriage, and birth defects.  As you may know, anemia is one of my research foci. We need to give children the nutrients they need to develop healthy brains, so they can grow up to help their families and the world.


Some people have asked ; if food prices are high, why don;t farmers in developing countries respond by increasing production? There are a number of barriers, not all of which are financial. They require seed, inputs, knowledge through extension, and more in order to respond to the world market. There is no one size fits all solution because all countries are different.


The Green Revolution caused a dramatic decrease in food prices. The oil crisis in the 1970s caused a temporary spike, but it didn;t last very long. The Green Revolution made it possible for India to feed themselves, benefiting the poor and the wealthy.  We can;t simply repeat the Green Revolution due to a few key reasons. High use of pesticides and fertilizers will not work in places that can not access them, and we need to decrease negative impacts of these inputs. Land in places that were not affected by the Green Revolution are highly variable, requiring many farming methods and diverse seed types. This is unlike India where land is relatively uniform. Ten years ago, I argued that we need to repeat the Green revolution but make it environmentally sustainable and equitable.  Sustainability is the intersection of high resilience, stability, productivity, and equity.   I;ve been struggling with the definition of sustainability in two of my classes:  Debating Science  and  Sustainable Agriculture Colloquium  . This definition is the best I;ve seen, far far better than the sustainability stool of economy, environment, and community. Sustainability is the intersection of the highest levels of each, a system that can meet our needs in a changing world.


To achieve sustainability, we need to use appropriate technology. Traditional technology includes home gardens which have worked very well in some places. Intermediate technology includes modern approaches to traditional methods, such as using  Striga to control Desmodium  in cornfields.


Conventional technology includes pesticides and fertilizers, tools which may be improved through careful use such as slow release urea briquettes which reduce cost and nitrogen run off. Advanced technology is a diverse category including communication through cell phones, knowledge transfer over the internet, and biotechnology.  We need a combination of every technology to get the job done, including new technologies developed to meet challenges of climate change.


Biotechnology is simply a method to tailor desired characteristics in seed or animals. Tissue culture is one example, such as the rice developed by  Monty Jones  for Africa. Use of genetic engineering is increasing, such as with new labs starting in Africa to improve native crops.


There are problems with GM. We haven;t been able to release GM crops, as with Golden Rice. Bt crops are good, but we need many more types of improvements. For example, cabbage that is resistant to diamondback moth.  I  wish he had covered the problems that GM has faced with public acceptance.


We need to evaluate GM and all biotech the same way as we must evaluate biofuels. Are they equitable, are they environmentally sustainable;? Also, what is the counterfactual? What will happen if we don;t use this technology?  We, as a species, need to start developing crops now to deal with the challenges of the future, or face famine worse than we have ever seen. That;s the counterfactual.


Layering interventions is our best strategy to combat the problems we face. This technique was used successfully in Kenya by the Rockefeller Foundation. Ghana has also used layered interventions, and is the only country to reach their  Millennium Development Goal  .


These interventions need to include reactions to climate change. The biggest climate change impact will be in agriculture. Some said that there would be an increase in yields due to CO2, but that hasn;t proven true in field trials. Temperature increase is a problem, but far more important is water. We need to do all we can to combat drought. Irrigation in Africa isn;t likely, so we need to be innovative, developing drought tolerant crops and drought tolerant farming methods.


Climate change will cause a niche shift, meaning that traditional and improved varieties won;t work anymore. Floods and droughts will oscillate in some places, so people will need to diversify their livelihoods. In the West, a family typically means two people with one job each. In the developing world, there are many jobs per family, depending on the season, situation, etc. They must always have something to fall back on. They do whatever they can to educate their children so they can go to the city to earn for their family.


We need to coordinate organizations, form global partnerships to solve global problems with agriculture and food.   The  partnership  of CIMMYT, AATF, the Gates Foundation, and Monsanto to produce roylaty free drought tolerant maize for Africa is one example of what we need.


Thomas Paine said ;we have the power to build our world anew;.


Q: Will the EU continue to influence acceptance of GM in Africa?  A: Acceptance will be slowest in Africa, but will speed up as India and China develop new varieties. We need to remember that GM is just one weapon in the armory.  Sir Gordon has always been a conscientious advocate of the role GM can serve in sustainable agricultre, even when it has been unpopular. I hope he can help people in England to understand their role.


Q: What about roads?  A: Connectivity is a major part of the solution. This includes roads and communication, so that farmers can get their goods to market.


Q: I go to a lot of sustainable agriculture seminars and they say things very differently from what you said. What about organic?  A: The key is integration. Organic is very exclusive and doesn;t work everywhere. There will be some pests that require pesticides, some soils that require fertilizer in places where organic fertilizer is not available.  Now, we just have to get organic advocates to admit this. Perhaps they should try farming in red clay.


Q: You mentioned extension as one of many solutions. How can we get extension to people who need it most?  This was my question, and I was thinking of Jeremy of   agro.biodiver.se  when I asked it.  A: Africa is a very complicated and diverse place. We really need to train the farmers, so they can be their own extension. We can educate small agrodealers to help solve problems in the field. They can be like pharmacists. Sometimes you don;t need a doctor, you just need to know what OTC remedy will help.   Jeremy covered this topic breifly in  A puzzle of African farming  . If the agrodealers were the extension agents, it could be a way to get solutions to farmers with the knowledge they need to use it. However, there would have to be some safeguards to ensure that the dealers wouldn;t just provide the most expensive remedy!













Document Number: 2695 



 Introducing FrankNSpace! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 October 2010 


Frank N Scientist by Valerie Lusk


A few days ago I mentioned we were going to institute a new registered user profile system here at Biofortified. We want our regular readers and discussion participants to be able to share more about themselves on their profiles, and for visitors to be able to see the people behind the words a little more clearly. Finally, while words can cross and get tense at times, we feel that it will foster more civil discussions if you can find out more about the person behind the comments you are responding to.


Coding, testing, and implementation of this new system is now complete. Behold, I give you  FrankNSpace  !*


Let me tell you what you can do with this.  All registered users will appear on the  Community page  , which you can find in the page navigation above. Browse around, click on a profile and see who they are. On the left will be their personal details, as much or as little as they have decided to enter. On the right, you can see their most recent comments, posts (if any), and also their most recent forum posts. Some of these features were built into the plugins we are using, but others I coded de novo. I;m particularly proud of the Latest Forum Posts section that I wrote ; as far as I know no one else has done this to build on the Forum Server plugin features! &lt;/preen&gt;


Click on your own profile and you will notice a little edit link at the very top, which takes you to your profile page in the dashboard. You can also get there by logging in as per the usual fashion. After you see all the options of things you can fill out, pick your jaw up off the floor ; and start filling some of it out! Here;s what you can do:


WordPress has a space for one website in your profile. You can now add up to four.  You can enter your Location so people know what part of the world you are in.  Link to your MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter accounts, plus a custom link you can name for other sites you may use, such as LinkedIn or Digg.  A Public Email field is also available if you want it to display on your profile. It can be a different email address from the one you used to register. And it scrambles the address to stop spam bots.  A field where you can make a bullet list of Links to sites you recommend or visit frequently.  An Extended Biography where you can go into a lot more detail about yourself with links, formatting, pictures ; all kinds of fun.   Three Extra Fields with titles and content that you can use for whatever you want. These will appear on the bottom of the left, center, and right columns respectively. These are yours to play with!  Take a look at mine  for an example of what you can do with these.


Profile Pictures


As if having an extended profile with so many possibilities wasn;t enough, you also get to upload pictures. Simply click on Your Gallery on the left sidebar when you log into your profile options page. The pictures can be of yourself, your garden, whatever you please. (Within reason: obscene images will be removed and accounts weeded out ruthlessly.) If you don;t use gravatar to assign avatar images to your email address, you can upload a picture here and select it as your avatar. Then, every comment and post you write will be decorated with this image. I hope you will consider putting up a picture!


Favorite Posts


You may have noticed a section in the middle of the profile that says ;Favorite Posts.; This I am especially pleased about having. When you read a post that you really like, find the little soybean at the bottom of the post,  and you can click to add this post to your favorites. It will appear in a list on your profile! To remove a favorite, visit the post and click the button to remove it. (Readers that have not registered for the blog can still select favorites, which will remember them based on the cookies stored in your computer. However, this will not currently display anywhere. We may add a ;my favorites; page in the future where you can see and edit your favorites directly.)


If people start using this feature and like it, we may add a widget to the sidebar that shows the ;Most Favored; posts.


Enhanced Conversation


Want to know who the person is who wrote that comment that you think is so awesome/awful? Now every comment left by registered users will lead to that user;s profile page when you click on their name, with a cute plant indicating that they are registered.  Guest comments will lead to the website their authors enter when commenting, and will not have said plant. Now it is even easier to follow conversations between people or start up some new ones.


Reasons why you should Register


A lot of people have registered here at Biofortified, and lately this number has been climbing. If you read and/or comment regularly on this blog, it would be a good idea to  sign up for a user account  . How so? Let me count the ways.


Registered users get to have awesome profiles with pictures, links, favorites and more.  You can keep track of your favorite posts on Biofortified without filling folders in your browser toolbar.   You can post in the  Forum  and start your own discussions.  Your comments with links will not be held up in the moderation queue and will post immediately.   Your comments may be taken more seriously. If you have taken the time to register, tell people about yourself, etc, you will be seen as a member of the community and not just someone leaving a passing comment. And this will be your badge for everyone to see:  You will be helping us build a community of people who care about the issues we discuss on this blog and can help provide feedback to improve it on into the future.  (From 6) You will feel more compelled to leave better comments. And more often!  (From 5, 6 &amp; 7) People will respond to your comments with better comments themselves. Everyone wins!  And if these reasons were not enough: Fabulous Prizes!


During the month of October, we will be holding several contests for readers to participate in, starting with an award for the best comment, nominated by readers, and open to all registered users. Later on in the month we will have another, and finally, a Halloween-themed contest that will make good use of our new user profile pages and your new ability to upload pictures. Stay tuned for more details about these contests,  register  if you haven;t yet, and start thinking of some good things to say and maybe you can be the first to get your hands on some exclusive Biofortified Blog Schwag!


*No it is not really going to be called FrankNSpace, but the capabilities of this blog are starting to look more like a social media site, and it was better than ;FrankNbook.;













Document Number: 6244 



 Introducing GENERA 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 2 November 2010 


Some of you may have noticed a little restructuring on Biofortified lately, others may have gone browsing around and found an interesting unexplained page, or might have recalled discussions about a new and fantastic database  being planned  for Biofortified and what we were thinking about  calling it  . Well now the wait is over and all will be explained. I am pleased to introduce regulars and newcomers to the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas, aka  GENERA  .


This is intended to be an atlas of any and all peer-reviewed research related to the relative risks of plant genetic engineering in the context of plant breeding. David Tribe has maintained a list of 300 papers related to this topic on GMO Pundit, and earlier this year we decided that all this information needed to be more visible and accessible to everyone. After searching deep within the bowels of WordPress plugins and php code, I figured out how to use the WordPress platform to host and manage a separate set of custom pages that will store and organize details about each study in a way that people can easily browse and search to find what they want.


Check it out  , play with the links and look at the example entries and you;ll see why I hardly posted anything on the blog in June or July! The Atlas currently only tells you how many studies have been entered, but when we have more to work with, I envision a page that will summarize the whole database with charts and graphs.


Anastasia has written a  step by step guide  on how to put together a GENERA entry. We have a  list of about 300 studies  to use as fodder for GENERA to begin with, and there are bound to be many more we don;t know about. You could perhaps start with our  list of just the independent studies  . Contributors can enter new studies by filling out a form on the inside end of the blog and submit it for the editors to review. Once approved, it will appear in the Atlas for everyone to see, and it will be crossed off the list as completed.


Eventually, we will add a guide on how to effectively use the Atlas, but first we need to populate it. And that;s where you come in. We really need the contributions of other scientists to help enter these many studies thoroughly and accurately, so that this resource can blossom forth and become an essential tool for everyone who wants to know what the sum total of the peer-reviewed scientific literature is.


Please help us spread the word and that we are looking for help from other scientists to summarize and enter studies into GENERA. We might also offer gifts to contributors, although we haven;t figured out how exactly that will work yet. We have prepared a press release, the full text of which is below, but you can view it as a PDF here.  GENERA press release_final.pdf  Pass it around!


Everyone I talk to about GENERA thinks it will be a really good resource. The world needs it, so let;s get to it!


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


GENERA: Students Launch a New Public Resource on Genetic Engineering and Need your Help


One of the biggest challenges of accurately communicating scientific information about a controversial topic is making that information easily available and accessible to the public. In the area of genetic engineering in agriculture, the public perception is that it lacks independent research on the risks, yet the scientific literature is replete with studies addressing those very questions. A small group of blogging scientists hopes to change that with a new web resource, but they need some help.


The plant genetics group blog, Biofortified, founded in 2008 by two graduate students, Karl Haro von Mogel and Anastasia Bodnar, hopes to bridge the gap. They have just launched a database called the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas, or GENERA for short. Each entry in the atlas will include meta-information such as funding type, crop studied, where it was conducted, and the source of funding as well as an expert summary of the study itself. The database will be useful for consumers who wish to learn more, for NGOs and government regulatory organizations, and for scientists.


So far, Biofortified has a list of three hundred studies that need to be entered into the database. While more studies continue to be published on a regular basis, the first task is to get the current literature entered into GENERA. ;With so many studies, it would take far too long for two people to catalogue them all, said Bodnar. We;ll need some help.;


I programmed the background of GENERA to make it really easy to use, said Haro von Mogel. All it takes is filling out a simple form with the abstract, citation, crop, etc, and the atlas does the rest. The scientist bloggers are counting on the success of community annotation projects and wiki-based resources to help populate the database.


Interested scientists can register for the blog at  www.biofortified.org  and contact its editors to be given access to create entries in the atlas. Anyone can make a simple entry, and scientists familiar with the language in the studies can also help out by writing a summary of the study. Several examples have already been entered into the atlas, with and without the optional summary.


In the future, GENERA will be useful for a variety of purposes. Studies can be searched on the basis of crop and study type, location, findings, funding, and publication status. Non-peer-reviewed studies will also eventually be included, and the site can be used to summarize all of the studies in the atlas. Scientists may find it useful in their own research. Were thinking about using it to write a review article someday, said Bodnar.


Getting this information more accessible to the public will be really beneficial for the public discussion of GE crops, said Haro von Mogel. People have this perception that there is no independent research done on these new traits, while about a third of the three hundred studies on our list are independently funded. People need to know about them.


Haro von Mogel and Bodnar founded Biofortified in 2008 when they recognized the lack of science-based information about genetic engineering on the web and the have worked to create a place where scientists and non-scientists can discuss and learn from each other. The blog currently features posts written by other graduate students and professors in the field.


Biofortified is independently run on a volunteer basis, and is not supported by any funding from any companies or government entities. While site hosting costs were initially footed by the founding members, these costs are now covered by a Changemakers grant awarded to Biofortified for  winning  the Ashoka Changemakers GMO Risk or Rescue contest. (  http://www.biofortified.org/2009/11/we-won/  )


Links:


The GENERA homepage:


http://www.biofortified.org/genera/


GENERA Tutorial:


http://www.biofortified.org/genera/genera-tutorial/


An example entry with a summary of the study:


http://www.biofortified.org/genera/entries/long-term-cow-feeding-study-with-bt-corn/


An example entry without a summary:


http://www.biofortified.org/genera/entries/maize-gene-expression-and-nitrogen-fertilization/


For more information about Biofortified:


http://www.biofortified.org/about/


Contact:


Email contact (AT) biofortified [DOT] org













Document Number: 2296 



 Introduction 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 19 November 2008 


In the Iowa State University Memorial Union


Hello! I;m  Anastasia Bodnar  , a second year PhD student at  Iowa State University  . My major is ;Interdepartmental Genetics;, an interdisciplinary program that allows me to work in a variety of fields, including plant breeding, biotechnology, and nutrition.


When I;m not in the lab or the field, I write about the science, ethics, politics, economics, etc of genetically modified plants at my blog  Genetic Maize  . I;m also a contributor at the blog  Clashing Cultures  where the interactions of science and religion are explored by people from different faiths and different scientific backgrounds. As of now, I;ll also contribute to  Biofortified  , writing about my favorite topic, plant genetics, and how this field affects the world around us. I;m very exciting to be working with some of my favorite bloggers on this project. I just hope I can find time to do it all!


Genetic engineering is such a complex topic, one that people (both proponents and opponents, scientists and lay people) oversimplify far too often. It is rarely correct to make a blanket statement about ;all GMOs;. For example, I think most of us would agree that herbicide resistant crops created by a large corporation are fundamentally different from the flood tolerant rice created by a scientist with public funds and freely distributed to small farmers in developing countries. These two have different ethical, environmental, safety, social justice, and intellectual property issues, just to name a few. It is unfair, unscientific, and possibly unethical to lump together all products produced by genetic engineering. It is also unfair to lump genetic engineering with what is known as conventional agriculture. Some genetically engineered plants might be more suited for large commercial farming, while others are scale neutral and could fit in well with a variety of farming techniques, including organic. I hope that I can elaborate on these ideas through my posts here at Biofortified.


My major professor is  Paul Scott  , a USDA researcher in ISU;s Agronomy Department.  Manju Reddy  is our collaborator in ISU;s Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. I have three main projects that all aim to improve the nutritional qualities of maize. You can read more about the projects after the cut.


Modern corn varieties have been selected and inbred for so many years that a lot of the genetic diversity has been lost. This means that modern corn has a smaller gene pool, so is lacking in traits like disease resistance. Modern corn also has rather un-nutritious seeds, a problem I;m hoping to help alleviate.


I;m screening two relatives of maize, the grasses  teosinte  and  tripsicum  , for interesting seed storage proteins. My studies so far have shown that the proteins in seeds from teosinte and tripsicum are much more varied than in modern corn varieties, and that some of those proteins are higher in essential amino acids. Two of my collaborators are using traditional breeding to get desired traits from teosinte and tripsicum into maize, while I plan to use biotechnology. I hope to explain the advantages and disadvantages of these methods in future posts. This type of biotechnology is called ;  cisgenics  ; or ;intragenics;, using genes from the species of interest or related species. This is distinct from ;transgenics;, which uses genes from an unrelated species.


Another example of cisgenics can be found in my second project, developing maize with improved iron bio-availability using the gene for maize hemoglobin. It seems that all plants have a gene for hemoglobin, but don;t produce the protein at detectable levels. We are hoping that overexpressing the hemoglobin protein in maize will cause the plant to uptake more iron from the soil and store it in the seeds in a highly digestible form. This research is important because anemia, or lack of iron, is the most prevalent nutritional deficiency in the world.


My third project aims to find new ways to use biotechnology in plant breeding and to learn how overexpressing a gene in corn seeds will affect the natural seed proteins. I;m using corn plants that have been engineered to express GFP (green fluorescent protein from jellyfish) in their seeds, selecting for plants that produce brighter and brighter seeds. The gene is controlled by the promoter for one of the many seed storage proteins, so we hypothesize that populations selected for brighter fluorescence will also have the highest levels of the corresponding natural protein. If this is true, then GFP might be used as a easily visible marker to help plant breeders select for proteins or pathways that are difficult to measure ; including those that produce nutritionally important compounds.













Document Number: 7158 



 Investment matters when it comes to gains in economic productivity over time  even in the cornfield. 


 by  David Tribe  on 6 December 2010 


In an earlier post, we quoted  Klaus Ammann;s investigation of maize yields and the differences between the United States and Europe in improvement in these yields over time  .


This post provides an update of this story, showing encouraging recent progress in United States maize yields per hectare, as compared to a discouraging parameter for maize yield performance in the European Union. To represent the EU we use national statistics for France and Italy. The graphs are based on FAOSTAT statistics.


The United States is showing steady progress over time in national average corn yield per hectare, whereas the growth of maize productivity in the European Union has been stultified. During the same time period, biotech crops have been used extensively in the United States but are essentially banned in these two European countries.


Possibly the antitechnology stance in the European Union is is limiting the amount of investment in plant breeding that they can sustain. It also seems likely, given the growth of commercial agricultural biotechnology research in the United States, that there has been much more private investment in maize breeding in the United States than is happening in the European Union.













Document Number: 1837 



 Is opposition to GE crops in Europe a Scientific Flip-Flop? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 18 June 2009 


Just out today, Seed Magazine has assembled a ;  Scientific Flip Flop  ; about Genetically Engineered crops. The article begins with an introduction into the curious case of European nations who embrace scientific conclusions in other areas of science, but not in this area.


Most Europeans dont consider themselves to be anti-science or particularly technophobic. In fact, Europes full embrace of the scientific consensus on another environmental issue, global warming, has enabled the continent to take the clear lead on climate change, with the most ambitious emissions targets, the first carbon trading market, and the greenest urban infrastructure plans on the planet.   Europes scientific disconnect is more broadly true of eco-minded citizens worldwide: They laud the likes of James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri but shrink in horror at the scientist who offers up a Bt corn plant (even though numerous  studies  indicate that Bt cropsby dramatically curbing pesticide useconserve biodiversity on farms and reduce chemical-related sickness among farmers).  So why the disconnect? Why do many environmentalists trust science when it comes to climate change but not when it comes to genetic engineering? Is the fear really about the technology itself or is it a mistrust of big agribusiness?


Contributing their views (in order) are Pam Ronald, Raj Patel, Nina Fedoroff, and Noel Kingsbury.  Read the article  , I;ll offer a few opinions about it after the jump.


In my humble opinion, the opposition is chiefly due to anti-corporate sentiments, some of which are not entirely unfounded. The conflict of interest of making a product and simultaneously ensuring its safety does not go unnoticed ; that is why we have government regulators at the EPA, FDA, and USDA. Other nations around the world have set up their own governmental oversight and have come to the same conclusions as in the U.S., and the article does not mention that the European Union has approved several GE crops, while individual nations are sketchy about them. Germany seems to be having a particularly harsh case of food fears, and have gone after public research into the technology as well.


My first complaint about a contribution to the article was when Raj Patel said,


This points to my concerns about the state of scientific debate. The direction of research priorities in agriculture is predominantly shaped not by the relative merit of different technologies, but rather the research priorities of the private sector. The largest publicly funded examination of genetically engineered agriculturethe UK governments field trialsfound GM crops inferior to conventional agriculture in most respects. But conventional and GM agriculture are not the only two comparison points.


First, it is frustrating when people do not give any specific details about when studies were conducted, by whom, and where they were published. It makes it difficult to look up the precise details to verify whether they are accurately reporting the results. Several anti-GE groups have put up position statements about these field trials, which seem to have been completed in 2002-03 and declared the GE crops to be a failure. The Naked Scientists podcast, however,  tells more about the story  :


After a three years of farm-scale trials looking at the environmental impact of GM crops the results are finally out this week. These were the biggest trials carried out anywhere in the world, showing just how concerned the government are that they get enough information to make a decision about whether Britain should adopt the new technology. The trials were looking at three different crops, sugar beet, maize and oilseed rape- all of which had been genetically modified to be resistant to particular herbicides (chemicals that kill weeds). The idea behind the crops is that farmers will be able to treat fields less frequently with weedkillers, as the treatments will be more effective and only target the weeds without damaging the crops. This would save time and money, as well as reducing the amount of chemicals farmers are using in total.   But the fields trials suggest that at least two out of the three GM crops, beet and oilseed rape, had a harmful impact on the environment in and around the fields where they were grown. This included a decrease in the number of bees and butterflies, as well as a reduction in the number of wild plant seeds available to feed animals like birds. But they did find more soil insects present in the fields sown with the GM beet and oilseed rape, which may be because herbicides were used less often. There was good news for fans of GM technology as well- GM maize was found to be better for wild plants, animals and insects than normal maize.  It;s important to point out that these effects on the local wildlife are nothing to do with the actual genetic modification of the plants  , but more to do with the levels and types of weedkillers used by the farmers, as well as how often they treated their fields. (emphasis added)


Reductions in insect life that depend upon weeds growing in your fields are going to be fewer when you are controlling the weeds. Interestingly, in the case of herbicide-tolerant beets, it was later discovered that if you strip-sprayed your field of GE beets,  it actually provided MORE plants for insect life  , without damaging the crop. This is one of the things that happens when you rely on older results. (Here is a  link to another option  for providing food for wildlife.)


It is good to note that biased reporting of results is going on here. In this field trial (  assuming I have found the correct one  ), they also reported that soil insects were increased in the same fields. They also concluded that the GE Bt maize was  better  for the environment than the conventional counterpart, mostly because it reduced pesticide sprays.


Next, I would like to comment on Nina Fedoroff;s contribution. She co-wrote  Mendel in the Kitchen  , which is an excellent book that I highly recommend. In this article, she was straight to the point, accessible, and talked about the way people;s attention spans (including the media) cause facts to be ignored and trumpted stories to be preferred instead. But it may be that Fedoroff is committing a similar sort of error.


With a computer and bit of effort, almost anyone can extract the facts from the gloom and catastrophism. Fact: Modern genetic modification of crops is responsible for most of the crop yield increases of recent years. This means, of course, that the farmers whove adopted GM crops have benefited the most.


There have been yield gains in Bt cotton, Bt corn, and with soybean farmers elsewhere in the world that have been able to fit a second soy crop into the same year due to GE technology, however I take issue with her potential mis-statement that genetic modification is responsible for  most  of the yield increases in recent years. Breeding still provides a large part of yield improvements, which is ongoing, especially for those breeders utilizing marker-assisted or ;precision; breeding. The reason why I characterize it as a  potential  mis-statement is that I know that Fedoroff calls  breeding  genetic modification. (It is) If she meant that genetic engineering contributed most of the yield gains I would probably disagree, but if she meant all forms of genetic modification then I think she could have been more clear in her statement.


Next, I would like to address a couple of Tom Philpott;s claims. He points out that the kind of consensus that has formed around climate science amongst climate scientists is stronger than the consensus that has formed around GE crops, and I agree with that for the most part. There is a good consensus amongst plant scientists on the subject and some environmentalists, but not all other branches of science fully agree.


The real question becomes: How can serious publications like  Seed  claim that skepticism toward GMOs reflects a scientific flip-flop? To be sure, the illusion of a broad consensus holds sway in the United States, and the IAASTD has clearly failed to correct it. The US media greeted its release with near-complete silencein stark contrast to its reception in the European media.


The possibility that the IAASTD;s statements about genetic engineering might be symptomatic of this dissonance doesn;t seem to occur to him. There;s a lot of politics involved, for example, the US government was very resistant to climate change agreements under Bush;s presidency, which has quickly turned around now that Obama is in office. The U.S.;s position on GE crops seems not to have changed (and indeed, has been repeatedly emphasized). Could that not be more parsimoniously explained by political opposition to GE crops from people (and even scientists) outside the U.S.? I would like to note that the EU is moving toward growing GE crops steadily year by year.


Next, Philpott brings up a report written by Don Lotter, attempting to explain the pursuit of GE crops in terms of mere economics and politics without the strength of scientific evidence. I have already begun reading the report, and without going into too much detail at this time, its conclusions and analysis are problematic. For example, some major claims are made that do not correspond to the references cited. I will provide more details in another post, but I think referring to a paper with more scholarly rigor would bemore appropriate.


Philpott brings up the multi-generational Austrian feeding ;study.;


When there have been long-term trials by independent researchers, the results have hardly been comforting.  For example, writes Lotter:   In a 2008 report (Velimirov et al., 2008) of research commissioned by the Austrian government, a long-term animal feeding experiment showed significant reproductive problems in transgenic corn-fed rats when all groups were subject to multiple birth cycles, a regimen that has not hitherto been examined in feeding studies comparing transgenic and non-transgenic foods.


Thus in the  first-ever  multi-generational study of the effects of GMO food, evidence of serious reproductive trouble comes to light: reduced birth weight and fertility.


As detailed here, this study was raising its mice under poor conditions. How do we know? They fed GE maize and non-GE maize to two groups, the experimental group and the control, and allowed them to breed for several generations. For a properly conducted feeding study, they should have had a very low mortality rate in the control group ; about 1%. But as the study authors reported,  they lost an average of 8%  of their control mice. This means that the mice were living in poor conditions, and is seriously calls into question any conclusions that could be drawn from it. And if you take a look at the average pup losses per generation, you;ll notice something odd:


The curious incidence of silence about mistreated animals


Notice the high numbers of mouse pup losses in the control (ISO), and low losses in the transgenic? The GE-fed mice survived better, yet this is not mentioned anywhere.  And the European media is silent on this;  the argument goes both ways.


It is also exceedingly important to note that this study was not peer-reviewed ; and I daresay it would not have survived even the most lax of scientific journal reviews. David Tribe  has posted more  about the study and its problems. We need to base our opinions on the best available evidence from reliable studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As Nina Fedoroff said,  anyone with a computer can find out this information  . Why hasn;t Tom?


Curiously, after claiming that this study was independent, Tom Philpott then ;flip-flops; and supports the notion that no truly independent study exists.


A group of 23 US scientists signed a letter to the EPA declaring that, No truly independent research [on GMOs] can be legally conducted on many critical questions.


Which one is it?


I would like to note that intellectual property issues when it comes to public research are in issue that needs to be addressed.


Noel Kingsbury, whose book Hybrid, the history and science of plant breeding comes out later this year, closes the deal:


The fact is that the scientific case against GM is pretty threadbare. It is far more precise and predictable than some of the most important breeding technologies of the last 50 years. If you get hot under the collar about GM, why not the far more frightening radiation breeding? Mention that to most anti-GM activists and they look puzzled. Radiation breeding involves zapping seeds or cuttings with radiation, or treating plant material with gene-altering chemicals. Many countries in the 1960s invested in radiation fields where trees were grown behind big earthen dykes so that they would be permanently irradiated. The goal: obtaining mutations that might be useful, as one in several tens of thousands was. The first radiation-bred rice was sold as Nuclear Rice in Hungary in the mid-1950s. Imagine marketing that today! Radiation breeding is unpredictable, uncertain in its results, and causes widespread genome damage.  But no one has ever suggested that it has ever done any harm!  Much Italian pasta has been grown with an irradiated durum wheat. Nearly all Asian pears are the offspring of irradiated grafts. Andget this much European organic beer is brewed from radiation-bred barley! No one complains or protests. Wake up! Be realistic! Why get so excited by GM?   GM crops must be looked at and judged variety by variety. The first generation Roundup    varieties are giving way to second generation crops with some highly valuable characteristics, like resistance to pests (thousands of deaths by pesticide poisoning have already been avoided by Chinese and Indian caterpillar-proof cotton) and drought-tolerance. Once we start to see soy with omega-3s or nutrient-enhanced tomatoes, attitudes will surely start to change.  World population is increasing, arable land availability is decreasing, and water resources are shrinking. We need every technology possible to increase yields, reduce toxic pesticide use, improve nutritional value, and feed the world. The European and Indian opposition to GM is rooted in a hopelessly romantic view of farming. Farming is not a romantic businessit is about feeding the human race, and we must listen to the overwhelming consensus of plant sciencethat GM is safe and desirable.


The important distinction being made here is that there is a  consensus  within plant science, but not necessarily one between disciplines. The key difference between how these two kinds of genetic changes are being treated politically and socially have more to do with the political and social climates in different hemispheres and less to do with the science that has been conducted around the world. In some cases, science is being ignored in the interest of societal issues, and in other cases, bad science is being wielded as a weapon to draw attention away from the good science that exists.













Document Number: 515 



 Is space beer risky? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 9 December 2009 


Sapporo is selling 250 6-packs of their ultra limited edition  Space Beer  through a lottery system for 10,000 yen each ; but only to people who live in Japan. The proceeds will go to Okayama University for science education. The malting barley used in this beer is of the Haruna Nijo variety, developed by Sapporo. This barley is the 4th generation produced from barley that spent 5 months aboard the International Space Station in the  Zvezda Service Module  . The hops from Furano, Hokkaido were also from seeds that spent time in space, although I wasn;t able to find out how long they spent up there. This all sounds pretty cool, a simple feel good pro-space research event.


Sure, it;s cool, and I wouldn;t mind having a taste, but my first thought after reading  Barley + Space = Space Beer!  on Wired was: were there any mutations in the barley or hops that were caused by the exposure to gamma rays, etc while in space? Should the lucky few who get to try it be worried about unintended changes in the barley and hops from gamma rays and other mutagens in space?


Multiple groups in China have been purposefully using the mutagenizing effects of space as a tool to develop new traits in crops including alfalfa and rice. Unfortunately, these researchers have been publishing in Chinese journals and other journals that I don;t have access to. A 2009 paper in  Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis  called  Spaceflight induces both transient and heritable alterations in DNA methylation and gene expression in rice (Oryza sativa L.)  has some key ideas in the abstract that can help us consider the potential risks of ;space barley; and other ;space crops;.


Spaceflight represents a complex environmental condition in which several interacting factors such as cosmic radiation, microgravity and  space  magnetic fields are involved, which may provoke stress responses and jeopardize genome integrity. ; We report here that extensive alteration in both DNA methylation and gene expression occurred in rice plants subjected to a spaceflight ; [which] are heritable to progenies at variable frequencies.


The rice that had spent time in space had  epigenetic  changes that were passed on to the next generation. The changes didn;t have any obvious phenotypes, so it;s possible that similar changes exist in the decedents of space barley that haven;t been detected. Are these changes dangerous? Probably not, but it is possible. All mutagens (and even just breeding) can cause unintended changes, but testing is not required for plants resulting from either. Space induced mutations will likely escape regulatory scrutiny as well.


The 2004 book Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects lists some classic examples of breeding resulting in unintended effects in Chapter 3:  Unintended Effects from Breeding  , including increases of naturally occurring toxins that are harmful to humans. These unintended consequences are often due to selecting for one trait that inadvertently selects for a different trait that may or may not be related to the first trait. Interestingly, these authors of this book were not able to find any examples of unintended consequences due to mutagenesis. This is likely a result of the same process that removes any unintended changes from plants with genetically engineered traits ; lots of breeding. Seems a bit paradoxical, but this sort of breeding isn;t done with the goal of developing new traits. Instead, the goal of post mutageneis or post genetic engineering breeding is to stabilize the trait of interest in a line that already has other desired traits. Other research, notably the 2008  Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion  , showed that both mutagenesis and genetic engineering can cause unintended changes in gene expression. However, obvious phenotypes may be rare.


In the case of space barley, four generations may have been long enough to revert any mutations that had occurred, especially if most changes are epigenetic as suggested by  Spaceflight induces both transient and heritable alterations in DNA methylation and gene expression in rice (Oryza sativa L.)  . The space hops didn;t have any additional generations, so there is a greater likelihood that any mutations that occurred were still present in the hops that were used to produce the space beer. Does this make space beer more dangerous than non-space beer? Maybe, maybe not. It might be a good idea to at least consider potential changes induced by space, just as we should be considering potential unintended effects from breeding, mutagenesis, and genetic engineering. We might employ a flow chart, such as this one from Chapter 7:  Framework, Findings, and Recommendations  in Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. It;s time to stop treating crops resulting from non biotech modifications as inherently safe, and start comparing the newly modified varieties to their parental varieties. Then, we;ll be sure that space beer, space rice, and a host of up-and-coming products are safe for us to eat and drink.













Document Number: 7234 



 Jeffrey Smith still putting words in Obama;s mouth 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 April 2009 


Lately, there has been a lot of discussion about food safety in the national political scene. With the outbreak of salmonella in peanut products (including  organic  peanut products BTW), and a new president with new heads of the FDA and USDA, there has been a strong call for better food safety oversight.  One of the issues  being discussed is combining the sometimes bizarrely split food regulatory duties of these two agencies into a single food and agriculture agency.


Some want tighter regulations,  others  want to tighten down only on large food processing (or growing operations), but many just want to give the underfunded FDA the teeth it needs to do its job. Amid the clamor for food policy changes, the Madison-based Onion announced that the  FDA Approves Salmonella  ; which had me in stitches!


Anyhow, it was only a matter of time before an anti-GE activist latched onto the food safety discussion to try to bring attention to genetically engineered foods. Monday, Jeffrey Smith put up a new column on his Huffington Post blog, asking  Will Obama;s Food Safety Team Finally Regulate the Biggest Food Safety Hazard of Our Time?


What,  alfalfa sprouts  ? Oh right, genetic engineering.  Keep in mind the fact that there has not been a single confirmed case of anyone getting sick from a genetically engineered food. Even that guy that claimed to be allergic to Starlink corn and put a video of himself eating the corn on the internet went in for a double-blind allergy test that determined that he was not allergic. And in the current food safety discussion, people aren;t having problems with GE foods ; they;re having problems with Melamine, Salmonella, and E. coli. And the FDA is giving it their full attention. Smith, however, contends that they are wasting their time.


If President Obama;s new Food Safety Working Group dedicates all their time and credentials to prevent future food recalls, they will have saved thousands of people;but forsaken millions.


That sounds a little hyperbolic, don;t you think? He continues:


When these gene-spliced concoctions, such as GM soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed, came on the scene in 1996, the proportion of Americans suffering from three or more chronic ailments. After just 9 years, that nearly doubled to 13%. GM foods are the prime suspect.


Prime suspects only according to Jeffrey Smith. This is a logical fallacy known as   post hoc ergo propter hoc  : because the rise in illnesses happened after the introduction of genetically engineered crops ; they are assumed (without evidence) to have caused it. From wikipedia:


The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:      A  occurred, then  B  occurred.   Therefore,  A  caused  B  .   When  B  is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding  A  will prevent  B  .


The reverse of this fallacy is that by avoiding the GE crops you can prevent these diseases. Smith continues:


A scientifically sound regulation would translate into an immediate ban of current GM crops, and the implementation of rigorous safety testing requirements before any GMO was put back into the food supply. And certainly mandatory labeling, as  promised by President Obama  during his campaign, must accompany any GM food approval.


Uh oh, there it is again. Previously, I posted the results of  an investigation I conducted in January  ; that contrary to the claims by Jeffrey Smith, President Obama did not promise to label foods derived through genetic engineering. After doing his research  for him  , I found that a trail of miscommunication and wishful thinking behind it. Barack Obama has   never  promised to label GE foods, on any record of him campaigning anywhere. Jeffrey Smith is still putting words into President Obama;s mouth.


The rest of his article is kind of funny. Smith argues that the Obama;s, the Bushes, and even the people who work for Monsanto  must know  that there;s something wrong with genetic engineering because they; eat organic. Granted, many organic organizations see genetic engineering as a threat to their form of agriculture, (check out  Pam Ronald;s writings  on how this need not be the case), but just because someone chooses to eat organic foods does  not  mean that they are actively choosing  not to eat  GE foods.


The Obama family has wisely opted out of exposing themselves to GM foods by requiring organic;and therefore non-GMO;foods served at the White House. They are even planting an  organic garden on the south lawn  of the White House, to feature 55 types of vegetables.   The Bush family also had an organic kitchen policy. Laura Bush was  ;adamant; about it,  but kept it all quiet.


That one was full of fallacious fun. Now Smith is trying to put words in the Obamas; and Bushes; mouths based upon what food they put in their mouth.


I did not know about this until now, but ten years ago a catering company decided to ban GE crops from its own foods. Ironically, it was a catering company that fed Monsanto workers, among others. Here;s what Smith had to say about it.


Even at Monsanto, many in-the-know employees won;t consume the company;s own GM creations. Back in 1999, the management of the cafeteria at Monsanto;s UK headquarters in High Wycombe, England  wrote  :   ;In response to concern raised by our customers . . . we have decided to remove, as far as possible, genetically modified soy and maize (corn) from all food products served in our restaurant. . . . We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.;


Ladies and gentlemen, let me share with you a strategy I learned from years of following creationist discussions. When you see a quote that contains ellipses (;), always look up the original quote, because there;s usually something important being left out.


;In response to concern raised by our customers over the use of GMFs [genetically-modified foods], and to comply with government legislation, we have taken the decision to remove, as far as is practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant;


;  to comply with government legislation;  ; There;s the important part removed from the quote. Notice also how the wording of the quote has also been modified from its original version: ;taken the decision; changed to ;decided;, and ;as far as is practicable; became ;as far as possible.; Although these changes did not change the meaning as the above omission did, it is in fact, doctoring quotes, which is not something responsible journalists are supposed to do. The original is available  here  . Here;s the rest of the notice:


We will continue to work with our suppliers to replace GM soya and maize with non-GM ingredients without impairing quality or performance.  To maintain customer choice we will sell retail products, such as confectionery, that are packaged and labelled by the manufacturer as containing GM soya and maize, where it is appropriate.  We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.


They didn;t even ban them all! As described by Smith, you get the impression that Monsanto employees refused to eat GE foods, and petitioned their own cafeteria to ban them. In fact, the catering company served  many  locations, and was responding to the general unease expressed by their customers, as well as new governmental regulations that they needed to comply with. I somehow doubt that many (if any) Monsanto employees complained. It is still kind of funny and ironic that ten years ago the caterers feeding UK Monsanto employees stopped serving foods containing GE crops and put up this notice, but it doesn;t lend support to his conspiratorial notion that the movers and the shakers  are in the know  and are avoiding GE foods while the rest of us are in the dark.


We have real and present food safety issues, in a complex web involving food growers, processors, vendors, eaters, and the natural environment which has a significant number of variables. We need more effective involvement of our food safety experts to safeguard our food supply and encourage healthy, safe food. The fact is that genetically engineered crops are not even part of the current discussion of food safety,  because they are not causing the problems  . Hijacking what few resources there are to investigate empty food safety issues to serve the interests of one, ;is foresaking thousands.;


Note: For the past week and a half, I attempted to get in contact with Jeffrey Smith and his communication representative, NJ Jaeger, to ask if Smith understood that Obama never promised to label GE foods once in office. My phone calls to the Institute of Responsible Technology and emails were not returned. I;m glad I didn;t hold my breath over Smith continuing this inaccurate and dishonest claim. So now it is two instances where Smith must ; for the sake of journalistic integrity ; retract his statements.













Document Number: 1007 



 Jim Cramer on Monsanto 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 September 2009 


I just came across this video of Jim Cramer from Mad Money talking about potential anti-trust activity against Monsanto. If you can get past the inane bells and whistles that Cramer punches up mid-sentence, this video is worth taking a look at.


A couple things to note about the video ; Cramer repeats the claim that Monsanto has raised its prices by 42% without finding out that it was based on a misunderstanding.  The article  it was based on  was comparing an older variety of GE soybeans to a newer one with different breeding and different transgenic traits. But many took it to be a sign that the big bad gene giant was accelerating the prices of the same old seeds. You can read more about it at  Looking Beyond the Headline  at the Monsanto blog.


To put it another way, I have Windows XP Home edition on my computer, but there is the newer Windows Vista to consider as well. If I was buying a new computer right now, the price of XP would start at $79 according to a google price search I just did. Vista would begin at $107 for the home edition. This is a 35% increase; does it mean that Microsoft is jacking up its Windows prices? If you ask Microsoft, Vista is a superior product (although opinions differ on  that  estimation). The newer varieties of seeds are supposed to be worth more to the farmers in terms of yield and savings on input and labor costs, thus the seed companies can charge more and the farmers will buy them. The previous version of the seeds have not changed very much in terms of price from year to year.


So it weakens Jim Cramer;s argument that this price increase is challenging the feds to go after them with anti-trust action. (Far be it for me to suggest that the government might be better at research than  Mad Cramer  , and would probably not make the same mistake.) Still, there is the potential for this to occur. In 2003, antitrust investigators  requested information from Monsanto  with regard to the herbicide industry, and I don;t recall anything tangible coming out of that. (correct me if you find anything) Then again, it was under a previous administration, so the Obama Administration could be looking for a more independent feel for the state of competitiveness in agriculture.


As Cramer mentioned in his segment, antritrust regulators  announced their plan to investigate agriculture  in Monsanto;s home-town of St. Louis, which many take to be a clear sign of a challenge toward the Bt Behemoth, so I guess we;ll have to wait and see what comes of this.


I wanted to make a brief comment about one of the claims that floats around in the statements of the opponents to genetic engineering, and that is the notion that seed companies are trying to ;control the food supply,; and by extension, rule the world. The very existence of anti-trust laws in this and other countries precludes that from happeninig, and it would be interesting to see if there is some action taken to try to split up Monsanto  like what was tried with Microsoft  . I do have a thought on an analogy between the Windows anti-trust issue and the seed company contracts, but I;ll need to do a little more research to be able to flesh it out.


But here;s my last point to make on the issue of ;ruling the world; through GE crops. The more regulatory hurdles you throw at the technology, the more you concentrate its use in the hands of the largest companies. If you want there to be other companies, governments, university programs, etc, to be making GE crops that will compete against the seed companies that exist today, it has to be economically feasible for those organizations to be able to get through the regulatory process. In a bizarre irony, organizations such as Greenpeace that want to get rid of genetic engineering because they believe it will force a corporate monopoly ; might actually be helping that come to pass because they are trying to make it harder for anyone to produce and approve a genetically engineered crop. So only ones who could afford to do it in a Greenpeace regulatory dream-world will be Monsanto; and probably China.


Wouldn;t it be weird if they were actually working for them?













Document Number: 661 



 Journalists always look at things differently; especially farm economics 


 by  David Tribe  on 12 October 2010 


It pays not to cultivate GM crops, survey finds  By Steve Connor, Science Editor  Friday, 8 October  UK Independent


The first economic analysis of growing genetically modified crops on a wide scale has found that the biggest winners were the farmers who decided not to grow them.


The study, which looked at maize yields in the corn belt of the United States, found that farmers who continued to grow conventional crops actually earned more money over a 14-year period than those who cultivated GM varieties.


All farmers benefited from the significantly lower level of pests that came about after the introduction of GM maize to the US in 1996, but the conventional farmers who continued to cultivate non-GM varieties also benefited financially from not having to pay the extra costs of purchasing GM seeds.


Previous studies into the economics of growing GM crops have concentrated on the farmers who have taken up the technology, but the latest research looked at a wider area, including non-GM fields that may have benefited from being near fields planted with GM varieties;.


GMO Pundit;s thoughts:


Then of course , one could also argue it pays not to be vaccinated as you get protection from herd immunity without getting a jab. But its a bit risky, and get out of countrol if there a ruch in the wrong direction.


To be serious, perhaps there is an optimum strategy, with say 85% of fams using GM every year, but the usage rotating each season, with a different 155 getting a ;free-ride; every year.


Now that;s a novel idea; crop rotation.













Document Number: 9441 



 Labeling campaigner dies 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 2 August 2009 


On Friday the 3rd of July, GE labeling campaigner  Craig Winters died  . He was fighting an ongoing cancer battle, with multiple back surgeries and other treatments to boot.


Winters  was involved in political efforts to label genetically engineered crops for many years, which never succeeded. His most recent effort was during the 2008 Presidential campaign. He organized efforts to seek campaign promises to label GE foods from the major candidates, asking people to send in written requests with a standard, printed form for them to sign and send to Winters. After a while, his site announced that all of the democratic candidates supported labeling.


I learned about this seven months ago when Jeffrey Smith claimed that President Obama had promised to label GE foods. After some investigation, it turns out that he did not make that promise at all. You can read about the whole miscommunication  here  .


During my investigation, I actually called up Craig Winters on the phone to talk to him about it. He seemed somewhat optimistic about convincing Obama;s presidency of his position, but he had not read about Obama;s statements in support of the technology, either. Winters was certainly very busy with other matters ; when I called him he had just gotten out of surgery the previous day.


Winters not only started The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, he also  organized a nonprofit organization to accept donations to support anti-GE efforts. The organization he directed was called  The Coordinating Council  (  Archive  ), and for years it was the vehicle through which people gave money to Jeffrey Smith;s organization. (I use the term organization lightly here.) It now appears that Smith has set up an  alternate  vehicle for accepting donations, but  this page  (  Archive  ) of his  still links  (  Archive  ) to the Coordinating Council site.


The  page  that replaces TheCampaign.org;s site sends people to Smith;s site, so my hunch is that he will be the inheritor of their campaign effort.


I can certainly vouch from having spoken with him for 15-20 minutes, that Craig Winters was a jovial and enthusiastic fellow, who seemed to have a genuine interest in making the world a better place. Whether the labeling effort would have actually done that is questionable. However, he told me about a solar power bill he was working on that he had yet to release. I gave him some words of encouragement on that idea, and hopefully someone else will continue that worthy effort now that he has passed away.


Note: TheCampaign.org has been completely wiped over the weekend, previous links to its pages will not work anymore. You can  access  archived pages of the site through the Wayback machine,  up to February 2008  , and I have downloaded google caches of relevant documents for archival purposes and fixed the broken links in my Obama post.


Update: August 25, 2009:  It appears that several pages I have linked to have been modified since this post was written. This includes The Coordinating Council site, Jeffrey Smith;s TCC donation page, and the seeds of deception page that links to it. I have included the relevant archival links so people can see them before the changes.


I wonder, will I need to include web archive links in the first place, as these things tend to go down the Memory Hole a la William Dembski? Did these changes take place on their own schedule, or does Smith read this blog?













Document Number: 7453 



 Labels 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 21 July 2008 


Vegetarian Times  often lures me into buying an issue with their delicious cover recipes, like this amazing looking ;Mediterranean pressed picnic sandwich;. The recipes are great, but I wish they would stick with what they know best. This month;s ;carrot &amp; stick; column contained the following:  ;STICKS TO American Crystal Sugar Company, based in Moorhead, Minn., for sourcing sugar from genetically engineered sugar beets designed to withstand the herbicide Roundup. Since sugar beets account for half of the nation;s granulated sugar production, GE ingredients will soon be present in just about every nonorganic, multiple-ingredient product people buy, says the Organic Consumers Association, which has called on American Crystal to reconsider its decision. Products containing GE ingredients are not required to be labeled as such.;  I like food labels. I wish we had more, but if we are going to have one label, we;ve gotta have them all;  I want to know every step in the growing process, from how much the workers are paid to what types of pesticides are used to how they rotate their crops each year. Information about the size and location of the grower would be nice too. On the small amounts of pre-prepared foods I buy, I;d especially like to see a ;Vegetarian; or ;Vegan; label so I don;t have to scour the ingredients list for random gelatin or guess if the rennet is GE or from a calf;s stomach lining. I;d like all of this information available for restaurant food as well.  Despite my pro-label inclinations, I know that it would be expensive and difficult to the point of impossibility to include all of this information on any food product. This is, in my opinion, the strongest argument for eating local ; if you have questions, you can ask the farmer face-to-face. For food we don;t buy at a farmer;s market, each label goes through a sort of cost-benefit analysis. Some labels, such as ;may contain peanuts; have a big benefit if it prevents someone from going into anaphylactic shock.  As for labeling of foods derived from genetically engineered crops, the cost is high while the benefit is low. A ;GE; label means nothing because the genetic engineering process has been proven to be  at least as safe  as the more common (and organic approved) mutation breeding. In fact, some plants that have never been engineered or bred in any way can be more dangerous than their ;unnatural; counterparts (see the amusing and informative  How to Poison Your Spouse the Natural Way  by retired biochemist and author  Jay Mann  for some examples).  To be useful, a GE label would have to list the trait (glyphosate resistant, drought resistant, bioavailable iron enhanced, etc) with the exact gene name and the exact event (because each event is a different insertion into the genome so may have different effects on the plant). This sort of label makes sense for specialty crops such as low-linoleic soybean oil (which was actually developed with traditional breeding methods, but could have much more easily been engineered). These specialty crops would necessarily be grown and processed separately from crops that do not have the special trait. For non-specialty items, however, food is aggregated for processing. One bottle of soybean oil may be derived from beans from many fields, so would all possible transgenes have to be listed on the bottle?  On glyphosate resistance in sugar beets specifically, we have to consider the environmental costs and benefits. The farmers need to control weeds in their fields. They could pull the weeds by hand, or use other non-chemical methods such as flaming or tilling. All of these require more labor, which increases cost. Flaming and tilling both release greenhouse gases. Pre-emergent herbicides are a common chemical option, but many of them are very toxic, like atrazine.  Glyphosate  is a relatively non-toxic alternative. Unfortunately, some formulations contain surfacants and other ingredients that aren;t so benign, but that;s a case for the pesticide formulators or the EPA, not for genetic engineers. Weed resistance to glyposate has happened, but at lower rates than some had expected. Most of these cases haven;t been due to spread of the transgene, but are natural resistance or a result of improper application of glyphosate. Resistance can be kept at bay by proper management techniques, as described in this  extention article  by the  Glyphosate Stewardship Working Group  .  My letter to the editor of Vegetarian Times that I seriously doubt will be published:  In the Jul/Aug issue, you gave sticks to American Crystal Sugar Company for deciding to use genetically engineered sugar beets, but didnt provide a valid reason to decry their decision. While glyphosate use increases when resistant crops are used, the use of other herbicides decreases, and the use of soil-healthy carbon-sequestering no-till farming practices increases, all while allowing farmers to reduce costs. Glyphosate certainly has its own problems (such weed resistance and potentially toxic additives like surfactants) but it is far better than other herbicides. Glyphosate itself, the glyphosate resistance gene, and the genetic engineering process have all been proven to be safe again and again. Atrazine and other pesticides have been proven to be toxic. If we are to call for more labels and changes in agriculture, atrazine and similar pesticides should be at the top of the list.  Anastasia Bodnar  PhD student in genetics at Iowa State, working to develop maize with high levels of bioavailable iron and improved amino acid balance through genetic engineering and traditional breeding.


http://www.geneticmaize.com













Document Number: 2425 



 Lendman April Fooled 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 4 April 2009 


Friday morning, I was browsing my news feeds over breakfast, and I took a look at an article titled  GMO Proliferation Bills  by Stephen Lendman. It read like a bizarre conspiracy theory, weaving together half-truths about genetic engineering with unsourced beliefs about how some food safety-related bills must be secret ways of proliferating GE crops. I was about to click off, but then I decided to check out page two.


While skimming a section on ;GMOs in the G20 Agenda;, I found a proliferation of ellipses (;) in quotes. One in particular stuck out to me:


The Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organization said: ;We don;t need regulation of a technology that can feed, fuel and heal the world. The G20 leaders need to recognize that GM;.is the solution; to a pressing world need.


Applying our lesson  from before  , I did a search for that quote to find out what was removed. It seemed dubious because I have never heard of anyone claiming that we do not need  any  regulation of GE crops. All searches traced to an article reproduced in multiple locations, such as on  GMWatch.eu  . Titled  GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit  , The Times, by Mark Handerson/Henderson (depending on which reproduced article you look at). But there is no such article at The Times Online by their science editor, Mark Henderson. So I immediately emailed Stephen Lendman to find out what was going on. While I was waiting for my response, I actually read through the article and it hit me. This was an April Fools joke!


Here is the article reprinted in full:


GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit   The Times (UK), 1 April 2009. By Mark Henderson:  http://tiny.cc/7f45D  As the G20 meet and the world groans under the triple whammy of the food, fuel and financial crises, scientists have announced a remarkable breakthrough that they hope will make the agenda of the G20 leaders at their summit in London today.  A new genetically modified super maize is said to have the potential to not only ensure an unending era of cheap food but to make the world;s food supply far more nutritious, while providing low cost energy, reducing environmental degradation, and promoting sustainable agriculture.  The GM maize is the remarkable outcome of a project that has been kept under wraps for nearly a decade. The new super maize, which should begin field trials within the next two years, is also the result of an unusual alliance of all the major biotechnology companies. It is said to involve the most ambitious use of multi-stacked genes to date, and has already been dubbed ;a multi F-ing super food;, because of its ability to feed, fuel and fortify the world, while helping to undercut the financial crisis.  In a press release Hugh Grant, Monsanto;s CEO, commented, ;Not only do one in three people go to bed every night malnourished and not knowing where their next meal will come from, but many of us can barely afford to run our hummers. While not in anyway a silver bullet, this is a remarkable breakthrough in terms of putting plentiful ultra-nutritious food on the world;s table while eliminating environmental overload and petroleum dependence on often hostile foreign powers.;  Although exact details of the project and its timetable for delivery still remain sketchy for the moment, Prof. Pingo Detritus, who;s been heading up the international project, said, ;This breakthrough is of such monumental importance, that it;s vital that the G20 leaders now unite behind this inspirational global endeavour and start to remove all regulatory barriers to genetically modified crops. Critics of GM foods also need to abandon their doctrinaire fact-free opposition to this life-saving technology.;  A spokesperson for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington D.C. said, ;We don;t need regulation of our friends in the banking sector, and we don;t need regulation of a technology that can feed, fuel and heal the world. The G20 leaders need to recognise that GM, while not being the single answer to all our problems, is the solution to the world;s most pressing needs. It can also provide the kind of economic stimulus for the global economy that our members feel would be most appropriate.;


The line about a CEO not being able to afford to run his hummer was a clue, and ;a multi F-ing super food; bolsters the case. But Prof. ;Pingo Detritus; is a dead giveaway. A parody name for Ingo Potrykus, the man whose team developed Golden Rice ; it all fit together just in time for Lendman to email me back. He responded that this article was indeed the source of those quotes, and I quickly replied that he quoted a fake article written for April Fools, and asked him to comment.


Meanwhile, I looked up Mark Henderson;s email address and sent him a note asking if he wrote the joke post or had heard of it. I got a prompt response:


Thanks for this. I hadn;t seen it ; as you suspect, it was an April Fool, nothing to do with me or The Times. The tinyurl goes to GM Watch, which isn;t surprising really ; they;re not my biggest fans. It would be flattering if it were funny!


Stephen Lendman, not to be outsmarted by reality, sent me a short response defending the article as genuine:


no idea but Henderson and The Times are real and a trusted anti-GMO group sent me the article. I;ve read dozens of pro-GMO statements just like ones quoted. They;re all lies.


Yes, because the article has real names put at the top it  must be real  . I said I was in contact with Henderson and that he did not write the article, and I was interested in finding out who was the source of the joke, asking who sent it to him. In case he did not want to implicate one of his pals, I said he could forward my request to whomever sent it to him.


It was about this time that I finished eating my breakfast banana. Stephen Lendman, who was very fast at getting back to me with several emails has decided to ignore my emails since then. Still, I would not be happy myself if I based a conspiratorial argument on a marginally  funny  April Fools joke, but at least I would admit that it was fake and post corrections all over the place. His article, published only yesterday, has  already spread around the internet  . It is Lendman;s responsibility to correct the record.


I wonder who started the joke, a pro or anti-GE individual or organization? It sounds like an attempt to parody pro-GE sources to make them sound like anti-GE people hear them. Plus, calling Ingo Potrykus Prof. Detritus is a little telling. So I;m willing to wager that it was written by an anti-GE source. But this is what is funny about it ; the only people that seem to have been fooled by this joke were the anti-GE people themselves!


One blogger who doesn;t seem to inclined toward genetic engineering  already discovered the joke  .


This reminds me of an occasion several years ago, when an anti-abortion blogger mistook an article in The Onion about holding your first ;abortion party; as real. Chonicled at my blog,  The Inoculated Mind  , his mistake gathered thousands of hilarious snarks from commenters. His response was that he thought it was real because he has read stuff like it, and that pro-choice people really believe it. Not too different from the response I got from Mr. Lendman. I believe I have found his political polar opposite twin!


Due to the fact that this April Fools joke is misleading even their own crowd, I think GM Watch, GE Free Ireland, and others should make it clear that it was a fake article. Normally, an absurd article published on April 1st would do no harm, but it seems that at least one anti-genetic engineering writer is easily fooled.













Document Number: 8710 



 Life cycle analysis in animal agriculture 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 23 September 2008 


In  Reducing the environmental impact of farming  , I talked about Nathan Pelliter;s work on Agricultural Life Cycle Analysis as a way to evaluate which farming methods have the least environmental impact. While the ideas apply to any type of farming (or really to the production of anything), his main work is actually on animal agriculture.


The return on investment of most types of animal agriculture is small compared to that of plant agriculture. For example, cattle require about 6 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound of muscle. All of the water, fertilizer, and pesticides required to grow 1 pound of plant material is thus multiplied by 6 to produce 1 pound of beef. Granted, it isn;t quite that simple, as parts of plants that aren;t used for human food can be fed to animals, but the point holds, even in organic systems.  Demand for animal protein is increasing rapidly both in developed and developing countries. This means that the amount of land used to produce food for animals will also increase. Some lands that aren;t suitable for plant agriculture may be better put to use as pasture land, but those areas can not possibly supply per capita demand for meat ; more than 200 lbs per year per person in the US, according to the  USDA  (and that;s an average, theoretically factoring in the  3.2%  of vegetarian and vegan Americans). This image from the University of Arizona concerning the uses of the US corn crop is a little old, but is essentially still true (and the story is similar for soybeans).


Ironically, many people condemn corn ethanol as wasteful and environmentally damaging but continue to consume animal products that account for a far higher percentage of the US grain crop ; but that;s  another story  .


So, what are we to do? The planet would breathe a metaphorical (metaphysical?) sigh of relief if each person just ate lower on the food chain a few meals per week (see Nathan;s pictorial presentation  Calories in Context  ). We;ve been told to reduce meat consumption for our health and for the planet, but it seems like no one is listening. Nathan;s response to the environmental degradation associated with animal protein production is to use LCAs to find which types of animal agriculture provide the most return on investment. At his  seminar  at Iowa State, I asked how his results can be used to influence consumer habits. We talked about possible taxes based on environmental impact so that food prices reflect the actual price to the environment, but we;ll leave that to the economists.


Nathan, along with  Peter Tyedmers  , wrote about LCAs in  Biophysical accounting in aquaculture: insights from current practice and the need for methodological development  , which was part of the FAO Fisheries document  Comparative assessment of the environmental costs of aquaculture and other food production sectors  . One of the most striking tables in the paper was a ranking of foods ;by ratio of edible protein energy output to industrial energy inputs; on page 234. Intensive carp farming is by far the most efficient (when done properly, carp is even better than plants), while cultured shrimp grown in Thailand are by far the worst. Pastured beef is better than feedlot beef (barely), and industrial eggs are a terrible waste of inputs. See the full table at the end of this post.


Industrial energy inputs only tell part of the story, though, because they do not consider any negative outputs like waste or negative effects like spread of disease to wild populations. Ecological impact assessments also do not consider many effects. That;s why we need LCAs. According to the paper, LCAs frequently consider the following Impact Categories:


Impact Category  Description of Impacts    Global Warming  Contributes to atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation    Acidification  Contributes to acid deposition    Eutrophication  Provision of nutrients contributes to Biological Oxygen Demand    Photochemical  Oxidant Formation Contributes to photochemical smog    Aquatic/Terrestrial  Ecotoxicity Creates conditions toxic to aquatic or terrestrial flora and fauna    Human Toxicity  Creates conditions toxic to humans    Energy Use  Depletes non-renewable energy resources    Abiotic Resource Use  Depletes non-renewable resources    Biotic Resource Use  Depletes potential primary production    Ozone Depletion  Contributes to depletion of stratospheric ozone


Nathan and Peter have focused on salmon farming, which can greatly benefit from LCAs. Production of feed is the most energy intensive and environmentally damaging aspect of aquaculture (and all animal agriculture). Replacing conventionally grown plant based feed with organic had a little effect, but replacing animal based feed with plant based has a huge effect. Some might say that we should just eat wild salmon instead, but again, the problem is demand. Wild salmon would be extinct if we tried to supply the current demand with them exclusively.


All of the options are complex, but two lessons of LCAs stand firm ; reduce or eliminate synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (which can be done at least partially with genetic engineering), and decrease per capita meat consumption.


Food Type  technology, environment, locale  Protein Energy Output/Industrial Energy Input (percent)    Carp  extensive freshwater pond culture, various  100 ; 11    Herring  purse seining, North Atlantic  50-33    Vegetable Crops  various  50-33    Seaweed  marine culture, West Indies  50-25    Chicken  intensive, U.S.A.  25    Salmon  purse seine, gillnet, troll, NE Pacific  15 ; 7    Tilapia  extensive freshwater pond culture, Indonesia  13    Cod  trawl and longline, North Atlantic  10 ; 8    Mussel  marine longline culture, Scandinavia  10 ; 5    Turkey  intensive, U.S.A.  10    Carp  unspecified culture system, Israel  8.4    Wild caught seafood  all gears, marine waters, global average  8    Milk  U.S.A.  7.1    Swine  U.S.A.  7.1    Tilapia  freshwater unspecific culture system, Israel  6.6    Tilapia  freshwater pond culture, Zimbabwe  6    Shrimp  trawl, North Atlantic and Pacific  6.0  1.9    Beef  pasture-based, U.S.A.  5    Catfish  intensive freshwater pond culture, U.S.A.  3    Eggs  U.S.A.  2.5    Beef  feedlot, U.S.A.  2.5    Tilapia  intensive freshwater cage culture, Zimbabwe  2.5    Atlantic salmon  intensive marine net-pen culture, Canada  2.5    Shrimp  semi-intensive culture, Colombia  2    Chinook salmon  intensive marine net-pen culture, Canada  2    Lamb  U.S.A.  1.8    Seabass  intensive marine cage culture, Thailand  1.5    Shrimp  intensive culture, Thailand  1.4













Document Number: 3912 



 Local biotech 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 15 February 2010 


Farmers; Market in Jackson, Mississippi by NatalieMaynor via Flickr.


Visitors to Biofortified may notice some seemingly conflicting messages in our posts. The authors of this blog are generally proponents* of biotechnology. We are also often proponents of low-input high-genetic diversity farming, and proponents of local or regional food systems. How can that be? Well, we dont think these ideas are conflicting at all. We think biotech** goes hand in hand with sustainability. We;d like to someday see vendors at farmer;s markets proudly displaying the traits they use in their produce to benefit the environment and consumers.


There are many ways that biotech traits can help farmers reduce inputs and have more biodiversity on their farms, and ways to help food be more local. Two great examples are apples and tomatoes. Both of these are extremely popular fruits, are a healthy addition to any diet, and are eaten fresh as well as processed. Both can be grown in a variety of climates, but have a short growing season in most places, meaning that they are often shipped long distances before they get to consumers. There are a lot of specific traits that could be put into locally adapted varieties of apples and tomatoes to help make it easier to grow in a wider variety of places for a longer season, decrease pesticide use, and increase profit margins.


A recent example of an apple trait that could help small local farmers is scab resistance (learn more in  A Vf gene a day keeps the fungus away  ). If more traits like this were developed, they could be bred into many different varieties of apples and those apples could then be grown profitably in areas with sub-optimal growing conditions. This would allow for more local production of apples and encourage more genetic diversity of apples, based on what varieties best meet the needs of the farmers and consumers in each area.


Tomatoes have been in the news recently too, with a new biotech trait that keeps cell wall modifying enzymes from making the tomatoes all squishy (see  I say tomato;  and  You say tomato!  for more). At first glance, you might think this trait would only encourage shipping tomatoes long distances. While the trait could be used that way, it could also be used to keep tasty local tomatoes fresh long after the growing season is over, and might just give busy people time to clear their schedules for canning those tomatoes before they go bad.


How do we get there?


Breeding by small seed companies that specialize in locally adapted varieties as well as by farmers themselves is essential to keeping high amounts of crop genetic diversity on farms in developed and developing countries alike. Giving these breeders access to traits that will help enhance or protect their yields as well as traits that allow them to add value to their crops is essential to helping them compete with big seed companies that specialize in one-size-fits-all seed. That one-size-fits-all seed has been selected to do well in a variety of environments, and that does very well for most farmers, but it doesn;t give farmers or consumers many choices.


In order to allow for breeding, traits need to be licensed or released. Since corporations are legally bound to turn a profit, they cant afford to give their research away, except in certain cases (as in Monsanto;s pledge to provide drought tolerant maize royalty free, but this still doesn;t allow for breeding). The big companies do license their traits to smaller breeding companies, but leads to some questions about monopolies and such. What we need to balance private research is public research, such as what used to be done by the USDA and what is currently being done by the Indian  Ministry of Science and Technology  .


Unfortunately, negative public opinion about biotechnology has been a factor in shutting down public research in the US, as well as a willingness to let the private sector take over research. Based on the uproar of activists in India against Bt brinjal, and the subsequent caving of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh to fear mongering despite approval by all of the relevant Indian authorities, India may be on the way to reducing or eliminating public funding for research as well. That would leave India depending on only private companies for biotechnology, just as the US already left the grand majority of plant breeding and biotechnology to private companies. The best way to guarantee that traits will be developed that benefit the environment and the consumer (not just shareholders portfolios) is to encourage public research.


*We dont have any guest bloggers or regular bloggers who are opposed to biotechnology so far, but that doesnt mean we wouldnt welcome authors who are critical of biotech as long as they base their criticisms on evidence.


**Not every biotech trait, mind you. There certainly could be some traits that wouldn;t contribute to my vision of an ideal farming system, and some traits that wouldn;t be appropriate in any farming system. Traits must be taken individually, but as a whole, the technology is sound.













Document Number: 1135 



 The Locavore;s Dilemma 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 January 2011 


Pineapple by giniger via Flickr.


Two economics professors in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University have written an interesting piece about local food, titled  The Locavore;s Dilemma: Why Pineapples Shouldn;t Be Grown in North Dakota  .  Jayson L. Lusk  is Professor and Willard Sparks Endowed Chair of Agribusiness and  F. Bailey Norwood  is Associate Professor.


In short, the economists argue ;there is a tradeoff between providing a larger quantity of more-nutritious non-local foods and a smaller quantity of more-nutritious local foods;, particularly when it comes to school lunches. Individual consumers are free to make whatever shopping choices they wish, but, according to the authors, mandates for public spending on local food aren;t economically sounds and don;t actually provide benefits that promoters of local food say it has.


This is the most comprehensive article on the subject that I have read. Every time I thought ;but what about this; the next section covered it. I;m particularly glad they mentioned taste, which in my opinion is the most sound out of all the arguments for eating local.


Of course it would be lovely if everyone, no matter their income, had access to the most delicious foods. But is that really within the reach of the US government? I think the school lunch program has bigger issues to address.


To me, if the goal is to get schools to provide healthier food to children, there are far better ways to do it. Instead of spending more money to source local foods, spend that money on whole foods where ever they can be sourced from at the lowest costs. Instead of  prepackaged peanut butter and jelly and a fruit cup  , how about pb&amp;j on reasonably fresh bread and some fresh fruit? Even if not local, the cost will be higher than the prepackaged stuff, though. Let;s not boost the price even further by demanding that the fruit be from less than 100 miles away. School lunch programs don;t need the additional constraints.


Side note: Amusingly, I just had a discussion this morning about the word  dilemma  . It;s commonly used to mean that you have two choices, but the actual meaning is more like ;damned if you do, damned if you don;t;. A dilemma is a situation where a third choice is called for because neither of the options before you will result in something good. In this case, I don;t think dilemma really fits because fresh fruits and vegetables are good no matter where you get them from, but I suppose that;s just semantics. While on the topic of word choices, I also have to complain about using pineapples in North Dakota as an example. I don;t think even the silliest locavores would argue that growing foods in areas wildly out of their range is a good idea. That;s what happens when you try to write a catchy title, I suppose.


Thanks to  Amanda Sollman  for  retweeting  Chris Raines  ;s  tweet  about this article and letting me know about it!













Document Number: 2148 



 Logical Fallacies 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 14 September 2010 


In discussions about GMOs, both proponents and opponents make logical fallacies and claim that the other side is making logical fallacies. Sometimes arguments seem compelling even though they are based on faulty logic. In this post, you can find some common and not-so-common logical fallacies conveniently listed in alphabetical order.


Most of this post was written by Brian Dunning of the excellent podcast  Skeptoid  , who has generously given us permission to use his work here with some modification. The content can be found in its original form at  Skeptoid  , in the episodes  A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies ; Part 1  ,  A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies ; Part 2  , and  Some New Logical Fallacies  .


What is a fallacy and why are they used?


First, what is a logical fallacy? The  Wikipedia  definition is as good as any:


In  logic  and  rhetoric  , a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect  reasoning  in  argumentation  . By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g.  appeal to emotion  ), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g.  argument from authority  ). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.


A shorter definition for logical fallacy is provided by Brian: ;the use of rhetoric as a substitute for good evidence.;


Scientific arguments are won or lost by the scientific method. Either the data supports a claim or it does not. Sometimes, people who don;t have data to support their arguments will deliberately employ logical fallacies in an attempt to convince people that their claim is correct. Fallacies can also be accidentally employed when anyone mistakes compelling rhetoric for a sound argument.


Many of the fallacies listed here can be part of a legitimate discussion. The problem comes when we connect one of the fallacies to an unrelated claim. For example, stating a fact about a person is simply a fact. Only when we use that fact in an attempt to support or take down a claim does it become a fallacy.


This list contains many fallacies. Some are ;traditional; fallacies and some are new arrivals. Surely you have seen or even used some of them. Are we missing any fallacies? Let us know in the comments, and we;ll add them to the list. Know of any interesting examples of fallacies being used to discuss agriculture or biotechnology? Please share!


The take home message in this post is that, if you;re going to have a debate, stick with valid arguments. In a scientific debate, particularly, stick with the data. Don;t get caught using fallacies. Hopefully, familiarity with these devices will help you to identify them in conversation. And, when you point them out, you will strip your opponent of the tools on which he depends the most.


Ad Hominem


From the latin for ;to the person;, an ad hominem is an attack against the arguer rather than the argument. This doesn;t mean that you simply call the person a jerk; rather, it means that you use some weakness or characteristic of the arguer to imply a weakness of the argument.


Starling: ;I think Volvos are fine automobiles.;  Bombo: ;Of course you;d say that; you;re from Sweden.;


Starling;s Swedish heritage has nothing to do with the quality of Volvo automobiles, so Bombo;s is an attempt to change the subject and is an avoidance of the issue at hand. Bombo is trying to imply that Starling;s Swedish heritage biases, and thus invalidates, his statement. In fact, one thing has nothing to do with the other. Ad hominem arguments try to point out fault with the arguer, instead of with the argument.


Now, there are cases where it might be appropriate to consider the source of the information. If the authors of a study on plant biology are all physicists, or the author of a book about agriculture is actually a businessman, we might wonder if the person is familiar enough with the subject to design a valid study or to include all the relevant information in a book. If an article is written by or funded by persons who work for an organization with a known agenda we might have concerns about bias. We can then evaluate the work with a skeptical eye. Considering the source isn;t an ad hominem unless you throw out everything by the person simply because they are who they are.


Anecdotal Evidence


One of the most common ways to support claim is through the fallacious misuse of anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is information that cannot be tested scientifically, or that could be tested scientifically and has not. In practice this usually refers to personal testimonials and verbal reports. Anecdotal evidence often sounds compelling because it can be more personal and captivating than cold, uninteresting factual evidence.


Many people believe that their own experience trumps scientific evidence, and that merely relating that experience is sufficient to prove a given claim.


Starling: ;Every scientific test of magical energy bracelets shows that they have no effect whatsoever.;  Bombo: ;But they work for me, therefore I know for a fact they;re valid and that science is wrong.;


Is Bombo;s analysis of his own experience wrong? If it disagrees with well-performed controlled testing, then yes, he probably is wrong. Personal experiences are subject to influences, biases, preconceived notions, random variances, and are uncontrolled. Relating an anecdotal experience proves nothing.


Bombo: ;My cousin;s friend took zinc pills and it cured her cold.;  Starling: ;Perhaps the cold just went away by itself .;


Perhaps there is something to zinc pills, but without a randomized controlled study, we can;t know for sure. Anecdotal evidence is great for suggesting new directions in research, but by itself it is not evidence.


Anecdotal evidence is not completely useless. You could say ;We saw the Bigfoot corpse at this location;, and if that information helps with the recovery of an actual body, then the anecdotal evidence was of tremendous value. But, note that it;s the Bigfoot corpse itself that comprises scientific evidence, not the story of where it was seen.


When anecdotes are presented as evidence or in place of evidence, you have very good reason to be skeptical.


Appeal to Authority


This type of argument refers to a special authoritative source as validation for the claim being made. Every time you see an advertisement featuring someone wearing a white lab coat, or telling you what 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed said, you;re seeing an appeal to authority.


;Acupuncture is based on centuries-old Chinese knowledge.;  ;A growing number of scientists say that evolution is too improbable.;


These statements are true. They become a problem only when we use them to make a claim. For example:


;Acupuncture is based on centuries-old Chinese knowledge, therefore we know it works.;  ;A growing number of scientists say that evolution is too improbable, therefore we need to question evolution.;


An appeal to authority is the opposite of an ad hominem attack, because here we are referring to some positive characteristic of the source, such as its perceived authority, as support for the argument. But a good authority supports a position because that position has been shown to be otherwise justified or evidenced, not the other way around. If you say that scientists support Theory X, are those scientists claiming that Theory X is true because they believe it?


We often see people appealing to authority when they say things like:


This article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal says that people are getting fatter.;  ;This PhD scientist says that people are getting fatter.;


Being peer-reviewed or having a PhD is not the end-all-be-all. The more important question is whether a particular claim fits within the established body of literature for that subject. If it doesn;t fit, then more research is needed before we can come to any conclusions.


Similarly, if a person has an advanced degree, that does not automatically mean that anything they say is correct. No good scientist attaches significance to their own authority. Theory X needs to stand on its own; an appeal to authority does not provide any useful support.


Appeal to Dead Puppies


Sometimes tugging at the heartstrings with a tragic tale is enough to quash dissent. Who wants to take the side of whatever malevolent force might be associated with death and suffering?


Starling: ;Thank you, door-to-door solicitor, but I choose not to purchase your magazine subscription.;  Bombo: ;But then I;ll be forced to turn to drugs and gangs.;


The Appeal to Dead Puppies draws a pathetic, poignant picture in order to play on your emotions. Recognize it when you hear it, and keep your emotions separate from the facts.


Appeal to Hitler


This one is inspired by Godwin;s Law, in which Mike Godwin stated ;As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.; Ever since, such arguments have become known a  s the reductio ad Hitlerum  , or the Appeal to Hitler. It;s a garden variety ;guilt by association; charge, saying you;re wrong because Hitler may have thought or done something similar.


Bombo: ;You think illegal aliens should be deported? Sounds exactly like how the Nazis got started.;


Starling gives the common reply:


Starling: ;The Nazis also owned dogs and played with their children.;


For good measure, Bombo comes back with a ;straw man on a slippery slope; argument:


Bombo: ;Are you saying everything about the Nazis was perfect?;


Appeal to Ignorance


Argumentum ad ignorantiam  considers ignorance of something to be evidence that it does not exist. If I do not understand the mechanism of the Big Bang, that proves that there is no knowledge that supports it as a possibility and it therefore did not happen. Anything that is insufficiently explained or insufficiently understood is thus impossible.


Starling: ;It is amazing that life arose through the fortuitous formation of amino acids in the primordial goo.;  Bombo: ;A little too amazing. I can;t imagine how such a thing could happen; creationism is the only possibility.;


Using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence is a common appeal to ignorance. People who believe the Phoenix Lights could not have been simple flares generally don;t understand, or won;t listen to, the thorough evidence of that. Their glib layman;s understanding of what a flare might look like is inconsistent with their interpretation of the photographs, so they use an appeal to ignorance as proof that flares were not the cause.


Appeal to Lack of Authority


Authority has a reputation for being corrupt and inflexible, and this stereotype has been leveraged by some who assert that their own lack of authority somehow makes them a better authority.


Starling might say of the 9/11 attacks: ;Every reputable structural engineer understands how fire caused the Twin Towers to collapse.;  Bombo can reply: ;I;m not an expert in engineering or anything, I;m just a regular guy asking questions.;  Starling: ;We should listen to what the people who know what they;re talking about have to say.;  Bombo: ;Someone needs to stand up to these experts.;


The idea that not knowing what you;re talking about somehow makes you heroic or more reliable is incorrect. More likely, your lack of expertise simply makes you wrong.


Appeal to Quantum Physics


This is a form of special pleading, a scientific-sounding way of claiming that the way your magical product or service works is beyond the customer;s understanding; in this case, based on quantum physics. That sounds impressive, and who;s qualified to argue? Certainly not the average layperson.


Bombo: ;Quantum physics explains why pressure points on the sole of your foot correspond with other parts of your anatomy.;


Here;s a tip. If you see or hear the phrase ;quantum physics; mentioned in a context that is anything other than a scientific discussion of subatomic theory, raise your red flag. Someone is probably trying to hoodwink you by namedropping a science that they probably understand no better than your cat does.


Argument from Anomaly


This one is big with ghost hunters and UFO enthusiasts. Anything that;s anomalous, or otherwise not immediately, absolutely, positively, specifically identifiable, automatically becomes evidence of the paranormal claim.


Starling: ;We found a cold spot in the room with no apparent source.;  Bombo: ;That must be a ghost.;


Since the anomaly is, well, an anomaly, that means (by definition) that you can;t prove it was anything other than a ghost or a UFO or a leprechaun or whatever they want to say, not without well designed experiments. Since the skeptic can;t prove otherwise, the Argument from Anomaly is a perfect way to prove the existence of ghosts. Or, nearly perfect, I should say, because it;s not.


Of course, argument from anomaly doesn;t just work for UFOs and ghosts.


Starling: ;This researcher found hamsters that have strange pouches of hair growing in their mouths.;  Bombo: ;It must be due to GMOs.;


Bandwagon Fallacy


Also known as  argumentum ad populum  (appeal to the masses) or argument by consensus, the bandwagon fallacy states that if everyone else is doing it, so should you. If most people believe something or act a certain way, it must be correct.


;Everyone knows that O.J. Simpson was guilty; so he should be in jail.;  ;Over 700 scientists have signed Dissent from Darwin, so you should reconsider your belief in evolution.;


The bandwagon fallacy can also be used in reverse: If very few people believe something, then it can;t be true.


Starling: ;Firefly was a really cool show.;  Bombo: ;Are you kidding? Almost nobody watched it.;


Consider how many supernatural beliefs are firmly held by a majority of the world;s population, and the lameness of the bandwagon fallacy comes into pretty sharp focus. The majority might sometimes be right, but they;re hardly reliable.


Better Journal Fallacy


It;s common for purveyors of woo to trot out some worthless, credulous magazine that promotes their belief, and refer to it as a peer-reviewed scientific journal:


Starling: ;If telekinesis was real, you;d think there would be an article about it in the American Journal of Psychiatry.;  Bombo: ;That rag is part of the establishment conspiracy to suppress psi research. You need to turn to a reputable source like the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. It;s peer-reviewed.;


And so it is, but its reviewers are people who have failed to establish credibility for themselves, as have such journals themselves. There are actually metrics for these things.


The productivity and impact of individual researchers can be described by their Hirsch index (or h-index), which attempts to measure the number and quality of citations of their publications and research. The number of citations the studies in a journal receive is important because the citations indicate that the study is considered a good source by other researchers in the field. A journal;s reputation can also be shown by its  impact factor  , which measures approximately the same thing as the Hirsch index. Although these indexes are not perfect, you need not ever lose a ;my peer-reviewed scientific journal is better than yours; debate. Look up impact factors in the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports through  sciencewatch.com  .


Chemical Fallacy


Want to terrify people and frighten them away from some product or technology that you don;t like? Mention chemicals. Chemical farming, chemical medicines, chemical toxins. As scary as the word is, it;s almost meaningless, because everything is a chemical. Even happy flowers and kittens consist entirely of chemicals. It;s a weasel word, nothing more, and its use often indicates that its user was unable to find a cogent argument.


Cherry Picking Fallacy


This fallacy is related to the appeal to authority fallacy. Often we read blog posts and articles about a press release, report, or, less frequently, a peer-reviewed article, that go on to state that this individual report or study proves some broad point. The problem here is that there may be many other reports and studies that disprove that point. Occasionally, there is a major change in scientific understanding, but those are rare. Focusing on one report or study while ignoring the rest is a fallacy.


Confusion of Correlation and Causation


Closely related to post hoc, but a little bit different, is the confusion of correlation and causation. Post hoc assumptions do not necessarily include any correlation between the two observations. When there is a correlation, but still no valid causation, we have a more convincing confusion.


Starling: ;Chinese people eat a lot of rice.;  Bombo: ;Therefore the consumption of rice must cause black hair.;


Due to the nature of Chinese agriculture, there is indeed a worldwide correlation between rice consumption and hair color. This is a perfect example of how causation can be invalidly inferred from a simple correlation.


Excluded Middle


The excluded middle assumes that only one of two ridiculous extremes is possible, when in fact a much more moderate middle-of-the-road result is more likely and desirable. An example of an excluded middle would be an argument that either every possible creation story should be taught in schools, or none of them. These two possibilities sound frightening, and may persuade people to choose the lesser of two evils and allow religious creation stories to be taught alongside science. In fact, the much more reasonable excluded middle, which is to teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes, is not offered.


The excluded middle is formally called  reductio ad absurdum  , reduction to the absurd. Bertrand Russell famously illustrated how an absurd premise can be fallaciously used to support an argument:


Starling says: ;Given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope.;  Bombo replies: ;Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope.;


Just keep in mind that if your opponent is presuming extremes that are absurd, he is excluding the less absurd middle. Don;t fall for it.


Fallacy of the Consequent


Drawing invalid subset relationships in the wrong direction is called the fallacy of the consequent. Cancers are all considered diseases, but not all diseases are cancers. Stating that if you have a disease it must be cancer is a fallacy of the consequent.


Listen to how Bombo blames Starling;s failure to heal upon his failure to take one particular treatment, without regard for whether that treatment is a valid one for Starling;s particular condition:


Starling: ;I am dying of bubonic plague.;  Bombo: ;You did not drink enough wheatgrass juice.;


Even assuming that wheatgrass juice was a suitable treatment for anything, it would still not be a suitable treatment for everything, so Bombo;s suggestion that Starling;s illness is a fallacious consequence for his failure to drink wheatgrass juice.


Loaded Question


A loaded question is also known as the fallacy of multiple questions rolled into one, or plurium interrogationum. If I want to force you to answer one question in a certain way, I can roll that question up with another that offers you two choices, both of which require my desired answer to the first question. For example:


;Is this the first time you;ve killed anyone?;  ;Have you always doubted the truth of the Bible?;  ;Is it nice to never have to hassle with taking a shower?;


Any answer given forces you to give me the answer I was looking for: That you have killed someone, that you doubt the truth of the Bible, or that you don;t shower or bathe. Loaded questions should not be tolerated and certainly should never be answered.


Michael Jordan Fallacy


This one can be used to impugn the motives of anyone in the world, in an effort to prove they are driven by greed and don;t care about anyone else;s problems:


Bombo: ;Just think if Michael Jordan had used all his talents and wealth to feed third world children, rather than to play a sport.;


Of course, you can say this about anyone, famous or not:


Bombo: ;If your doctor really cared about people;s health, he;d sell everything he owned and become a charitable frontier doctor in Africa.;


In fact, for charitable efforts to exist, we need the Michael Jordans of the world playing basketball. Regular non-charitable activities, like your doctor;s business office, are what drives the economic machine that funds charity work. The world;s largest giver, the  Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation  , would not exist had a certain young man put his talents toward the  Peace Corps  instead of founding a profitable software giant.


Non-Sequitur


From the Latin for ;It does not follow;, a non-sequitur is an obvious and stupid attempt to justify one claim using an irrelevant premise. Non-sequiturs work by starting with a reasonable sounding premise that it;s hoped you will agree with, and attaching it (like a rider to a bill in Congress) to a conclusion that has nothing to do with it. The sentence is phrased in such a way to make it sound like you have to accept both or neither:


;Corporations are evil, thus acupuncture is good.;  ;The government is evil, thus UFOs are alien spacecraft.;  ;Allah is great, thus all Christians should be killed.;


When we do science, it takes more than simply connecting two phrases with the word ;thus; to draw a valid relationship. Thus, non-sequiturs are not valid devices to prove a point scientifically.


Observational Selection


Observational selection is the process of keeping the sample of data that agrees with your premise, and ignoring the sample of data that does not. Observational selection is the fallacy behind such phenomena as the Bible Code, psychic readings, the Global Consciousness Project, and faith healing. Observational selection is also a tool used by pollsters to produce desired survey results, by surveying only people who are predisposed to answer the poll the way the pollster wants.


Bombo: ;The face of Satan is clearly visible in the smoke billowing from the World Trade Center.;  Starling: ;And in one of the other 950,000 frames of film, the smoke looks like J. Edgar Hoover; in another, it looks like a Windows XP icon; and in another it looks like a map of Paris.;


Remember that one out of every million samples of anything is an incredible one-in-a-million rarity. This is a mere inevitability, but if observational selection compels you to ignore the other 999,999 samples, you;re very easily impressed.


Poisoning the Well


When you preface your comments by casually slipping in a derogatory adjective about your opponent or his position, you;re doing what;s called poisoning the well. A familiar example is the way Intelligent Design advocates poison the well by referring to evolution as Darwinism, as if it;s about devotion to one particular researcher. Or:


;And now, let;s hear the same old arguments about why we should believe UFOs come from outer space.;  ;Celebrity television psychic  Sylvia Browne  tells us in her new book.;


If you listen to Skeptoid, you know that Brian poisons the well all the time. It;s one of his favorite devices. But he does it obviously, for the entertainment value, and not as a serious attempt at argument.


Post hoc


Post hoc ergo propter hoc  means ;after this, therefore because of this;. This fallacy is similar to the confusion of correlation and causation. Post hoc arguments are often the parents of superstition.


;When I wear my lucky shirt, I do much better on tests.;  ;The incidence of allergies has risen after the introduction of GMOs into the food supply. Therefore, GMOs have caused the increase in allergies.;


Many things happen all the time. Choosing two practically at random does not make for a strong argument.


Proof by Lack of Evidence


This one is big in the conspiracy theory world: The lack of evidence that would support their conspiracy theory is due to the evil coverup. Thus, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is, in and of itself, evidence of the conspiracy.


Bombo: ;The passengers on Flight 93 were taken off the plane and executed by the government.;  Starling: ;But there;s no evidence of that.;  Bombo: ;Exactly. That;s how we know it for a fact.;


There are certainly things in the world that are true but for which no evidence exists, but these are in the minority. If you want to be right more often than not, stick with what we can actually learn. If instead your standard is that anything that can;t be disproven must therefore be true, like Russell;s Teapot, you;re one step away from delusional paranoia.


Proof by Mommy Instinct


Made famous by anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy, this one asserts that nobody understands health issues better than a mom. Mothers obviously have experience with childbirth and with raising children, but is there any reason to suspect they understand internal medicine (for example) better than educated doctors, many of whom are also mothers? Not so far as I am able to divine.


Remember that Mommy Instincts are no different than anecdotal experiences. They are driven by perception and presumption, not by science.


Proof by Verbosity


The practice of burying you with so much information and misinformation that you cannot possibly respond to it all is called proof by verbosity, or argumentum verbosium. To win a debate, I need not have any support for my position if I can simply throw so many things at you that you can;t respond to all of them.


This is the favorite device of conspiracy theorists. The sheer volume of random tidbits that they throw out there gives the impression of their position having been thoroughly researched and well supported by many pillars of evidence. Any given tidbit is probably a red herring, but since there are so many of them, it would be hopeless (and fruitless) to respond intelligently to each and every one of them. Thus the argument appears to be impregnable and bulletproof. It may not be possible to construct a cogent argument using proof by verbosity, but it is very easy to construct an irrefutable argument.


Proof by Victimization


Beware of claims from those lording their victimization over you. They may well have been victimized by something, be it an illness, a scam, even their own flawed interpretation of an experience. And in many cases, such a tragedy does give the victim insight that others wouldn;t have. But it doesn;t mean that person necessarily understands what happened or why it happened, and should not be taken as proof that they do.


Bombo: ;My neighbor;s wifi network gave me chronic fatigue.;  Starling: ;But that;s been disproven every time it;s been tested.;  Bombo: ;You don;t know what you;re talking about; it didn;t happen to you.;


Victimization does not anoint anyone with unassailable authority on their particular subject.


Red Herring


A red herring is a diversion inserted into an argument to distract attention away from the real point. Supposedly, dragging a smelly herring across the track of a hunted fox would save him from the dogs by diverting their attention away from the real quarry. Red herrings are a favorite device of those who argue conspiracy theories:


Starling: ;Man landed on the moon in 1969.;  Bombo: ;But don;t you think it;s strange that Werner von Braun went rock hunting in Antarctica only a few years before?;   Starling: ;9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.;  Bombo: ;But don;t you think it;s strange that Dick Cheney had business contacts in the middle east?;


Red herrings are fallacious because they do not address the point under discussion, they merely distract from it; but in doing so, they give the impression that the true cause lies elsewhere. The wrongful use of red herrings as a substitute for evidence is rampant, absolutely rampant, in conspiracy theory arguments.


Slippery Slope


A slippery slope argument presumes that some change will inevitably result in extreme exaggerated consequences. If I give you a cookie now, you;ll expect a cookie every five minutes, so I shouldn;t give you a cookie.


Starling: ;It should be illegal to sell alternative therapies that don;t work.;  Bombo: ;If that happened, any minority group could make it illegal to sell anything they don;t happen to like.;


No matter what Starling suggests, multiplying it by ten or a hundred is probably a poor proposition. Bombo can use a slippery slope argument to exaggerate any suggestion Starling makes into a recipe for disaster.


The slippery slope is probably the most common subset of the larger fallacy, argument from adverse consequences, which is the practice of inventing almost any dire consequences to your opponent;s argument:


Starling: ;They should remove ;Under God; from the Pledge of Allegiance.;  Bombo: ;If that happened, all hell would break loose. Students would have sex in the hallways, school shootings would skyrocket, and we would become a nation of Satan worshippers.;


Special Pleading


An argument by special pleading states that the justification for some claim is on a higher level of knowledge than your opponent can comprehend, and thus he is not qualified to argue against it. The most common case of special pleading refers to God;s will, stating that we are not qualified to understand his reasons for doing whatever he does. Special pleadings grant a sort of get-out-of-jail-free exemption to whatever higher power lies behind a claim:


Starling: ;Homeopathy should be tested with clinical trials.;  Bombo: ;Clinical trials are not adequate to test the true nature of homeopathy.;


No matter what Starling says, Bombo can claim that there is knowledge outside of Starling;s experience or at a level that Starling cannot comprehend, and the argument is therefore ended. Bombo might also point out that Starling lacks some professional qualification to discuss the topic, thus placing the topic out of Starling;s reach.


Bombo: ;You;re not a trained homeopath, so you shouldn;t be expected to understand it.;


A special pleading makes no attempt to address the opponent;s point, it is just another diversionary tactic.


Statistics of Small Numbers


You really have to take a statistics class to understand statistics, and I think the part that would surprise most people is the stuff about sample sizes. Given a population of a certain size, how many people do you have to survey before your results are meaningful? I took half of a statistics class once and learned just enough to realize that practically every online poll you see on the web, or survey you hear on the news or read about in the newspaper, is mathematically worthless.


But it extends much deeper than surveys. Drawing conclusions from data sets that are too small to be meaningful is common in pseudoscience. Listen to Bombo make a couple of bad conclusions from invalid sample sizes:


;I just threw double sixes. These dice are hot.;  ;My neighbor;s a Mormon and he drinks wine, so I guess most Mormons don;t really follow the no-alcohol tradition.;  ;I went to a chiropractor and I feel better, so chiropractic does work after all.;


Straw Man Argument


This fallacy is the most common and also one of the easiest to spot. This is where you state your position, and your opponent replies not to what you said, but to an exaggerated and distorted caricature of what you said that;s obviously harder to defend.


Starling says: ;People who commit minor offenses should be let out of jail sooner.;  Bombo replies: ;Emptying out all the jails would create havoc in society.;


Well, maybe Bombo;s right, but that;s not relevant, because ;emptying the jails; is not what Starling advocated. In fact Bombo did not refute Starling;s point at all  he invented a different point that was easier to argue against. He created a straw man  one of those dummies stuffed with straw that soldiers use for bayonet practice. It;s too weak to fight back. And Bombo can then take satisfaction in having made a point that no reasonable person would argue with, and he appears to have successfully defeated Starling;s argument, when in fact he dodged it.


Weasel Words


Giving a controversial concept like creationism a new, more palatable name like Intelligent Design is what;s called the use of weasel words. Calling 9/11 conspiracies ;9/11 Truth; is a weasel word; their movement is more interested in unlikely conspiracies than with truth, yet they give it a name that claims that;s what it;s all about.


Weasel words are a favorite of politicians. Witness the names of government programs that mean essentially the opposite of what they;re named: the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Affirmative Action. By the way certain programs are named, it sounds like it would virtually be criminal to disagree with them.


Weasel words can also refer to sneaky wording in a sentence, like ;It has been determined;, or ;It is obvious that;, suggesting that some claim has support without actually indicating anything about the nature of such support.













Document Number: 9540 



 Long dialogue between stakeholders about genetically modified wheat starts in Australia 


 by  David Tribe  on 7 December 2010 


GM wheat  step by step


Agrifood Awareness Australia.  Media Release Dec 8th 2010


International grains industry leaders are building-up their consideration of the market and trade requirements that will underpin the commercialisation of GM wheat.  In parallel to the global R&amp;D program to deliver valued GM wheat varieties  including significant work in Australia  the grains industry;s supply chain-wide assessment process is underway.  A key step is the release at this week;s International Grains Forum in Perth, WA, of the document `GM wheat  a seven to ten year program of consultation and collaboration;, prepared by Agrifood Awareness Australia Executive Director, Paula Fitzgerald.  ;We have time on our side and are taking a long-term view as it is accepted fact that GM wheat is at least seven years away from commercialisation. The document outlines the series of actions that will occur in the years ahead and has been endorsed by a range a key Australian grains industry stakeholders.;


Keith Perrett, GRDC Chairman says the case for GM wheat R&amp;D is compelling:


It;s an accepted fact that the global human population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 and farmers will have to produce more food from finite land and water resources.  Australian farmers will have a key role, as while we produce just 3% of the global wheat harvest each year, it accounts for near 15% of the global wheat trade.  Importantly, wheat is the second largest food crop after corn, yet for the last decade or so, wheat plantings have declined. One reason for this is that wheat productivity and profitability growth lags behind corn, soybean, cotton and canola crops where modern plant science techniques have been utilised to significantly improve their performance.


Dr Bruce Lee, Director, CSIRO Food Futures National Research Flagship says the use of modern gene technology in wheat breeding is an extension of historical variety adaptation and development:


Bread wheat as we know it today is genetically complex and has been derived from a combination of primitive wheats. Under the guiding hand of farmers over the last 10,000 years, several different species of grasses mingled, cross-bred and hybridised to form a genetically diverse and flexible plant that we can continue to work with for our benefit. We can use modern GM technology to accelerate adaptive improvements, to help improve yields, sustain farming in marginal areas, overcome production adversities and improve the nutritional value of our food. In turn, all this can help to address food security and achieve healthier and more stable communities and populations.


In acknowledgment of this scenario, Australia joined Canada and the United States of America to launch a GM Wheat Trilateral Statement in 2009. This statement:   recognised the importance of GM wheat research and development, and  noted that the three countries would work together to address market and trade considerations, prior to GM wheat being commercialised, to ensure that new crops are commercialised responsibly and provide choice for farmers, the broader agriculture industry, customers and importantly, consumers.


Accordingly, Ms Fitzgerald says over the years ahead, the Australian grains industry will work with domestic and international colleagues to examine and understand customer requirements for GM wheat, which will require regulatory approval in Australia and in export markets.


;Australia has successfully grown GM cotton since 1996 and GM canola since 2008. The Australian agriculture sector will utilise this experience and build on its capacity and expertise in science and global trade to ensure the successful introduction of GM wheat in a timely and responsible manner,; she says.


GM wheat  fast facts:   GM wheat is at least seven years away from commercialisation.  Approved field trials of some GM wheat varieties are now underway to assess the plants; agronomic performance and characteristics.  GM wheat will undergo stringent scientific assessment to ensure its safety for human health and the environment as part of the approval process by specialist regulatory authorities.  The development of GM wheat varieties is a global collaborative effort involving scientists from both public and private sectors using proven technology.  A recent survey in the USA showed strong support for GM wheat with almost three quarters of respondents indicating they would purchase products made with GM wheat, if the wheat was produced to use less water, land and/or pesticides.


Futher notes:  The ;GM wheat  a seven year program of consultation and collaboration; brochure is available at:  www.afaa.com.au  The Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia are co-hosting an International Grains Forum as part of the 32nd session of the International Grains Council in Perth, on 7-9 December 2010. The forum, to be held on 8 December, will address the theme `Grains supplies and global food security; See:  http://agvivo.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2010/10/International-Grains-Forum-2010-brochure  .  The GM Wheat Trilateral Statement, launched in May 2009, can be seen at:  http://www.afaa.com.au/news/newspdf057FINALTrilateralBiotechStatement.pdf  Further information:  David Dawson, Cox Inall Communications, 02 8204 3857 or 0428 782 266.













Document Number: 4713 



 Climate Change and the Importance of Maintenance Breeding 


 by  Matt DiLeo  on 14 November 2010 


IR8 or &quot;Miracle rice&quot; cannot keep up with environmental change according to a scientific paper by scientists including Dr. Shaobing Peng from IRRI. Image from Philippine Information Agency article &quot;Miracle rice&quot; finding proves we can never stop rice breeding, by the International Rice Research Institute.


Variety IR8 is the original ;  Miracle rice  ; of the 1960s. This carefully-crafted variety has a stunted, semi-dwarf phenotype, which increases it;s harvest index (the proportion of grain biomass to total biomass), and allows it to resist lodging (falling over into the mud), even when heavily fertilized. As with wheat, the creation of dwarf varieties of rice played a major role in the enormous yield gains of the Green Revolution.


But now it;s in trouble!


IR8 originally produced yields of 9.5-10.5 tons per acre (twice the contemporary average), but recently it;s been down to 7. The question is: did the genetic makeup of IR8 drift over time or has something in our environment changed? Some researchers tested this by growing out 30 year old stored IR8 seed from the International Rice Gene Bank and comparing it to its own great-great-great-grandchildren. As far as they could tell, the modern accessions of IR8 that have been self-pollinated for 30 years were identical to the original stock of IR8, but they both produced low yields (15% less than other modern rice varieties). Somehow IR8 is no longer as well adapted to its environment!


So how did the environment change?


The authors state that it could be due to air pollution, differences in modern agronomic techniques or climate change, but regardless of the cause it;s a real-life demonstration of the need to continue breeding efforts even when there are great breakthroughs (and another good reason to support gene banks).


And climate change could make it a lot worse;


A second study collected microclimate and yield data from intensively-managed rice fields in 6 major rice growing countries in tropical and subtropical Asia. The authors found that both temperature and solar radiation had significant impacts on the vegetative and ripening phases of rice growth (though the impacts were different at different growth stages). Specifically, they found that high  minimum  temperatures reduced yield while high  maximum  temperatures increased it (plant physiology is complex!). The key here is that rice plants benefit from hot, sunny days and relatively cool nights. With sufficiently hot days though, yield is again depressed ; suggesting that rice breeders have some work to do just to maintain current yields in a warming climate.


And they certainly have their work cut out for them.


A new  report  shows that climate change may be hitting the rice-growing regions of Southeast Asia especially hard (  h/t  ). The blue areas in the poster indicate regions that are most environmentally, socially and politically vulnerable to the predicted changes. Of course the U.S. is bright green, but you;ll notice Europe is not quite so.


I was chatting with one of my boss; Dutch neighbors the other day and he told me that a big reason Europeans have accepted climate change so much faster than Americans is because they;ve been subject to more obvious weather changes over the past generation (  e.g.  failing ski resorts and all that recent flooding). I;m sure it doesn;t hurt to have deep, extremely local cultural histories either.


It;s funny how much humans respond to anecdotes and intuition.


h/t:  Plant Breeding News


Peng, S., Huang, J., Cassman, K., Laza, R., Visperas, R., &amp; Khush, G. (2010). The importance of maintenance breeding: A case study of the first miracle rice variety-IR8  Field Crops Research, 119  (2-3), 342-347 DOI:  10.1016/j.fcr.2010.08.003


Welch, J., Vincent, J., Auffhammer, M., Moya, P., Dobermann, A., &amp; Dawe, D. (2010). From the Cover: Rice yields in tropical/subtropical Asia exhibit large but opposing sensitivities to minimum and maximum temperatures  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107  (33), 14562-14567 DOI:  10.1073/pnas.1001222107













Document Number: 4735 



 Major suspects for bee colony collapse disorder ;namely insect viruses; are widespread among pollinating insects in general 


 by  David Tribe  on 23 December 2010 


GMOs have been blamed by anti-GM activists for bee colony collapse disorder. But there are other likely explanations for bee colony losses ; including viruses that affect insects, and which spread in pollen. Consider this news on the topic:


Public release date: 22-Dec-2010  Public Library of Science  Movement and threat of RNA viruses widespread in pollinator community


Penn State researchers have found that native pollinators, like wild bees and wasps, are infected by the same viral diseases as honey bees and that these viruses are transmitted via pollen. Their research  published on December 22nd in PLoS ONE  , an online open-access journal for the communication of all peer-reviewed scientific and medical research.


This multi-institutional study provides new insights into viral infections in native pollinators, suggesting that viral diseases may be key factors impacting pollinator populations.


According to Diana Cox-Foster, co-author and professor of entomology at Penn State, pollinator populations have declined for various reasons, including ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses, which are emerging as a serious threat. ;RNA viruses are suspected as major contributors to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD ), where honey bee colonies die with few or no bees left in the hives. Recent detection of these viral species in bumble bees and other native pollinators indicates a possible wider environmental spread of these viruses with potential broader impact,; explains Cox-Foster.


The researchers studied viral distributions from pollen pellets of honey bees and other pollinators collected from flowering plants in Pennsylvania, New York, and Illinois in the United States. ;For the first time, RNA viruses such as deformed wing virus, sacbrood virus and black queen cell virus were detected in pollen pellets collected directly from forager bees,; said Cox-Foster. ;Pollen pellets from several uninfected forager bees were detected with virus, indicating that pollen itself may harbor viruses. The viruses in the pollen and honey stored in the hive were demonstrated to be infective, with the queen becoming infected and laying infected eggs after these virus-contaminated foods were given to virus-free colonies.;


The detection of RNA viruses in other pollinators, including bumble bees, solitary bees and wasps, suggests that viruses might have a deeper impact on ecosystem health , given that these pollinators are essential to most plants for seed set and production of fruits, nuts, berries, and vegetables. The findings are important to the public and scientific community worldwide, given pollinators; role in agriculture and the environment and recent declines in native pollinators. The findings also raise biosecurity issues because pollen is currently being imported into many countries to feed honey bees used in agricultural pollination.


###  Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Funding: Funding for this study was provided by Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (www.agriculture.state.pa.us) (grant ME 446716 awarded to DCF and NO), Hatch funds from the Experiment Station, Pennsylvania State University (research.cas.psu.edu) (awarded to ER and RS), Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP) USAID Cooperative agreement No. EPP-A-00-04-00016-00 (www.oired.vt.edu/ipmcrsp) (awarded to ER), and a honey bee health improvement project grant from North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC; www.nappc.org) awarded to RS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Contacts:


Kristie Auman-Bauer  PA IPM Program  (814) 865-2839  kma147@psu.edu


Jen Laloup  Public Library of Science  jlaloup@plos.org  415-624-1220


Citation: Singh R, Levitt AL, Rajotte EG, Holmes EC, Ostiguy N, et al. (2010) RNA Viruses in Hymenopteran Pollinators: Evidence of Inter-Taxa Virus Transmission via Pollen and Potential Impact on Non-Apis Hymenopteran Species. PLoS ONE 5(12): e14357. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014357


Free scientific article access via this link


http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014357













Document Number: 8488 



 Malicious pollen? Malicious genes? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 4 January 2011 


Does this little lady look like a malicious gene carrier to you? Image of a European honey bee carrying pollen in a pollen basket back to the hive via Wikipedia.


In my last post,  Co-existence isn;t easy  , I discussed some ways that a conventional farmer might accidentally make life difficult for an organic farmer. Some people might not believe it, but  gene flow aka ;contamination;  can happen regardless of organic status. Organic plants could even screw up genetically engineered plants if pollen goes where it isn;t intended.


One example is in plants that are genetically engineered to silence an unwanted protein. Peanuts or wheat could be (and have been ;  peanuts  ,  wheat  ; though they are not yet on the market) engineered to eliminate allergenic proteins from those crops. Any genetic contamination from ;regular; peanuts or wheat could be very problematic because it would re-introduce those allergenic proteins. Someone prone to hyperbole might even call those genes ;malicious; because they would be turning an otherwise safe food into a dangerous food for those who are allergic.


Mandarin orange on the tree. Image by Wikipedia.


Another example, one that;s happening right now, is Mandarin oranges in California (thanks to  Karl  for bringing this up). No GMOs necessary ; the case here is regular old seedless Mandarin oranges. Farmers growing seedless Mandarins can command a higher price for their produce than if they had seeds. However, any stray citrus pollen carried by bees onto the Mandarin flowers can cause seeds to be created in those tasty little fruits. Farmers who are the ;victims; of the ;malicious; stray pollen can be adversely affected financially.


According to  Kim Flottum at the Daily Green  , there;s a lot of competing interests here. Who are we going to root for? Seeded citrus farmers? Bee keepers? Seedless citrus farmers?


Do the seedless citrus farmers have a right to demand that the bee keepers knock it off, to the detriment of the bee keepers and seeded citrus and almond farmers? My gut reaction is no. The California legislature seemed to be leaning towards yes, at least in 2009 in their  Chapter 3. Seedless Mandarin And Honeybee Coexistence Working Group Act  (see  non-legalese explanation  by Serge Labesque of the Sonoma County Gazette). I haven;t been able to find the updated legislation. Can you?


In my current total lack of legal or regulatory experience I;m generally of the opinion that farmers who need special conditions to meet a voluntary goal should take special precautions to ensure they will meet that goal, within reason. And their neighbors have an obligation to not trespass on their neighbor;s property within reason which might include their pollen, and maybe includes their bees.


So, in an ideal situation, a seedless Mandarin farmer to-be would separate their intended seedless Mandarin trees from their neighbors by distance and with plants that aren;t attractive to bees (maybe even plants that are repulsive to bees if any exist). They;d communicate their goals to their neighbors who would respond by moving their beehives away from the property line. Would this always work? No. Would it sometimes end up in a lawsuit or at least in small claims court? Probably. I;ll leave it up to someone with more expertise to discuss who should pay damages and such.


The case of seedless Mandarin oranges has obvious parallels to other farming situations. For example, does an organic farmer have the right to demand that none of their neighbors for miles and miles grow any transgenic varieties to avoid having a handful of flowers pollinated with transgenic pollen which might cause them to loose a special  Non-GMO  certification (or a  zero-tolerance Australian organic certification  )? What about the rights of the other farmers to grow approved transgenic crops if they so choose?


Farming is complicated, never black and white. Can you think of other examples of ;malicious; pollen or genes? I hope you;ll share!













Document Number: 77 



 Managing the risks of GM salmon 


 by  David Tribe  on 15 October 2010 


Risk Assessment and Mitigation of AquAdvantage Salmon  Anastasia Bodnar  Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc. has recently applied for deregulation of their AquAdvantage salmon-salmon that have been genetically engineered to grow faster than wild-type salmon. The salmon have the potential benefit of providing high-quality animal protein without putting additional pressure on declining wild fish stocks.


However, these salmon present some potential risks that warrant examination. First, effects on the health and welfare of the animals must be determined. Second, if genetically engineered salmon were to escape and become established in the wild, native salmon populations or other aspects of the ecosystem could be adversely affected. Third, this genetically engineered trait or some part of the development or rearing process might have health consequences for consumers. These risks must be fully addressed before deregulation can be considered.


ISB News Report  Published by Information Systems for Biotechnology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA













Document Number: 9670 



 Massive wheat genetic code cracked at last. 


 by  David Tribe  on 28 August 2010 


Scientists: We;ve Cracked Wheat;s Genetic Code


- Raphael G. Satter, The Associated Press, August 27, 2010


AAP have annouced that British scientists have decoded the genetic sequence of wheat ; one of the world;s oldest and most important crops ; a development they hope could help the global staple meet the challenges of climate change, disease and population growth.


It mentions that wheat is grown across more of the world;s farmland than any other cereal, and researchers said Friday they;re posting its genetic code to the Internet in the hope that farmers can use it as a tool to improve their harvests. One academic in the field called the discovery ;a landmark.; ;The wheat genome is the holy grail of plant genomes,; said Nick Talbot, a professor of biosciences at the University of Exeter who wasn;t involved in the research. ;It;s going to really revolutionize how we breed it.;;


It reports that Alexander Evans, an expert in resource scarcity issues at New York University, welcomed the announcement as something that would ;very helpful; in getting farmers to grow ;food that will meet those challenges.;


But, as one British paper hailed the announcement as the most significant breakthrough in wheat farming for 10,000 years, Evans warned against putting too much faith in genetics, saying that reforming the politics and economics of food distribution was easily as important. ;We have to be very careful about saying that science will feed the world,; he said.













Document Number: 7652 



 Mendels Garden: Frankenpeople! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 11 March 2009 


Welcome to the 29th edition of Mendel;s Garden, the monthly one-stop-shop for the best the blogosphere has on Genetics. I have hosted the Garden a couple times before on my personal blog, but this month we find ourselves on Biofortified. This is a group blog on plant genetics and genetic engineering, to try to sprinkle a little fertilizer on the discussion of the majority of the eukaryotic biomass on this planet ; plants! And we;ve got some plant genetics-based blog posts to talk about, but the theme for this edition is FRANKENPEOPLE!


Yes, human genetics has been up in the news lately, and there is no shortage of blog posts discussing it.


We begin with Josh Witten at the Rugbyologist, who  discusses the uncanny genetics of the X-Men  . Wrestling with mutation rates and variable mutant powers, Josh settles on the weirdness of the claim that the mutant gene is inherited from the father ; wait, if it is on the Y-Chromosome, how come there are female mutants? Perhaps the X-gene is not a mutant gene per se, but an  epimutant  that is the result of a change in paternal gene imprinting?


Changes in gene expression are becoming more and more important these days, as our tools to study them are improving.  Eliza Strickland at the 80beats Discover Blog  talks about the long-lasting effects of child abuse on the genome. We must learn from the rats and lick our offspring more; no wait, maybe treat them well in our own  human  fashion to prevent epigenetic changes that could make them depressed down the road!


Speaking of tools improving, the cost of whole-genome sequencing is coming down. FuturePundit Randall Parker  wonders whether we will see $100 personal genome sequencing by 2014  ? I don;t know about you, but I;d rather pay the extra 50 bucks to get  both halves  of my genome sequenced when I do. Screw this haploid genome stuff ; I;m a heterozygote!


Genome sequencing will be very fascinating at least for what it will tell us about our geneology. Erin at The Spittoon  describes how mitochondrial DNA  was used to confirm the identity of two ;missing; Romanovs. Also up at The Spittoon is a discussion of how some tiny changes in a gene, FOXO3A h  ave been associated with longevity  . Now those are some SNiPs that I hope I have in my genome!


This edition of the Garden comes on the heels of Barack Obama;s momentous lifting of the embryonic stem cell research ban in the US. So to get ourselves ready for the influx of stem cell research coming our way, Chris Patil primes us with some research on the  function of telomerases  ; we;ll reprogram our cells yet!


The Pope Wears Prada


Next, there;s a rising trend in discussion of so-called ;Designer Babies,; which isn;t quite the GATTACA-storyline bioethics issue, but touches pretty close to it. Can prospective parents pre-screen embryos for genetic diseases prior to implantation? On one hand, you have the issue of choosing the genetics of your offpsring on a [possibly mistaken] whim, and on the other hand you have the possibility of prevent kids with inborn genetic diseases from being born. Well, Pope Benedict, seen here sporting his ;Pagan; ruby slippers, chimed in against the very concept of screening embryos, calling it ;Genetic Discrimination.;


As the American Freethought blog astutely points out, apparently  genetic discrimination is wrong ; except for priests  . Genetic discrimination against the human XX karyotype is alive and well in the catholic church.


Finally in our human genetic section, Abbie Smith aka ERV says that a gene called ERV9 beat Jesus to the punch by resurrecting a dead gene long before humans split from our ape cousins. Read  ERVs=Jesus: Bringing dead genes back to life  .


To make the segue from humans to plants for us we no one else to thank than the FrankenSenator from Arizona, John McCain. Sidestepping email entirely, he;s taken to twittering what he sees as pork-barrel projects that he finds puzzling. That;s a low bar to start with, which is why many are pointing out the strange preponderance of scientific research in his list of ;pork.; Well Grace Ibay at Genetics and Health has  assembled a short list of his tweets on genetics and science  , and reveals that he really doesn;t know what all of it is for.


Here;s the best one:


$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass ; I thought switchgrass genes were pretty good already, guess I was wrong.


Haha, yeah.  You are  . In case any of you are curious what kinds of genetic improvements are being worked in in switchgrass, I just happen to have a video I produced about switchgrass breeding. Why don;t you cool your mind for a moment on the effort to combine Upland and Lowland prarie grasses?


Does that make you feel like becoming a plant breeder? I hope so, that;s why I;m making them. To view a higher resolution version of this video, or to see the other ones I have produced in this series, visit the  UW;s Plant Breeding and Plant Genetics website  . I just showcased the newest video on  How to Breed Cucurbits  here on Biofortified.


I have a couple posts from the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog. Luigi  announces  the start of a new plant breeding journal. Submit away, it;s also Open Access! And he also put up a post about a fascinating piece of news (which will get attention soon here on Biofortified): The Hawaii legislature is considering banning genetically engineered Hawaiian Taro because it ;changes the basic structure; of the Taro plant. Well if that;s actually in the proposed legislation, then what will that do considering that plant breeding changes the structure of Hawaiian Taro? Read  Making Breeding Illegal  and join [us] in the discussion.


And Jeremy blogged about Darwin;s Birthday, on the subject of  Beans and Selection  . Check it out, and click through to Darwin Online, too!


Greg Laden also wrote about Chuck for his birthday, and wondered  Why didn;t Darwin Discover Mendel;s laws  ? He also seems to have voted for Al Franken, by the look of his posts on politics. Another FrankenPerson!


Here on Biofortified, we have a few plant-related posts you might be interested in. First, I did some legwork and found out that some anti-GE activists have been  promoting some false claims about Obama;s plans  in the White House.


Pam Ronald writes about GE crops on the big island of Hawaii following her trip to the same place in  Big Island Transgenics  . On her own blog, she also posted a time-lapse video of her work with flood-tolerant rice in  The Power of Genetics  .


Pam;s husband and co-author Raoul Adamchak wrote a  guest post  about the necessity of allowing university scientists to do research on GE crops. Scroll to the bottom ; Monsanto even reads this blog!


And my friend Melinda Markham enlightens us with a guest post on the first successful attempt to engineer a vaccine against tetanus into plants. I think it;s ironic that  tobacco  can now be used to  make people healthier!  Read  Breeding Tetanus Vaccines into Plants  .


Let;s end with something funny, and something pretty. Andrew at the Southern Fried Scientist talks about the need to give genes meaningful names. What;s wrong with Hedgehog and Sonic the Hedgehog? Okay maybe you;ve got a point about ;I;m not Dead Yet.; Check out  the End of the Cheap Date  for a little laugh at crazy Drosophila names and a little realism about genic nomenclature.


Finally, the Myrmecos Blog posts a picture of bees in the shape of DNA that was unfortunately rejected by a journal publisher, but take heart! We don;t care that the picture was the wrong dimensions ; you got the DNA coiling the right way so  you deserve a little buzz  .


Bumblebee DNA


That;s all for this edition of Mendel;s Garden, thanks everyone for taking the time to read. Do check back here soon, because both  Anastasia  and I will be attending the Maize Genetics Conference starting tomorrow and we;ll have some deliciously corny stuff for everyone!


And it appears that no one has claimed the  next Mendel;s Garden  ;  now;s your chance  !


Podcast:  Play in new window  |  Download













Document Number: 357 



 Merry Frankmas! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 28 December 2009 


Franky the Snowmaize was a jolly happy soul,  With a corncob nose and icicle hair  And two eyes made out of snow.  Franky the Snowmaize is a fairy tale, they say,  He was made to grow and the farmers  Know how he came to life one day.  There must have been some transgenes in that  Ear of corn they found.  For when they placed it on his face  He began to dance around.  O, Franky the Snowmaize  Was the same as he could be,  And the FDA says he could be in  Food today ; equivalent substantially.


Thumpetty thump thump,  Thumpety thump thump,  Look at Franky grow.  Thumpetty thump thump,  Thumpety thump thump,  In all the farmers rows.


Franky the Snowmaize knew  That Greenpeace was out that day,  So he said ;Let;s run and  We;ll have some fun  Now before I;m plucked away.;  Down from the city,  With pitchforks in their hands,  Running here and there  Carving circles in his hair saying  Donate if you can.  He led them down the streets of town  Right to U.S.D.A.  And he only paused a moment when  He heard a judge say ;Political Hay!;  Though Franky the Snowmaize  Eliminates some sprays,  But he waved goodbye saying,  ;Don;t you cry,  I will grow again someday.;


Thumpetty thump thump,  Thumpety thump thump,  Look at Franky grow.  Thumpetty thump thump,  Thumpety thump thump,  In all the farmer;s rows!


Merry Frankmas and a Happy New Year!













Document Number: 4115 



 Michelle Obama digs up the White House lawn 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 24 March 2009 


The Obamas have started planting their garden  with 55 varieties of vegetables   from a wish list of the kitchen staff  grown from organic seedlings started at the Executive Mansions greenhouses.


;The Obamas will feed their love of Mexican food with cilantro, tomatillos and hot peppers. Lettuces will include red romaine, green oak leaf, butterhead, red leaf and galactic. There will be spinach, chard, collards and black kale. For desserts, there will be a patch of berries. And herbs will include some more unusual varieties, like anise hyssop and Thai basil;. A White House carpenter, Charlie Brandts, who is a beekeeper, will tend two hives for honey.


If we all dug up our lawns, planted 55 kinds of vegetables and tended it very carefully, the world would be a better place. That said, who has time? Certainly not the Obamas. The White House grounds crew and the kitchen staff will do most of the work.


Still, I love the symbolism of it, and though it will be costly (vegetables harvested from showcase gardens such as the Obamas; are much more expensive than produce from an organic commercial farm), it will provide a great education tool for the fifth graders that will help tend the farm and for White House visitors.


I hope one of her assistants plants some corn and teaches them about insects and disease. She can show them how to feel the tip of a mature ear to see if it is lled out. As we described in  ;Tomorrow;s Table;  , they may discover some ears with hollow spots created where a corn earworm has been feeding.  The insect deposits its eggs on the corn silk that trails out of each ear of corn. When the larvae hatch, they crawl down the silk into the tip of the ear and begin to feed on the kernels. The kids can open up a couple of ears and see the big, fat, healthy earworms, writhing with irritation at being disturbed from such a luscious feast. They can laugh when they learn that the black stuff in the tips of the ears is called frass, a euphemistic word for insect poop.  Will she teach them ways to control for this pest? The corn earworm is not a picky eater and will eat almost any crop that we rotate in such as tomatoes, beans, or lettuce, and the adult moth is a good yer. Even conventional breeding has failed to solve this problem because scientists have not yet been able to nd a corn gene that gives protection from earworm. So organic controls dont work very well for the corn earworm making it difficult to control this pest on organic farms. Most organic farmers and consumers accept this problem in exchange for the benets of not spraying insecticides.


There is one approach that works though. Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria that produces a toxin (called Bt toxin) that kills a narrow range of moths and butteries. French farmers rst started using Bacillus thuringiensis in the 1920s but it wasnt available commercially in France until 1950s, and then in the United States in the 1950s. Today Bacillus thuringiensis is cultured in industrial production facilities and sold either as liquid or a powder with some additives to make it ow and mix better. After it is combined with water and sprayed in the eld, caterpillars eat the bacteria in the form of spores and toxin. The toxin destroys the gut walls of the caterpillars and spores and other gut bacteria invade its body. This approach is an example of biological control, using live organisms to combat pests and disease. Organic farmers have been using Bt as a ;natural; insecticide to control insect pests for 50 years. It doesn;t work to control earworms on sweet corn, however, because the worm is burrowed deep within the ear, where the Bt spray cannot reach.


This is why geneticists engineered corn with the Bt gene. GE sweet corn is resistant to the earworm. I hope the First Lady plants some GE sweet corn next to the conventional variety so that this summer the Obamas and the kids could see firsthand how it resists pests and that it tastes the same. There will be less frass to giggle about but more sweet corn.


Sweet Corn Infected with Corn Earworm. On the left are three ears of late-season organically grown sweet corn. On the right are three ears of GE sweet corn containing Bt (Courtesy of Fred Gould, North Carolina State University).













Document Number: 6658 



 Miracle Plants: Fallacy or New Frontier 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 October 2010 


As occurs each year, the Norm Bourlag World Food Prize Lecture was accompanied by a poster session. There were posters on a variety of subjects but one in particular caught my eye. A student had a literature review presented as a poster on the subject of whether genetic engineering can help meet food needs in Africa, titled Miracle Plants: Fallacy or New Frontier (despite being a literature review, though, she didn;t have any references listed). Her conclusions were unsurprisingly mixed, finding that genetically engineered traits would have some positive impacts but that they won;t solve all problems.  One of her conclusions concerned me greatly, and actually upset me to the point that I spoke with her and tried to gently correct her. That conclusion was that genetically engineered crops would not help with problems such as increasing food prices and decreasing food security. When I asked, she said that genetically engineered seeds were too expensive. She hadn;t encountered the NGO-corporate partnerships to provide low or no cost seed to low income farmers. She hadn;t encountered traits being developed with government funding that have the potential to be released at low or not cost. This young person could only think of traits that were developed by corporations that are too expensive for low income farmers to purchase, and could only find evidence to support this conclusion.


This says to me that we are failing to counter misconceptions about genetic engineering and that we are failing to develop and deregulate traits that can be made available at low or no cost. What can we do to remedy the situation? Scientists can continue with research that is government funded and can continue to apply for grants to fund that research, even when the granting agencies are non-responsive. However, as the  World Food Prize Laureates  both pointed out, it takes more than scientists to help fight hunger. It takes individuals, and in the case of genetic engineering, it arguably takes partnerships with companies who are willing to help fund research as well.


Are we really committed to getting traits like water and nitrogen efficiency, improved nutrients, and insect protection out to the farmers who can use it, the farmers for whom even a small yield boost would make a big difference? If so, what can we do? Do we need more letter to the editor? More blog posts? More positive comments to the USDA to counter negative comments that were mobilized by anti agricultural technology organizations? More calls for companies to commit to helping small farmers? More scientist-advocates working to change public policy at the national level? What do you do, and what would you encourage others to do?













Document Number: 7439 



 Molecular cooking is cool among the real cognoscenti 


 by  David Tribe  on 26 March 2011 


The Pundit is on the road visiting family, and has made a fascinating discovery: Molecular cooking is the next big thing. He learnt this from talking to real foodies at the local cricket club where his grandson is a minor star in the field of sport. The foodies there find molecular gastronomy really exciting. So he investigated further, and found this in the regular scientific literature:


Food for tomorrow?   How the scientific discipline of molecular gastronomy could change the way we eat  viewpoint  EMBO reports (2006) 7, 1062 ; 1066


Herv This


Introduction  For years, a new culinary trend called molecular cooking has been touted as the most exciting development in haute cuisine. It is now the newest fashion for chefs to offer their customers fake caviar made from sodium alginate and calcium, burning sherbets, spaghetti made from vegetables, and instant ice cream, fast-frozen using liquid nitrogen. In the most recent ranking of the world;s top 50 chefsby the British magazine Restaurantthe top three chefs were Ferran Adria from El Bulli in Rosas, Spain; Heston Blumenthal from The Fat Duck in Bray, UK; and Pierre Gagnaire from his restaurant in Paris, France (Restaurant, 2006). In 2005, Blumenthal was first and Adria came second. What is remarkable is that all three of these talented and popular chefs have been inspired by molecular gastronomy.


What is molecular gastronomy? Is it only a temporary trend for people who are prepared to spend a small fortune on the latest in fine food, or is it here to stay? Is it a useful technique for both the average chef and anyone preparing dinner for their family? What does it mean for the future of food preparation? What are we going to eat tomorrow?


First, I will define molecular gastronomy, because there is still much confusion in the media about the true meaning of this term, in part because of mistakes Nicholas Kurti and I made when we created the discipline in 1988. But I will start by distinguish between cooking and gastronomy: the first is the preparation of food, whereas the latter is the knowledge of whatever concerns man;s nourishment. In essence, this does not concern food fashions or how to prepare luxury foodsuch as tournedos Rossini, canard  l;orange or lobster orientalebut rather an understanding of food; and for the more restricted molecular gastronomy, it is the chemistry and physics behind the preparation of any dish: for example, why a mayonnaise becomes firm or why a souffl swells.


(More at link)


Update- The Origins of Molecular cooking:  outlook  EMBO reports (2011) 12, 191 ; 196  Published online: 18 February 2011    Science and cooking: the era of molecular cuisine   Science and Society Series on Food and Science


Davide Cassi  Received 1 December 2010; Accepted 26 January 2011  Introduction   In January 2009, I participated in a round-table discussion, Does Molecular Cuisine Exist?, at Madrid Fusion, the largest gastronomy conference in the world. It was the most popular event at that conference, which is impressive considering that, until 20 years ago, the adjective molecular was never used in conjunction with the words gastronomy, cooking or cuisine. Indeed, when the poster for the first International Workshop on Molecular and Physical Gastronomy, held in Erice, Italy, appeared in 1992, many people at universities around the world thought it was a joke. Actually, its original title was simply Science and Gastronomy, but it had to be changed to sound less frivolous and more academic for the printed announcement of the workshop. The term molecular was chosen as molecular biology was the hot scientific field at the time (  McGee, 2008  ).   The interactions between science and cooking are as old as science itself  The participants in the first Erice workshop included not only scientists, but also chefs and writers. The goal of the meeting was to explore four points: to what extent is the science underlying these [cooking] processes understood; whether the existing cooking methods could be improved by a better understanding of their scientific bases; whether new methods or ingredients could improve the quality of the end-products or lead to innovations; whether processes developed for food processing and large scale catering could be adapted to domestic or restaurant kitchens. As such, the novelty of the workshop with respect to other food-science meetings was the emphasis on gastronomy and real kitchens, rather than industrial processes and products;













Document Number: 6141 



 Monsanto aims high, while others hit below the belt 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 15 June 2008 


Monsanto has had a few press releases lately that show they are working hard to change both their image and their products. The biggest by far is their  three-point commitment to growing yields sustainably  .


Develop better seeds ; Monsanto will double yield in its three core crops of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030, compared to a base year of 2000. The company will also establish a $10 million grant designed to accelerate breakthrough public sector research in wheat and rice yield.


Conserve resources ; Monsanto will develop seeds that will reduce by one-third the amount of key resources required to grow crops by the year 2030. The company will also join with others to address habitat loss and water quality in agriculturally important areas.


Help improve farmers; lives ; The company will help improve the lives of farmers, including an additional five million people in resource-poor farm families by 2020.


The first two are good, but we expect improved seed from a seed company. I;m particularly interested in the third point. The press release tells us that ;Monsanto also is committed to sharing its expertise in a way that gives [resource poor farmers] access to modern agricultural technology.; For example, ;  drought-tolerant maize for Africa  that will be made available to farmers royalty-free.; Players include  AATF  ,  CIMMYT  , the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and government researchers from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa. ;Monsanto will also work with public institutions to develop products for non-commercial crops that are important in some world areas, including cassava, cowpea and papaya.; Some comments on the press release can be found in the NY Times  Monsanto Seeks Big Increase in Crop Yields  .


Improving the world;s food supply and keeping things as sustainable as possible is going to be difficult, and will require everyone working together. The Financial Times has a  two  part  article about the history of the last Green Revolution and explains why the next one will be so much more difficult (see image below). Monsanto is simply one of the few organizations with the tools and the funds to make things happen, and with the correct  dialogues  , the advances will be good for people and for the environment.  Of course, the company isn;t perfect, and setting high goals isn;t the same as meeting them ; but it;s time that GM opponents let go of the whole ;Monstersanto; schitk. We need to have adult conversations about the real issues surrounding genetic engineering, not just sling insults at one company.  Monsanto;s Harvest of Fear  in Vanity Fair is exactly the sort of nonconstructive criticism that I;m talking about. They start with tales of Monsanto;s goons going after defenseless farmers. I;ve seen these stories multiple times, but always in conjunction with an anti-GM agenda, so I;m hesitant to beleive them 100%. I;m sure there is at least some truth there, but I have to consider the famous  Percy Schmeiser  case, where the poor farmer was found by Canadian courts to be, ahem, less than perfect. I bring it up because GM opponents are always mentioning him, while not knowing or caring about the whole story.


The article states: ;Some farmers dont fully understand that they arent supposed to save Monsantos seeds for next years planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product.; So, VF thinks that farmers are either stupid or criminal. ;The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference.; Actually, it;s pretty easy to tell if a seed is herbicide resistant or not. Let it germinate and spray it down. If the plant is getting eaten by pests, it;s not BT. True, you have to plant the seed, but I guarantee that the majority of farmers understand all of this. They might not know exactly how biotech traits are created, but they know how the traits work once they are in the plants.


Then there;s the whole issue of ;life shouldn;t be patented;. Perhaps not, but patents are the way innovators are rewarded in a capitalistic system, as I explain in  Gene flow, IP, and the terminator  . China has refused to accept US style patent law, and chooses to have public funds develop new crop lines and research genetic engineering instead of leaving it to corporations. Why doesnt the US move to this type of system? I think its because people are too distracted by fighting the wrong things instead of working to elect a government that wont let lobbyists tell them what to do.


VF laments that Monsanto is buying competitors, reducing the number of varieties available to farmers. Be that as it may, this practice isn;t exactly limited to Monsanto, and the competitors did not have to sell. Almost all companies today are parts of huge conglomerates, and I dont think we can legitimately blame part of a company for something another part did decades ago. I think we have to look at them separately ; Im not going to reject Kashi now that it is owned by Kelloggs, or reject Naked Juice because it is owned by Pepsi. Instead, Ill choose the healthiest brands (for the few pre-made foods I do buy), sending the message with my $ to the company that this is what I want.


Im not saying that Monsanto (along with just about all corporations) doesnt have unethical business practices, but we need to be realistic. Does it make sense to condemn one company for working within the established system (including that of patenting) or would it be more appropriate to work to change that system? In the system we have, corporations are legally obligated to make money for their stockholders. They are not obligated to be good global citizens ; but many are trying.


For most of its history Monsanto was a chemical giant, producing some of the most toxic substances ever created, residues from which have left us with some of the most polluted sites on earth. Yet in a little more than a decade, the company has sought to shed its polluted past and morph into something much different and more far-reachingan agricultural company dedicated to making the world a better place for future generations.


Monsantos crop group is functionally separate from its rBGH and chemical groups. Yes, there is overlap in that Roundup Ready depends on Roundup but Im sure Kelloggs uses much of the same company infrastructure to make, move, and market both Smorz and Organic Promise cereals. To me, Nestle has given consumers as much or more reason for boycott than Monsanto. Nestle;s history includes pushing infant formula in places where contaminated water has condemned thousands of infants to death. If we are to blame all of Nestles subsidiaries for this evil doing, we shouldnt buy anything from Munch Bunch, Perrier, Lean Cuisine, and Mighty Dog, just to name a few. Some people avoid packaged food ; but plenty of people who call Monsanto evil arent so choosy.


Parts of this post were originally a  comment  at Ethicurean to a post that tipped me off to the VF article.













Document Number: 425 



 Monsanto Blogs 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 31 March 2009 


I just read yesterday that Monsanto has  just started blogging  , using WordPress too! (Shake of the ol; tassel bag to  Jeff at sustainablog  )


Well, not just now, but about two months ago, the new Monsanto blog put up its first post,  Monsanto according to Monsanto  . Taking a jab with the title at a recent documentary  The World According to Monsanto  , they explain why the big bad biotech giant has started a blog:


Unfortunately theres no shortage of people, particularly on the internet, who have taken it upon themselves to speak about Monsanto  what the company is, what it does, and why.  Many of these folks have their own agendas. If anyone should speak to Monsantos vision of the world, its those of us who come to work here every day and collectively make this company what it is. This is the main reason for this blog.


(Funny note: the filmmaker that made The World According to Monsanto  didn;t  interview anyone from Monsanto at all.)


Following up with a few posts about  Seed Cleaners  ,  Jeffrey Smith  , the false dichotomy of  Organic vs Biotech  , they even also took the time to  defend the practice of blogging  . On my own site,  I have defended  blogging as journalism fervently.


On Monsanto according to Monsanto, so far there have only been posts from their ;Public Affairs; employees, however, it is stated on the blog that any Monsanto employee can write a post and submit it to the blog. Some have suggested, though that this is merely an attempt at PR. Are they taking the concept of blogging seriously? So far it looks like that;s a yes. Their comment moderation policy states:


We encourage readers to comment and engage in respectful conversation about the content posted here.  All comments are moderated and reviewed regularly. Only non-threatening and non-profane comments will be posted.  Please refrain from posting full articles and publications from other sites, as it could be a violation of copyright or intellectual property laws. Comments containing full articles will not be approved, comments containing links welcome.


And if you;ll take a look at the comments on each of these posts, there is plenty of discussion going on. It will be good to see misconceptions dashed apart by them, but I;ll keep an eye out in case the opposite occurs, too.


Lately, I have become aware that people with a stake in the discussion of genetic engineering have woken up to the blogosphere, and are taking it seriously. There is precious little good information about genetic engineering on blogs, and it looks like many people are realizing this all at once. Welcome to the blogosphere, Monsanto.













Document Number: 8588 



 Monster corn! 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 5 March 2010 


This summer will be my 4th year growing corn for my research. Every year, I;ve seen some crazy things in the transgenic and non-transgenic fields alike. For example:


On the left is ;tassel ear;, where silks and kernels (female, seed producing plant parts) appear on the tassel (male, pollen producing plant parts), where they are most certainly NOT supposed to be ; it;s ok for sorghum and other grasses, but not for corn! On the right, there are at least 2 ears where there should be one, and those leaves poking out between the two might be more ears. Neither of these plants are transgenic or carry heritable mutations that cause these strange phenotypes. Both transgenic and non-transgenic fields are treated with a herbicide before we plant but after that the plants are grown with no additives, chemical or otherwise.


So, what the heck is going on?


I;ve always meant to look it up, but pollination season is so busy, and then it;s harvest season which is so busy, and then we;re analyzing the seeds; you get the idea.


While looking for pictures of corn borer damage, I found an awesome site by Peter Thomison and Allen Geyer of the Horticulture and Crop Science Department of Ohio State University:  Troubleshooting Abnormal Corn Ears and Related Disorders  (pdf, also available in  Spanish  ).


They say that tassel ear is due to a variety of causes, including mechanical injury due to hail, which we did have pretty badly last year. No one really knows what causes ;bouquet ear; with multiple ears appearing where there should be one, but it might be due to temperature stress due to cold.


There are many other common but strange corn phenotypes explained on their site. Check it out!













Document Number: 1603 



 Moore ecopragmatism 


 by  David Tribe  on 9 January 2011 


Confessions of a Greenpeace founder  New book describes environmental group;s descent into extremism, author;s conversion to reason  By Patrick Moore, Special To  The Sun  January 7, 2011, Vancouver


The main purpose of my new book is to establish a new approach to&nbsp;environmentalism and to define sustainability as the key to achieving&nbsp;environmental goals. This requires embracing humans as a positive&nbsp;element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake. I&nbsp;believe we should celebrate our existence and constantly put our minds&nbsp;toward making the world a better place for people and all &nbsp;the other&nbsp;species we share it with.


A lot of environmentalists are stuck in the 1970s and continue to promote&nbsp;a strain of leftish romanticism about idyllic rural &nbsp;village life powered by&nbsp;windmills and solar panels. They idealize poverty, seeing it as a noble&nbsp;way of life, and oppose all &nbsp;large developments. James Cameron, the&nbsp;multimillionaire producer of the most lucrative movie in history, Avatar,&nbsp;paints his face and joins the disaffected to protest a hydroelectric dam in  the Amazon.  I believe:  - We should be growing more trees and using more wood, not cutting&nbsp;fewer trees and using less wood as Greenpeace and its allies contend.&nbsp;Wood is the most important renewable material and energy resource.  - Those countries that have reserves of potential hydroelectric energy&nbsp;should build the dams required to deliver that energy. There is nothing&nbsp;wrong with creating more lakes in this world.  - Nuclear energy is essential for our future energy supply, especially if&nbsp;we wish to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It has proven to be clean&nbsp;safe, reliable, &nbsp;and cost-effective.  - Geothermal heat pumps, which too few people know about, are far&nbsp;more important and cost-effective than either solar panels or wind mills&nbsp;as a source of renewable energy. They should be required in all &nbsp;new  buildings unless there is a good reason to use some other technology for&nbsp;heating, cooling, and making hot water.  - The most effective way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is to&nbsp;encourage the development of technologies that require less or no fossil&nbsp;fuels to operate. Electric cars, heat pumps, nuclear and hydroelectric  energy, and biofuels are the answer, &nbsp;not cumbersome regulatory&nbsp;systems that stifle economic activity.  - Genetic science, including genetic engineering, will improve nutrition&nbsp;and end malnutrition, improve crop yields, reduce the environmental&nbsp;impact of farming, and make people and the environment healthier.  - Many activist campaigns designed to make us fear useful chemicals&nbsp;are based on misinformation and unwarranted fear.  - Aquaculture, including salmon and shrimp farming, will be one of our&nbsp;most important future sources of healthy food. It will also take pressure&nbsp;off depleted wild fish stocks and will employ millions of people  productively.  - There is no cause for alarm about climate change. The climate is&nbsp;always changing. Some of the proposed ;solutions; would be far worse&nbsp;than any imaginable consequence of global warming, which will likely be  mostly positive. Cooling is what we should fear.  - Poverty is the worst environmental problem. Wealth and urbanization&nbsp;will stabilize the human population. Agriculture should be mechanized&nbsp;throughout the developing world. Disease and malnutrition can be largely  eliminated by the application of modern technology. Health care,&nbsp;sanitation, literacy and electrification should be provided to everyone.  - No whale or dolphin should be killed or captured anywhere, ever. This&nbsp;is one of my few religious beliefs. They are the only species on earth&nbsp;whose brains are larger than ours and it is impossible to kill or capture  them humanely.


Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace and&nbsp;chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver. His&nbsp;new book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a&nbsp;Sensible Environmentalist, is available at  &nbsp;www.beattystreetpublishing.com


Update From the comments at Biofortified  Occasionally, stating the obvious can nonetheless be astounding, such as this tidbit from Moore;s article:


;When a majority of people decide they agree with all your reasonable ideas the only way you can remain confrontational and antiestablishment is to adopt ever more extreme positions, eventually abandoning science and logic altogether in favour of zero-tolerance policies.;













Document Number: 8609 



 More food output is needed in Africa, even if the world has enough food 


 by  David Tribe  on 3 August 2010 


Yet because the world as a whole produces enough food for the entire world population, and because countries such as India with massive malnutrition also produce enough food to feed their entire populations, recent approaches to combat malnutrition have de-emphasised food production itself in the interventions needed to combat malnutrition. The emphasis instead has been placed on increasing access to food by increasing the purchasing power of the poor together with better health care, sanitation, education, hygiene, and nutritional practices.  These generalisations, however, do not apply to tropical sub-Saharan Africa (henceforth Africa). The UN Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger has identified Africa as the region facing the greatest challenge in attaining the Millennium Development Goal for hungerreducing the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by half between 1990 and 2015.   The prevalence of hunger in Africa is pervasive and rising. By contrast with most of Asia, Latin America, and the middle east, however, Africa is experiencing a decline in overall food production per capita. Its farmers generate the lowest food output per hectare of any major region in the world, and its farm households account for most of the continent;s hungry population  . The task force has concluded that for most of Africa, as well as some remote parts of Asia and Latin America, increasing food production has to be included as an essential part of the synergistic interventions to fight malnutrition.


Quote from


Millennium Project  Hunger in Africa: the link between unhealthy people and unhealthy soils  Prof Pedro A Sanchez PhD, , &nbsp;and Prof MS Swaminathan PhD


The Lancet  a Columbia University Earth Institute, Lamont-Doherty Campus, 61 Route 9W, PO Box 1000, Lamont Hall, 2G, Palisades, NY10964, USA  b M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai (Madras), India













Document Number: 4922 



 More in SEED Magazine on GE crops 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 November 2009 


Maywa Montengro has a commentary on Seed Magazine about the opposition to genetic engineering that;s worth taking a read, and it;s right on-topic with what we;ve been talking about with  anti-science  . Here is a taste of  A Natural Obsession  .


When delegates from 192 nations arrive in Copenhagen in December for the UN COP15 summit, they will confront a 181-page draft negotiation text, 2,000 bracketed passages still in dispute, and just 11 days in which to come to some sort of consensus. To power them through these discussions, Denmark has promised a smorgasbord of ecologically minded fare: All water will be tap (not bottled), tea and coffee will be fair trade, and the food menu will be no less than 65 percent organic.   Though undoubtedly well-intentioned, this last provision is troubling, but not because anyone really cares about the provenance of Ban Ki-Moons turnip greens. Rather, it suggests a willful and dangerous ignorance about the tenuous state of global agriculture, and the prospects for feeding 9 billion people while also addressing biodiversity loss, water shortage, and, yes, climate change.  Organic foods are enjoying skyrocketing popularity in the US and Europe, as are their ill-defined sidekicks, natural, whole, and real foods. Yet popular notions that these foodsand the agriculture that begets themare at once better for people and for the planet turn out to be largely devoid of experimental support. Worse still, organophilia tends to go hand-in-hand with technophobic skepticism towards the very sorts of scientific approaches most likely to supercharge an ailing food system while leaving our planet intact.


How did this movement get this way?


Unfortunately, what may have begun as a revolt against fake food or, for many, the horrors of concentrated animal feed lots, has given way to a culture that increasingly fetishizes organic, natural, and whole foods with little agreement on what such terms even mean, outside of an emphatic devotion to what they are not: They arent in any way related to industrial-scale farms or big-box grocery chains; chemical herbicides or pesticides; biotechnology or its subgenre, genetic engineering. And by those criteria, they are deemed to be safer, more nutritious, and less damaging to the environment.


Someone else has noticed that Organic has been identifying itself by  what it is not  , rather than what it is. So is organic automatically better?  Read the rest  and come back!


I particularly liked the part about the rat feeding study; Definitely going to look that one up.













Document Number: 1496 



 More is better ; when it comes to IP? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 20 March 2010 


One of the best parts of the Maize Genetics Meeting is the opportunity to have discussions with scientists working in a variety of fields from academia, industry, and NGOs. Conversation this afternoon veered towards intellectual property (IP) and biotechnology for a bit. It;s a contentious subject for a lot of reasons, but some new ideas I;d never thought of before came up today. I don;t have a background in IP, so please feel free share your thoughts and ideas in the comments!  Developing a biotech trait does require a lot of funds, similar to developing a new medicine. There;s testing and trials, safety and regulation ; all of it costs money. In order for a company to invest funds and people into a project, they have to have some reassurance that they will be able to make a profit after al that expense. Intellectual property protection, whether on a new widget, medicine, plant variety, or even movies and music, helps ensure that no other company or person will be able to collect profit that the inventor or creator deserves.


Of course, patents and other forms of intellectual property protection (IPP) do have their limitations. Right now, IPP may be at once too strict and too lax.


IPP is too strict in that patent holders must pursue violators of their patents, or risk loosing the patent. In other words, to follow the law, patent holders must go after even the smallest violators. This may be a waste of time for the patent holder and penalizes small patent violators who can;t afford a court case. The requirement is necessary, though, an attempt to prevent a company from sitting on a patent but not doing anything with it. One possible solution would be to make IPP more lax by creating a bottom threshold limit of the income a violator is making from the protected IP. In the case of agriculture, small farmers who willingly or accidentally violate biotech patents or plant variety protection would only be subject to a suit if their income or benefit from the IP is above a certain amount.


IPP is too lax in that there are situations where patents can be violated but the patent holder has little recompense. In agriculture, this could happen if one company used another company;s germplasm in their breeding program, although this has become more and more rare as markers have started being used to identify members of a plant;s lineage. Another example from agriculture is protected methods that a rival company might be able to use without anyone knowing.


This idea of too lax IPP came up in conversation about how to help African countries develop their own seed production facilities. Companies like Pioneer have donated germplasm and traits royalty free for use in breeding programs in Africa. Their goals here are partially altruistic ; they can help people while having only a tiny effect on their own bottom line ; and partially self-interested ; farmers who can start making money today may be customers tomorrow.


The donor companies have legitimate concerns that existing or startup companies could take those traits and germplasm and develop new products that would eventually compete with the patent holders. As I said, this is less of a concern than it used to be because markers can increasingly be used to determine the varieties that were used to develop a new variety. It might not be so easy to track a patent protected method that was used to develop new varieties.


Marc Albertsen of Pioneer Hi-Bred International gave an exciting talk today about a new way to develop male sterile plants for hybrid production that doesn;t involve cytoplasmic male sterility (look forward to a post about it soon!). Pioneer might be interested in donating this technology to researchers developing improved crops for Africa, but with no way to track the method, they might fear that another company could access and their hard work without paying for it. I;m not sure what would be potential solutions to this problem, but potentially a more strict IPP for companies that willfully use another company;s work could be an answer.


Too lax, too strict ; what do you think?













Document Number: 5249 



 More on Hybrid Hate 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 10 June 2010 


While the comments on  Anastasia;s excellent post  about the  hybrid seed donation  situation in Haiti continue to flow in, I thought I would make a few extra comments about the situation that I thought were interesting, and highlight some comments of others.


The first thing that occurs to me in this discussion about the hybrid seed is that there still is a lot of misinformation flying around about it. Beverly Bell, who ;sounded the alarm; about farmers supposedly planning to  buy and then burn the donated hybrid seed  , continues to make stuff up about the situation. While Monsanto never offered to donate GE seeds, Bell claims that the Haitian Agricultural Ministry rejected such an offer. Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association assumes it to be true and  expands upon the tall tale  :


;Monsanto wanted initially to dump GMO seeds on Haiti, but even the corrupt Haitian government knew that this would spark a rebellion, so Monsanto cleverly decided to dump hybrid seeds instead.;


However according to Monsanto,  they never offered GE seeds  , ever.


Bell and Cummins both repeat the claim that hybrid seed cannot be saved, or is worthless to save. Also not true. The traits of saved hybrid seed will have a distribution of combinations of their parents; traits, but will still grow. I would like you to watch this short video which contains an interview with an ;Agronomist; named Mark who is taking part in apparent protests against Monsanto in Haiti.


I put ;Agronomist; in scare quotes because they profess to having expertise in agronomy and yet they make false statements that a responsible agronomist would not make. Again, he repeats the claim that hybrid seeds cannot be saved, but he also continues to drum up opposition to the seed donation on the idea that  they could be GMOs!  (Even though the interviewer points out that they are not.)


There is also a very troubling thread of paternalism going on here. After the dire food needs of developing countries, the most troublesome issue as I see it is when people in industrialized nations decide to tell people who are worse off what they can or cannot do. It seems that everyone;s got a vision for the ideal agricultural situation in Haiti ; some would like to see them produce enough food to feed the country with hybrid seed, others would like to see them stick to traditional (low-yielding) open-pollinated varieties. Few have mentioned the possibility that Haiti could develop its own local high-producing hybrids down the road. So is everyone just telling the Haitians what to do? No, there is an asymmetry.


The seeds are donated to the nation of Haiti, and will be distributed within the country at a low price to those that wish to buy and plant them. The seeds are  not being given out for free  , which keeps local seed producers from being driven out of business by having to compete against free seed. No one is forced to grow these seeds if they don;t want to (unless of course you agree that Haiti has a shortage of seed). And farm inputs to help the seeds grow are also being donated.


The above protest was organized by  Mouvman Peyizan Papay  (MPP), the organization that Mark the ;agronomist; works for. I find it troubling that someone who is conveying false information about hybrids is intimately connected with the initiation of this protest, which means that they could have misled all these protesters with the justification for the protest. (The protest was also apparently against the Haitian president, which is why I called it an ;apparent protest against Monsanto.;) If they have led the farmers to believe that the seeds cannot be saved, then they have treated these people as mere means to some political or social end, which is wrong.


Indeed, what is the reason for the protest? Is it just to convey the message that ;We think money would be more help to us than seed and we would like our government to understand that,; that would be one thing. But I don;t think so. The purpose of this protest may be to  stop  the hybrid seed donation, which is where the paternalistic asymmetry comes in.


Monsanto is not limiting the choices available to the Haitian farmers by making this donation, however, several well-meaning people and organizations  are trying to limit their ability to choose this seed  . By continuing to falsely claim that the seeds are genetically engineered, or covering up the fact that the seeds can be saved but just do not breed true, they are also trying to mislead the farmers into rejecting the seed on prejudice.


Developing countries have many different kinds of food and farming systems, and they should be able to choose how they want to do it. I mentioned before that maybe there could be a local hybrid seed economy, with a few breeders specializing in hybrid versions of Haitian crops. (I;m sure that Monsanto would like to open up a Haitian breeding station and sales office someday as well.) Part of the reaction to this seed donation is the fear of change ; that small subsistence farmers in Haiti will be unable to adapt to a changing agricultural system and will be left behind to continue into poverty. At the same time, preventing them from having the option of moving beyond mere subsistence is also leaving them behind in a different way. Haiti imports  at least 50 percent of its food  , continually leaving them dependent upon foreign aid in both food and money (which the agronomist above preferred). Tariffs and subsidies play a role, but do does local production capacity.


In response to the dependence argument,  Ewan commented  ,


The norms of farming have changed over time  with the advent of hybrids seed saving has become less the norm and more an oddity  this is a trend youll often see when a manufacturing process becomes so highly specialized as to require experts to do it  breeders create new hybrids, farmers farm  breeders probably wouldnt make the best farmers (theyre trained as breeders) farmers probably not the best breeders etc  thats how any discipline advances, higher specialization leading to a better end product.


Along with the misinformation about hybrids, there has been an upwelling of opposition to the very idea of hybrids themselves. Ronnie Cummins doesn;t like them, people on blogs don;t like em, there are even companies trying to  literally bank off of a recent opposition  to hybrid seed. But what these people are missing is that although you have to pay someone to produce your hybrid seed (or take special measures to produce them yourselves), the yield or other trait benefits you get outweigh the cost of producing them. Otherwise farmers wouldn;t buy them. Helene who recently stopped by Biofortified  said


you want to create hybrids (though from what Ive read Monsantos version of hybrids could never occur on their own in nature), fine


In  Givin; props to Hybrids  , blogger DeLene writes about a recent paper about hybridization and its demonization as being unnatural. While DeLene is talking about hybrids between species (and animals at that), these perceptions are connected. Hybrids happen in nature, more often than genetic ;purists; would like to think.


Finally, the shape of the discussion about the Haitian hybrid seed donation reveals what it is really about. First, when the claim was flying around that the seeds were genetically engineered, that was the reason why the seed donation was bad. Then when that wasn;t even true it was because the seeds are hybrids and that is why they are bad. Now, the discussion is shifting away from hybrids to how the seeds have been treated with common ;toxic; fungicides to prevent them from rotting in the soil. The real reason, which will come as no surprise to those who read this blog regularly has little to do with any of those reasons ; it is mostly  because the donating organization is Monsanto  .  Look at all the people cheering the symbolic destruction of these seeds on the Non-GMO Project facebook page  . You;d think that they would be happy that the seeds aren;t genetically engineered. Nope ; it;s entirely about Monsanto.


I for one, think that the seeds should be treated with fungicide. Besides my personal experience with the difficulty of getting non-treated seeds to germinate well in my lab;s nursery field each year, there is a real biosafety reason why seeds donated to Haiti  must  be treated for fungi: To protect the farms of Haiti from contamination with new strains of crop-eating fungal pathogens that are not native to the island. If any organization is sending seeds grown from crops elsewhere in the world and they are not treating the seeds to kill hitchhiking bugs, they are putting Haitian agriculture at risk. Whenever my lab sends seeds to be grown in our Winter Nursery in Puerto Rico or Mexico, we have to not only treat the seeds, but also include one seed from each packet in a big batch to test for pathogens before importation.


Imagine an alternate situation where Monsanto did not treat the seeds with fungicide ; I could easily imagine the opposition claiming that Monsanto is trying to infect Haiti with exotic fungi so that they will become dependent upon them in some other fashion. Does Monsanto have to anticipate every bio-political move and misunderstanding before making a humanitarian gesture? Damned if you do;


I would like to end on one important point. Some people are saying that Monsanto is  only doing this for PR purposes  . You;ll have to  ask them  about that because I;m not privy to any motivations other than what they have already said publicly. They sound like they are genuinely trying to help, although people suspect otherwise. And you know what?  It doesn;t matter.  Monsanto;s intentions do not affect whether or not these seeds will help Haitian farmers. Buy the seeds. Plant them. Grow enough food to feed your family and your neighbors; too. Thumb your nose at Monsanto and don;t buy hybrids after this again. What matters most is that the people in Haiti have the power to grow what they want and rebuild the food security of their country however they see fit. And if Haitian farmers decide that they like or don;t like these seeds, and choose to grow or not to grow them in the years ahead, that is their choice, not yours or ours. That;s what it comes down to.


I;ll leave the last phrase to  Helene  :


I think its wrong to prevent anyone from having a choice













Document Number: 8733 



 More than words? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 23 May 2008 


Senator Joe Biden of Delaware has some compelling things to say about food shortages, as posted on the  Miami Herald  site. He calls for increased funding for research, as well as using economic and political policies to alleviate future crises. I just hope he has the courage and skill to implement these ideas. The entire piece can be found below the cut. Hat tip to Parke Wilde at  US Food Policy  for finding it.


Posted on Fri, May. 23, 2008  Defuse this crisis  by Joe Biden


Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, has said: ;Without food, man can live at most but a few weeks; without it, all other components of social justice are meaningless.; Today, millions of men, women and children around the world face, at best, hunger, at worst, starvation. By the World Bank;s calculations, the price of indispensable staples ; wheat, rice, maize ; has doubled in the past three years. From Haiti to Egypt to Bangladesh, riots have broken out as people demand the right to affordable food.


For the billion people in the world who live on less than a dollar a day, higher food prices are the difference between a full stomach and hunger. For many, it is the difference between life and death. The United States is not immune to the effects of the food crisis. At home, the price of eggs has jumped 35 percent. A gallon of milk costs 23 percent more. Even Sam;s Club and Costco are limiting the amount of rice that consumers can purchase.


The cyclone that devastated Burma, the earthquake that hit China ; these natural disasters bring their own challenges. But the food crisis, which has been called a ;silent tsunami,; did not come without warning. The recent crisis was the result of a perfect storm of events, including record high oil prices and severe weather that cut major crop harvests in producing countries such as Australia by 40 percent. But many factors have been obvious for years. This crisis is unacceptable morally and it is unsustainable politically and economically.


For years, foreign-assistance funding for agriculture development has been declining, from about 20 percent in 1980 to just three percent today. Necessary investments have not been made. Donor nations lack a coherent food-security strategy. While investment in agriculture was shrinking, demand for food was exploding, as hundreds of millions of people were lifted out of poverty in China and India. With proper planning, foresight and coordination, this particular crisis might have been managed. But we have not changed course as the price of food has almost doubled in the past three years.


Only now, with widespread hunger and civil unrest has the drumbeat of concern reached a high enough pitch to awaken us to action. As all of the world;s religions tell us, we have a moral obligation to feed the hungry. We once had the vision to do that. It was called the Green Revolution. It transformed agriculture practices in countries from Mexico to India. It allowed food production to keep pace with population growth. It saved a generation from famine and starvation. It was a model of what vision, planning and resources can do. We need a new approach to food policy and the global food crisis. We should start by rededicating resources and attention in four areas:


&bull; Reinvest in agriculture development. Some have called for a ;New Deal for Global Food Policy.; I support those calls ; what the world needs is a second Green Revolution. That means funding for innovation, research and new techniques. Unfortunately, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is cutting support for international agriculture research centers this year. This is a step in the wrong direction ; these centers are needed for a new generation of agriculture innovation.


&bull; Make sure our institutions are organized effectively to address the food challenge. Various U.S. agencies pursue isolated agriculture strategies that do not share a common vision.


&bull; Ask the hard questions and re-examine our own food policies. Does our current biofuels policy, which I have supported, that diverts corn from food to fuel make sense? Should we provide more flexibility to our food-aid program and allow USAID to locally purchase food abroad instead of requiring them to buy American food and shoulder all the transportation costs associated with that?


&bull; Finally, the international community should consider a global compact on food that will eliminate crippling food tariffs affecting the poorest countries. With those countries, trade is not a matter of competition ; it is a matter of fairness. I understand that the administration is considering allowing Japan to sell its rice reserves in the open market. This is a necessary and important step, and I encourage the president to take the lead and allow this rice onto the market.


President John F. Kennedy once said: ;Never before has man had such capacity to control his own environment, to end thirst and hunger, to conquer poverty and disease, to banish illiteracy and massive human misery. We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world ; or to make it the last.; That was more than a generation ago. That challenge is still before us today.


Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.













Document Number: 7806 



 Morgellons 


 by  Sarah  on 11 May 2010 


Terrifying, painful, exhausting. When I have spoken with people who identify as having Morgellons disease, these are the words I hear. Most researchers and medical professionals consider Morgellons Disease (MD) to be synonymous with Delusory Parasitosis (DP), a false, unshakable belief that insects are living in or on your skin or inside your body. Yet, several small, concerted groups work to express it as a distinct medical condition.


Red and blue fibers, described as &quot;Morgellons fibers&quot;.


MD was first described in academic literature in 2005, when an unidentified number of patients described itching, crawlingsensations, lesions, and the eruption of red and blue fibers and granules from their skin. Most had Lyme disease, and MD was thought to be significantly related to that (Savely &amp; Leitao, 2005). Recently, agrobacterium was indicted as the new culprit, when two self-identified MD patients with scleroderma were found to have increased amounts of cellulose-protein complex in their connective tissue (Savely &amp; Stricker, 2007, Harvey et al, 2009). A multi-systemic medical framework for MD with immunodeficiency problems has been described (Harvey et al, 2009).


Lesions, attributed to Morgellons Disease.


.


The majority of physicians and researchers consider MD to be synonymous with DP (Murase, Woo &amp; Koo, 2006), with the difference that it is not believed to be parasites, but about the fibers and granules (Robles et al, 2008). In response, proponents of MD as amedical condition herald it as different from DP, citing a lack of pre-existing psychopathology (Savely &amp; Stricker, 2007). Yet, a study by Harvey et al (2009) found 25 self-diagnosed MD participants all had previous diagnoses of DP, and 23 had other previous diagnoses, including bipolar disorder, attention-deficit disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, the symptoms of which coincided with the onset of their MD symptoms. These psychological diagnoses have many somatic connections, and their medications commonly have side effects of itching, crawling, and tingling sensations (Hinkle, 2000), indicating that a psychological composition of MD is very likely.


Some will disagree with a psychological conceptualization of MD, and firmly believe that this is a distinct medical condition. In fact, a DP diagnosis is not always accurate, such as with cutaneous myiasis, where fly larvae inhabits the skin of a person (Barros et al, 2010). Medical and scientific knowledge, and identification of new pathogens, diseases, and treatments, continually occur.


The burden of proof is on the advocates for MD to be a distinct medical condition. In my opinion, mental health should be recognized as the possible, if not probable foundation of MD. Fibers and granules of dirt and debris are everywhere. Increased cellulose-protein complex in two patients who also have scleroderma is still distant from being definitive. Harveys study found many vague health anomalies, yet the autoimmune problems sound like what one would expect from intense stress (Khansari et al, 1990). What would be more stressful than the real or perceived experience of an infestation of the most personal and offensive kind, the body?


Dr. Harvey recommends that we be open and skeptical, and I agree. The CDC is in the data-analysis stage of an investigation of MD through Kaiser in Northern California. As a scientist and as a person who is aware of the suffering of people with these experiences, I look forward to the results.


Sarah Bione-Dunn is a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at Alliant International University. She expects her degree in June, 2010.


de Barros N, D;Avila MS, de Pace Bauab S, Issa FK, Freitas FJ, Kim SJ, Chala LF, &amp; Cerri GG (2001). Cutaneous myiasis of the breast: mammographic and us features-report of five cases.  Radiology, 218  (2), 517-20 PMID:  11161171


Harvey WT, Bransfield RC, Mercer DE, Wright AJ, Ricchi RM, &amp; Leitao MM (2009). Morgellons disease, illuminating an undefined illness: a case series.  Journal of medical case reports, 3  PMID:  19830222


Hinkle, N. (2000). Delusory Parasitosis.  American Entomologist, 46  (1), 17-25


Khansari, D., Murgo, A., &amp; Faith, R. (1990). Effects of stress on the immune system  Immunology Today, 11  , 170-175 DOI:  10.1016/0167-5699(90)90069-L


Murase JE, Wu JJ, &amp; Koo J (2006). Morgellons disease: a rapport-enhancing term for delusions of parasitosis.  Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 55  (5), 913-4 PMID:  17052509


Robles DT, Romm S, Combs H, Olson J, &amp; Kirby P (2008). Delusional disorders in dermatology: a brief review.  Dermatology online journal, 14  (6) PMID:  18713583


Savely G, &amp; Leitao MM (2005). Skin lesions and crawling sensations: disease or delusion?  Advance for nurse practitioners, 13  (5), 16-7 PMID:  15898309


Savely VR, Leitao MM, &amp; Stricker RB (2006). The mystery of Morgellons disease: infection or delusion?  American journal of clinical dermatology, 7  (1), 1-5 PMID:  16489838


Savely, V., &amp; Stricker, R. (2007). Morgellons disease: the mystery unfolds  Expert Review of Dermatology, 2  (5), 585-591 DOI:  10.1586/17469872.2.5.585













Document Number: 4011 



 Movement of genes via cross pollination from cotton fields subject of a scientific study. 


 by  David Tribe  on 3 December 2010 


SCIENCE DAILY  Transgenic Crops: How Genes Jump from Crop to Crop  1st December 2010  A new data-driven statistical model that incorporates the surrounding landscape in unprecedented detail describes the transfer of an inserted bacterial gene via pollen and seed dispersal in cotton plants more accurately than previously available methods.


Shannon Heuberger, a graduate student at the University of Arizona;s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and her co-workers will publish their findings in PLoS ONE on Nov. 30.


The transfer of genes from genetically modified crop plants is a hotly debated issue. Many consumers are concerned about the possibility of genetic material from transgenic plants mixing with non-transgenic plants on nearby fields. Producers, on the other side, have a strong interest in knowing whether the varieties they are growing are free from unwanted genetic traits.


Up until now, realistic models were lacking that could help growers and legislators assess and predict gene flow between genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops with satisfactory detail.


This study is the first to analyze gene flow of a genetically modified trait at such a comprehensive level. The new approach is likely to improve assessment of the transfer of genes between plants other than cotton as well.  ;The most important finding was that gene flow in an agricultural landscape is complex and influenced by many factors that previous field studies have not measured,; said Heuberger. ;Our goal was to put a tool in the hands of growers, managers and legislators that allows them to realistically assess the factors that affect gene flow rates and then be able to extrapolate from that and decide how they can manage gene flow.;


The researchers measured many factors in the field and developed a geographic information system-based analysis that takes into account the whole landscape surrounding a field to evaluate how it influences the transfer of genes between fields. Genes can be transferred in several ways, for example by pollinators such as bees, or through accidental seed mixing during farming operations.


Surprisingly, the team found that pollinating insects, widely believed to be the key factor in moving transgenic pollen into neighboring crop fields, had a small impact on gene flow compared to human farming activity, with less than one percent of seeds collected around the edges of non-Bt cotton fields resulting from bee pollination between Bt and non-Bt cotton.


Most previous studies focused on the distance between the non-transgenic crop field and the nearest source of transgenic plants.


;Although this approach is simple, it is potentially less useful for understanding gene flow in commercial agriculture where there can be many sources of transgenic plants,; Heuberger said.


Heuberger and her co-workers broadened the scope to include flower-pollinating bees, humans moving seeds around and the area of all cotton fields in a three-kilometer (1.9 mile) radius. This approach turned out to be more powerful in understanding the effect of surrounding fields than using the customary model based solely on distance.


For the study, the scientists chose 15 fields across the state of Arizona planted with cotton that did not have the transgenic protein encoded by a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. They assessed the number of pollinators visiting cotton flowers through field observations and determined the transfer of genes by collecting samples of cotton bolls and determining their genetic identity.


;We saw a need for a spatially explicit model that would account for the whole surrounding landscape,; Heuberger said. ;Our model takes into account the distance and area of all relevant neighboring fields, the effect of pollinators like bees and human factors that can result in the mixing of seed types.;


Heuberger;s findings have implications not just for genetically engineered traits but also more generally for seed production.


;When you grow a crop and want the variety to be pure, just being able to know how far gene flow will occur and how it is affected by pollinators and human farming activity in the area is very valuable.;


The research was funded by Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education and an Environmental Protection Agency STAR Fellowship.


Link to the full scientific paper with open access at PLOS ONE (key items represented here)


Pollen- and seed-mediated transgene flow in commercial cotton seed production fields  PLOS ONE, vol. 5(11)  Shannon Heuberger, Christa Ellers-Kirk, Bruce E. Tabashnik, Yves Carrire  Novermber 2010


Background


Characterizing the spatial patterns of gene flow from transgenic crops is challenging, making it difficult to design containment strategies for markets that regulate the adventitious presence of transgenes. Insecticidal Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton is planted on millions of hectares annually and is a potential source of transgene flow.


Methodology/Principal Findings


Here we monitored 15 non-Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum, L.) seed production fields (some transgenic for herbicide resistance, some not) for gene flow of the Bt cotton cry1Ac transgene. We investigated seed-mediated gene flow, which yields adventitious Bt cotton plants, and pollen-mediated gene flow, which generates outcrossed seeds. A spatially-explicit statistical analysis was used to quantify the effects of nearby Bt and non-Bt cotton fields at various spatial scales, along with the effects of pollinator abundance and adventitious Bt plants in fields, on pollen-mediated gene flow. Adventitious Bt cotton plants, resulting from seed bags and planting error, comprised over 15% of plants sampled from the edges of three seed production fields. In contrast, pollen-mediated gene flow affected less than 1% of the seed sampled from field edges. Variation in outcrossing was better explained by the area of Bt cotton fields within 750 m of the seed production fields than by the area of Bt cotton within larger or smaller spatial scales. Variation in outcrossing was also positively associated with the abundance of honey bees.


Conclusions/Significance


A comparison of statistical methods showed that our spatially-explicit analysis was more powerful for understanding the effects of surrounding fields than customary models based on distance. Given the low rates of pollen-mediated gene flow observed in this study, we conclude that careful planting and screening of seeds could be more important than field spacing for limiting gene flow.













Document Number: 3211 



 My turn! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 23 March 2010 


Anastasia and  James  look like they have had a fun and  scientifically  enlightening  trip to Italy to attend the Maize Genetics Conference. Frank was also there, but appears to have  parted  ways with them ; off on some other  adventure  , I imagine. When they mentioned last year at the MGC that this year;s conference would be in Italy, I salivated and dreamed of the reams of data I would pile up to earn a ticket on the lab;s dollar. But no, I did not go to this year;s conference, except in name. (We had an official Biofortified poster that Anastasia and I put together, hoping for some new phloem for these here inter-sieve-tubes.)


I must say that I;m a bit jealous about missing out on all the science ; conferences are great ways to cram your brain with the latest research and the directions the field is taking. The science is the same whether you are in Italy, or Illinois, Washington D.C., or even places as remote as; the capital of Wisconsin. I;m hoping to absorb half of what they retained by  reading  their  excellent  summaries  .


But then again, they went to  Italy!  I;ve never been to Europe before. Heck I haven;t been out of North America unless you count the Hawaiian Islands. So I would be forlorn about that, if I wasn;t getting on a plane this morning and flying to Thailand!


Last fall, Syngenta approached the UW-Madison plant breeding program to send a few graduate students out to some of their breeding stations to see what it is like doing commercial breeding for a week. I applied, and was selected along with two of my fellow students to go to Thailand and Chile to represent the UW and report back to everyone on what it was like. One by one, though, everyone else;s trips dropped like flies for unforeseeable reasons. As you can imagine with two big earthquakes in Chile, that trip got a little more risky than the program would have liked. Long story short: Last man standing.


I will be shadowing Xingping Zhang, a breeder who is credited with  creating  those little personal-sized ;  Dulcinea  ; seedless watermelons that you probably have eaten. I get to follow him around in the sweltering 100-degree March Thailand weather and do some top secret* things like thump on some rinds to see if the insides are ready to taste. Maybe I;ll get to taste some, too. Who knows what crazy things I might find lurking in those fields? And who knows what I might actually get to tell/show you?*


In just a few short dozens (as in multiples of a dozen) of hours of sitting in planes and airports, I;m going to be 12 time zones away (by daylight savings time) doing Darwin knows what!** My turn to have some fun!


*Yep there;s a confidentiality agreement. They apparently own ideas I haven;t even thought of yet, too. But not everything;s a secret and maybe there are some things my hosts will let me talk about.


** Why, artificial selection of course.













Document Number: 4374 



 Name that database! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 15 June 2010 


In the forum,  Anastasia announced  that we;re working on a search-able database of the safety studies that have been conducted on GE crops. Our goal is to help people know about and  understand the depth of research  there has been on these crops, and be able to browse and search among them for details. And we especially want the fact that there has been a  large amount of independent research  on them to be widely known.


I;m happy to report that the initial testing phase of the features of this new database has been completed, and I am putting together the final version of our interface both on the front end and the back end. The whole system will work  within  the Biofortified blog posts and hasn;t necessitated dipping into our extensive  war chest  . But we will need a little bit of help from  you  .


Readers will be able to browse and search on the basis of:


Crop studied  Type of study (nutritional/feeding/basic genetics/etc)  Funding (independent/corporate)  Peer-reviewed or not  Findings (positive/negative/ambiguous)


On each page, we will have:


Complete, linked citation (including Pubmed author links)  Abstract  Specific funding sources  Impact factor summary  Our own summary of the findings and significance of the study  PDFs when possible (open access, future permissions, etc)


There were a couple other ideas we tossed around such as the study location and special areas that display the title of the journal and link to it (in addition to the links in the citation), but that is making it a bit complicated and we;re trying to keep it simple. If there is some information about these studies that you would really like to see included in this database, please let me know in the comments, as coding is ongoing! We hope to have it online and ready for entries at the end of the week.


Finally, we;re stuck on one important detail: what to call this database? We;ve been calling it the ;safety study database; while working on it, however, many of the studies are not, strictly speaking, safety studies. Many of them are studies that compare GE crops to their conventional counterparts (and different genetic modification methods) on the basis of gene expression or other changes. These do have safety implications, but less directly. There are feeding studies, nutritional and biochemical analysis, and research on substantial equivalence. What would  you  call such a resource? Help us brainstorm!













Document Number: 8260 



 Natural GMOs Part 76. Life before DNA leaves traces today. 


 by  David Tribe  on 14 August 2010 


Dangerous Bacterium Hosts Genetic Remnant Of Life;s Distant Past   14 Aug 2010  Within a dangerous stomach bacterium, Yale University researchers have discovered an ancient but functioning genetic remnant from a time before DNA existed, they report in the August 13 issue of the journal Science.  To the surprise of researchers, this RNA complex seems to play a critical role in the ability of the organism to infect human cells, a job carried out almost exclusively by proteins produced from DNA;s instruction manual.  ;What these cells are doing is using ancient RNA technology to control modern gene expression,; said Ron Breaker, the Henry Ford II Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale, investigator for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and senior author of the study.  In old textbooks, RNA was viewed simply as the chemical intermediary between DNA;s instruction manual and the creation of proteins. However, Breaker;s lab has identified the existence and function of riboswitches, or RNA structures that have the ability to detect molecules and control gene expression ; an ability once believed to be possessed solely by proteins. Breaker and many other scientists now believe the first forms of life depended upon such RNA machines, which would have had to find ways to interact and carry out many of the functions proteins do today.  The new paper describes the complex interactions of two small RNA molecules and two larger RNA molecules that together influence the function of a self-splicing ribozyme, a structure many biologists had believed had no role other than to reproduce itself. The new study, however, suggests that in the pathogenic stomach bacterium Clostridium difficile, this RNA structure acts as a sort of sensor to help regulate the expression of genes, probably to help the bacterium manipulate human cells.  ;They were though to be molecular parasites, but it is clear they are being harnessed by cells to do some good for the organism,; Breaker said.  This is the sort of RNA structure would have been needed for life exist before the evolution of double-stranded DNA, with its instruction book for proteins that carry out almost all of life;s functions today. If proteins are necessary to carry out life;s functions, scientists need to explain how life arise without DNA;s recipe. The answer to the chicken or egg question is RNA machines such as the one identified in the new study, Breaker said.  ;A lot of sophisticated RNA gadgetry has gone extinct but this study shows that RNA has more of the power needed to carry out complex biochemistry,; Breaker said. ;It makes the spontaneous emergence of life on earth much more palatable.;  Source:  Bill Hathaway  Yale University  Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/197678.php













Document Number: 5970 



 Natural GMOs Part 77. Chocolate tree genome only 20 percent transposons 


 by  David Tribe  on 22 September 2010 


Photo: James Butubu of the Cacao and Coconut Research Institute in Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, evaluates the new progeny of a cacao tree. Cacao fruit grows from the tree;s branches. (Credit: Photo by Ray Schnell, USDA-ARS)


EurekAlert 16 Sep 2010


Analysis of the chocolate genome could lead to improved crops and products


The sequencing and analysis of the genome for the Criollo variety of the cacao tree, generally considered to produce the world;s finest chocolate, was completed by an international team led by Claire Lanaud of CIRAD, France, with Mark Guiltinan of Penn State, and included scientists from 18 other institutions.


;The large amount of information generated by this project dramatically changes the status of this tropical plant and its potential interest for the scientific community,; said Guiltinan, professor of plant molecular biology, Penn State.


The researchers not only sequenced the genome of this ancient plant, but assembled 76 percent of the genome linking 82 percent of those genes to the 10 cacao chromosomes. This analysis identified a variety of gene families that may have future impact on improving cacao trees and fruit either by enhancing their attributes or providing protection from fungal diseases and insects that effect cacao trees.


;Relics of the ancestral Criollo first cultivated by Olmec or Maya people can still be encountered in old Mesoamerican plantations or in forests where the Maya live,; said Siela Maximova, associate professor of horticulture and a member of the research team. ;Our genome sequence is derived form a Belizean Criollo plant collected in the Mayan mountains.;


Cocoa production began in Mesoamerica 3,000 years ago, and the Criollo variety was the first domesticated. Because these trees self-pollinate, they are generally highly homozygous ; possessing two identical forms of each gene, making this particular variety a good choice for accurate genome assembly.


Although originally a new-world crop, cacao trees ; scientifically designated  Theobroma cocao  ; are now grown and cultivated in humid, tropical areas around the world. About 3.7 million tons of cocoa are produced annually worldwide and contribute greatly to the income of small farmers. Cacao trees, because they are grown in shade, are also ideal for environmental preservation because they contribute to diversity and land rehabilitation.


;We believe that  Theobroma cacao  is the first early domesticated tropical tree fruit crop to be sequenced,; said Guiltinan. ;Interestingly, only 20 percent of the genome was made up of transposable elements.;


Transposable elements or transposons are one of the natural pathways through which genetic sequences changes. They do this by moving around the chromosomes, changing the order of the genetic material. Smaller amounts of transposons than average could lead to slower evolution of the chocolate plant.


Guiltinan and his colleagues are interested in specific gene families that could link to specific cocoa qualities or disease resistance. They hope that mapping these gene families will lead to a source of genes directly involved in variations in the plant that are useful for acceleration of plant breeding programs.


;We hope this achievement will encourage greater investment in research of  Theobroma cacao  , the ;food of the Gods; whose magic flavor has spread worldwide since the time of the Maya and Aztec civilizations, and whose continued study will benefit developing countries for which cocoa is of high economic importance,; said Guiltinan.


A summary of the paper appears in  Nature Precedings  at  http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4908/version/1


###  Penn State researchers involved in this study include Guiltinan and Maximova, department of horticulture; Yufan Zhang and Zi Shi, graduate students, plant biology; Stephen Schuster, department of biochemistry and molecular biology; John E. Carlson, School of Forest Resources and M.J. Axtell and Z. Ma, department of biology.


Other researchers involved were from CIRAD, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique UMR, Universite d;Evry, INRA-CNRS LIPM Laboratoire des Interactions Plantes Micro-organismes, Universite de Perpignan, Unite de Biometrie et d;Intelligence Artificielle , Institut des Sciences du vegetal, Chocolaterie Valrhona, all in France.


Also included are researchers from the University of Arizona; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; Institute des Sciences du Vegetal, Ivory Coast; CEPLAC, Brazil and Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia Agricola, Instituto de Estudios Avanzados,Venezuela.


CIRAD, the Agropolis foundation, the Rgion Languedoc Roussillon, Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), Valrhona, the Venezuelan Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry, Hershey Corp., the American Cocoa Research Institute Endowment and National Science Foundation supported this work.













Document Number: 5154 



 Natural GMOs Part 78. Gene movement among bacteria combined with antibiotic overuse is the real antibiotic resistance risk 


 by  David Tribe  on 29 September 2010 


;The reservoir is in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and is due to factors that are not controllable  overuse of antibiotics, poor hygiene, and diarrhea in an overcrowded overpopulated country.;


From Medscape Medical News  NDM-1 Gene Spreading to Multiple Bacteria Species, Making Them Antibiotic-Resistant  Alice Goodman


September 22, 2010 (Boston, Massachusetts)  The gene that encodes for New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-1 (NDM-1), which confers resistance to most currently available antibiotics, appears to be spreading from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh), researchers reported here at a media press conference during the 50th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC).


NDM-1 has recently been documented in strains of bacteria in Australia, France, Japan, Kenya, North America, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. The emergence of this gene poses the threat of a pandemic with few treatment choices, said researchers.


In 2 separate reports at ICAAC, investigators described cases of NDM-1 in  Escherichia coli  in Canada and in  Klebsiella  sp. in Australia, prompting the news conference. Both case reports involved patients who had recently traveled to India. No one really knows the true prevalence of NDM-1-infiltrated bacteria, the researchers said, but they believe that the spread from India to other parts of the world is at least partly due to a confluence of a large Indian diaspora returning to their homeland for visits and to the phenomenon of medical tourism to India.


;The reservoir is in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and is due to factors that are not controllable  overuse of antibiotics, poor hygiene, and diarrhea in an overcrowded overpopulated country. A plague could spread around the world, first through the Indian diaspora, which constitutes 20 million people all over the world,; warned Patrice Nordmann, MD, from the Hpital de Bictre, Le Kremlin-Bictre, France. ;We feel it;s only a question of time.; Dr. Nordmann was a panelist at the press conference.













Document Number: 4584 



 Natural GMOs Part 79. It;s not surprising to find, yet again, that genes move around a lot in the ocean 


 by  David Tribe  on 3 October 2010 


Genetic escape pods  Microbes share and preserve their genetic material by releasing bodies that resemble viruses into the environment


[Published 1st October 2010 02:49 PM GMT at The Scientist]


Packaging random snippets of DNA into virus-like capsules known as gene transfer agents, or GTAs, may be a key way for marine bacteria to exchange genetic information, a new paper in Science suggests.


While this gene-swapping mechanism has been known for decades, the extent to which GTAs were relevant to microbes in the real world was unclear, having been observed in a limited number of species and almost exclusively inside microbiology labs.


But a team of researchers, headed by University of South Florida marine microbiologist John Paul, demonstrated that GTAs isolated from lab-grown bacteria conferred antibiotic resistance to a wide range of microbes naturally growing in the warm waters of the Gulf Coast, and at a much higher rate than expected.(More at link)


Original article  L.D. McDaniel, et al., ;High frequency of horizontal gene transfer in the Oceans,; Science, 330:50, 2010.













Document Number: 4200 



 Natural GMOs Part 80. Bacteria mate with fungi on plant surfaces. 


 by  David Tribe  on 28 October 2010 


It has long been known to the common bacterium called  Agrobacterium  can inject DNA into plant cells. It naturally causes shape alterations called galls on plants that are infected with this bacterium as a result of its ability to inject genes it carries inside its own cells into plant cells. Ability to mate with other organisms is well established and widely studied among common bacteria such as  E. coli  , and they can be very promiscuous, in that a wide range of target organisms including very unrelated organisms such as yeasts can accept genes from them in the mating process. But to do an injection of DNA into a target organism  Agrobacterium  needs to be stimulated by chemical signals from plant material.


This scientific paper shows that chemical signals on plant tissues are available to encourage mating by these same  Agrobacterium  bacteria with fungi that grow on plant surfaces. The work documents that genes can naturally pass between bacteria and fungi&nbsp; on the surfaces of plants.&nbsp; It;s one of the many demonstrations that natural gene movement occurs between widely separated organisms on evolutionary trees, as fungi and bacteria, which are very distant relatives on the evolutionary tree of life.   &nbsp;   Investigating  Agrobacterium  -Mediated Transformation of  Verticillium albo-atrum  on Plant Surfaces  Abstract  Background  Agrobacterium tumefaciens  has long been known to transform plant tissue in nature as part of its infection process. This natural mechanism has been utilised over the last few decades in laboratories world wide to genetically manipulate many species of plants. More recently this technology has been successfully applied to non-plant organisms in the laboratory, including fungi, where the plant wound hormone acetosyringone, an inducer of transformation, is supplied exogenously. In the natural environment it is possible that  Agrobacterium  and fungi may encounter each other at plant wound sites, where acetosyringone would be present, raising the possibility of natural gene transfer from bacterium to fungus.


Methodology/Principal Findings  We investigate this hypothesis through the development of experiments designed to replicate such a situation at a plant wound site.  A. tumefaciens  harbouring the plasmid pCAMDsRed was co-cultivated with the common plant pathogenic fungus  Verticillium albo-atrum  on a range of wounded plant tissues. Fungal transformants were obtained from co-cultivation on a range of plant tissue types, demonstrating that plant tissue provides sufficient vir gene inducers to allow  A. tumefaciens  to transform fungi in planta.


Conclusions/Significance  This work raises interesting questions about whether  A. tumefaciens  may be able to transform organisms other than plants in nature, or indeed should be considered during GM risk assessments, with further investigations required to determine whether this phenomenon has already occurred in nature.


Citation: Knight CJ, Bailey AM, Foster GD (2010) Investigating Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of  Verticillium albo-atrum  on Plant Surfaces. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013684


Received: June 14, 2010; Accepted: October 5, 2010; Published: October 27, 2010


Copyright:  2010 Knight et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


&nbsp;  See also  Natural GMOs Part 10. Genes move around in nature from bacteria to fungi













Document Number: 8448 



 Natural GMOs Part 81. Thorough genetic characterisation of a naturally transgenic grass plant variety. 


 by  David Tribe  on 8 November 2010 


GMOs are often defined as events that cannot occur in nature.


GMO Pundit;s series on natural GMOs has provided many examples of movement of DNA between different species, indeed different biological kingdoms that are found in the natural world. Click on the natural GMOs tag to find these examples.


This  new paper by Pernilla Vallenback and co-authors  for which there is open Internet access, provides a thorough characterisation of an example where a gene segment has moved between two different types of grass species that are reproductively isolated in nature.


Preliminary information about this event has appeared in the literature before this time, but the new paper provides a thorough characterisation of the nature of the genes near the natural transgene. The authors do not have any clear idea of how the event occurred but the evidence in the paper shows that it does occur, and as a mobile gene related gene segment appears near the natural &nbsp;transgene, quite likely it was involved in some way in the movement of DNA between two different species.


The authors talk about a vector for the DNA movement, which might be a virus, or might be some other&nbsp;agency&nbsp;such as a parasitic insect that injects plant cells with material as part of its life cycle.


Because its review section at the start contains an excellent introduction to the scientific literature on the topic of horizontal gene movement or lateral gene movement between different species, the complete paper has been provided below.


It shows that the legal basis for regulating laboratory-based genetic events on the assumption that they cannot occur in nature means that has been thoroughly undermined by scientific proof that transgenes are natural.   But first, an update:     GMOs and Mother Nature? Closer Than You Think    -&nbsp;  James Mcwilliams, NY Times Blog, Nov. 9, 2010  &nbsp;    When it comes to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), one criticism stands above the others: its unnatural.  &nbsp;&nbsp;  The idea that (unlike conventional genetic exchange within a species) genes from one species can be transferred to another fuels this perception of unnaturalness. The UKs Health and Safety Executive, a watchdog group for worker health, explains that genetic modification occurs when the genetic material of an organism (either DNA or RNA) is altered by use of a method that does not occur in nature.  &nbsp;&nbsp;  The anti-biotech Non-GMO Project notes that genetic modification creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and viral genes that do not occur in nature. The Huffington Post plugged last October as non-GMO month on the grounds that genetic modification produces goods through processes that do not occur in nature.&nbsp;  &nbsp;  Greenpeace has described breaching species barriers as unnatural.  &nbsp;  Daily Kos insists that gene splicing does not occur in nature.  &nbsp;&nbsp;  In a word: frankenfood.    Well, you know where this is going.  &nbsp;&nbsp;  Scientists have now confirmed what evolutionary geneticists have long suspected  &nbsp;&nbsp;  nature does produce GMOs.  &nbsp;&nbsp;  Swedish researchers discovered an enzyme-producing gene in a meadow grass that naturally crossed into sheeps fescue about 700,000 years ago.  &nbsp;&nbsp;  The most plausible explanation, said Professor Bengt O. Bengtsson of Lund University, is that the gene was transmitted by a parasite or pathogen, such as a virus, perhaps with the help of a sap-sucking insect. The fact that cross-species gene transfer happens without human intervention in nature, however rare, provides further justification for viewing transgenic technology not as a Frankensteinian intervention into the natural world, but as yet another method of trait selection, something weve been doing with heroic results since the dawn of agriculture;Quote ends    Structure of the Natural Transgene&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;in the Common Grass&nbsp;  Festuca ovina      Article   Metrics   Related Content   Comments: 0      To&nbsp;  add a note  , highlight some text.&nbsp;  Hide notes   Make a general comment    Jump to     Abstract   Introduction   Results   Discussion   Materials and Methods   Acknowledgments   Author Contributions   References    Pernilla Vallenback   *  ,&nbsp;   Lena Ghatnekar  ,&nbsp;   Bengt O. Bengtsson   Department of Biology, Genetics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden    Abstract&nbsp;  Top  Background   A horizontal gene transfer has brought an active nuclear gene,  PgiC2  , from a polyploid&nbsp;  Poa  &nbsp;species (  P. palustris  &nbsp;or a close relative) into the common grass sheep;s fescue (  Festuca ovina  ). The donor and the receptor species are strictly reproductively separated, and&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;occurs in a polymorphic state within&nbsp;  F. ovina  . The active gene copy is normally closely linked to a very similar pseudogene.  Methodology/Principal Findings   By genome walking we have obtained the up- and downstream sequences of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and of corresponding genes in the donor and recipient species. Comparisons of these sequences show that the complete upstream region necessary for the gene;s expression is included in the transferred segment. About 1 kb upstream of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;a fragment with transposition associated properties has been found (TAF). It is present in&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;and its polyploid relatives, though not at the homologous position, and is absent from many other grasses, including non-transgenic&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plants. It is possible that it is a part of a transposing element involved in getting the gene into a transferring agent and/or into the recipient chromosome.  Conclusions/Significance   The close similarity of the up- and downstream regions with the corresponding regions in&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;excludes all suggestions that&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;is not a HGT but the result of a duplication within the  F. ovina  &nbsp;lineage. The small size of the genetic material transferred, the complex nature of the&nbsp;  PgiC2  locus, and the associated fragment with transposition associated properties suggest that the horizontal transfer occurred via a vector and not via illegitimate pollination.    Citation:&nbsp;  Vallenback P, Ghatnekar L, Bengtsson BO (2010) Structure of the Natural Transgene&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;in the Common Grass&nbsp;  Festuca ovina  . PLoS ONE 5(10): e13529. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013529   Editor:&nbsp;  Simon Joly, Montreal Botanical Garden, Canada   Received:  &nbsp;May 10, 2010;&nbsp;  Accepted:  &nbsp;September 23, 2010;&nbsp;  Published:  &nbsp;October 20, 2010   Copyright:  &nbsp; 2010 Vallenback et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.   Funding:  &nbsp;This work was supported by the Nilsson-Ehle, Lindstrom, Erik Philip-Sorensen and Trygger Funds and Foundations. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.   Competing interests:  &nbsp;The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.   * E-mail:&nbsp;  pernilla.vallenback@cob.lu.se    Introduction&nbsp;  Top   Horizontal gene transfer, HGT, can be defined as transfer of genetic material between distantly related genomes by some mechanism other than sexual fertilization. Originally believed to be very rare or non-existent in higher plants, mitochondrial gene transfers involving several species have now been reported&nbsp;  [1]  . Recently, it has been claimed that nuclear DNA transfer can also occur&nbsp;  [2]    [4]  . Some species participating in HGT have a symbiotic relationship&nbsp;  [5]    [6]  , and genes have been recorded to transfer from host to parasite as well as from parasite to host&nbsp;  [5]    [6]  , but such coevolutionary associations do not seem to be obligatory. One of the known nuclear transfers consists of a transposing element&nbsp;  [2]  , but in no case has the exact mechanism underlying a horizontal gene transfer in plants been fully elucidated.   Two major hypotheses exist for how a horizontal gene transfer in higher plants can take place. The first suggests that genetic material is introgressed into a different genetic background after a pollination event between two species. Since by definition the genomes of the two species must be distantly related, such a deviant pollination may not lead to a regular fertilization and may entail disturbances such as chromosome fragmentation&nbsp;  [7]  . Using wide crosses in combination with embryo rescue and other laboratory technologies, researchers in plant breeding have succeeded in transferring chromosomes, chromosome arms, or parts of chromosomes between species and/or genera [see, for example, 8]. Whether such processes occur in nature is, however, uncertain. If they occur, they would probably involve large chromosome segments and more than single genes, just as in artificial crosses.  The second hypothesis suggests that the genetic material is transferred into the new species by a vector. Viruses, bacteria and insects have been suggested as possible vectors with abilities to transfer small DNA fragments. This hypothesis still requires that the transferred fragment ultimately becomes incorporated into a host chromosome. Transposable elements may be involved in the excision of the gene, as well as in its integration into the host chromosome.   We have previously described a horizontal transfer of a functional nuclear gene, designated&nbsp;  PgiC2  , between two grass species&nbsp;  [3]    [4]  . The process has moved the gene from a polyploid&nbsp;  Poa  &nbsp;species (  P. palustris  &nbsp;is a likely candidate) into the very common diploid grass sheep;s fescue,&nbsp;  Festuca ovina  &nbsp;  [3]    [4]  ,  [9]  . No natural hybrids have ever been found between these widespread and species-rich genera  [10]    [11]  . The transgene is not fixed in&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;but is carried by many individuals and reach, for example, a frequency of 6.2% for chromosomes sampled in the south Baltic region&nbsp;  [9]  . By combined genetic and sequence analysis it has been shown that active&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;genes found in&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;are normally closely genetically linked to a very similar pseudogene&nbsp;  [12]  ,&nbsp;  [3]  . However, a single plant has been found with two closely linked active&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;genes (of allelic forms&nbsp;  b  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  c  ) and no pseudogenes, and many plants have no active copies of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;but only pseudogenes at the locus&nbsp;  [12]  ,&nbsp;  [9]  . These variants probably arose by unequal crossovers between chromosomes with the standard configuration of one active gene closely linked to one pseudogene.   The F. ovina genome is large, with a 1C DNA content of 4.75 pg&nbsp;  [15]  &nbsp;or roughly 4.4 billion bp, which makes a strategy of constructing and scanning a BAC-library for the study of the molecular structure of  PgiC2  &nbsp;both time-consuming and costly. We therefore choose to base our characterization of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;on genome walks out of the gene. The technique is sensitive and error prone, and its application to the present problem is complicated by the fact that the transgenic&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plants contain many copies of different&nbsp;  PgiC  -genes. However, by carefully rechecking the results, we have assembled well-ascertained sequences up- and downstream of&nbsp;  PgiC2  , as well as of other&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;genes, that lead to a first detailed description of the structure of this unique transgene.    Results&nbsp;  Top   By genome walking we determined the complete sequence of the&nbsp;  F. ovina PgiC2  &nbsp;gene. In addition, 1337 bp upstream and 604 bp downstream of the gene were identified.&nbsp;  Fig. 1  &nbsp;shows the upstream part of the gene, divided into regions with varying degrees of sequence similarity relative to other&nbsp;  PgiC  sequences.     Figure 1.&nbsp;   The upstream sequence of&nbsp;  PgiC2  , drawn to scale, with boundaries identified by sequence comparisons with other&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;genes.   The Transgene Associated Fragment (TAF) is marked, and the positions of the primers used for its amplification are shown. The results given in&nbsp;  Table 1  &nbsp;are coded as follows: Red denotes sequence similarity with all types of  PgiC  -genes. Orange denotes similarity between&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  P. palustris  . Green denotes similarity between the two tested plants with&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;with no similarity to any of the other plants.   doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013529.g001   Comparison between&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and Other&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;Sequences   With the same method we obtained 1844 bp upstream sequence of the&nbsp;  F. ovina PgiC1  &nbsp;gene.&nbsp;  Table 1  shows the numbers of differences from&nbsp;  PgiC2  . No sequence similarity between&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;could be recognized beyond 666 bp upstream of exon 1. This point defines the boundary between regions I and II in&nbsp;  Fig. 1  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  Table 1  . Within region I the difference between&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;increased with increasing distance from the start codon.     Table 1.&nbsp;   The difference between&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and other sequences over the upstream regions described in&nbsp;  Fig. 1  .   doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013529.t001   From&nbsp;  Poa palustris  &nbsp;2169 bp upstream of the&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;gene were obtained. This sequence was highly similar to the sequence from&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;(see&nbsp;  Table 1  ), until the similarity abruptly ended at bp 775. This point we take to delimit regions II and III in&nbsp;  Fig. 1  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  Table 1  . No further similarity between the upstream sequences was detected beyond this point.   From the&nbsp;  F. ovina bc  &nbsp;plant, carrying the rare version of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;with two active alleles, 1305 bp of the upstream sequence was obtained. Very high similarity was found between this sequence and the sequence from the plant with the standard configuration of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;(see&nbsp;  Table 1  ).  The Transgene Associated Fragment (TAF) and its distribution   Within upstream region III a pair of PCR primers (see&nbsp;  Fig. 1  ) amplified a 145 bp long fragment in the two investigated plants with&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;genes. A similar band was obtained from the&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;plant, while the&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plant without&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;did not produce any band. We call this the Transgene Associated Fragment (TAF).   This PCR reaction was also run on 22&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plants from different populations in the south Baltic region, of which eleven contained the&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;locus and eleven did not. A band of expected length was obtained from all&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plants with&nbsp;  PgiC2  , whereas the plants without&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;did not produce any TAF band. Some of the plants with&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;had only pseudogenes and no active genes.   To further investigate the distribution of TAF, plants from 14 different grass species were tested with PCR (  P. angustifolia  ,&nbsp;  P. nemoralis  ,&nbsp;  P. compressa  ,&nbsp;  P. chaixii  ,&nbsp;  P. supina  ,&nbsp;  P. annua  ,&nbsp;  F. pratensis  ,&nbsp;  F. arundinacea  ,&nbsp;  F. polesica  ,&nbsp;  Lolium perenne  ,&nbsp;  Dactylis glomerata  ,&nbsp;  Zea mays  ,&nbsp;  Oryza sativa  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  Hordeum vulgare  ). Bands of the expected length were obtained from the three polyploid&nbsp;  Poa  &nbsp;species (  angustifolia  ,&nbsp;  nemoralis  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  compressa  ) but not from any of the other species.   A genome walk in the&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;plant, starting in TAF and moving away from the gene, resulted in one sequence that was identical to the well-ascertained upstream sequence until base pair 1174. Outside this point a different unique sequence was found. This is the end of region III in&nbsp;  Fig. 1  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  Table 1  .   Sequence information from downstream&nbsp;  PgiC2   Downstream of the&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;gene the sequence was very similar to the corresponding sequence from  PgiC  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  P. palustris  . In 613 base pairs, 15 single base pair substitutions or indels were found plus 12 base pair differences or indels that involved more than one consecutive nucleotide. A comparison with the downstream sequence of&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;gave, however, a completely different result. Here the homology between&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;(and&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;from&nbsp;  P. palustris  ) ended immediately downstream the stop codon of the gene.    Discussion&nbsp;  Top   The&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;locus in&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;was originally detected through the presence of too many bands in an isozyme survey&nbsp;  [14]  . This implies that elements necessary for the expression of&nbsp;  PgiC2  , typically placed upstream of a gene, must have been brought along with it. The sequences of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;from&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;from&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;are all similar in region I, though&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;becomes increasingly divergent with increasing distance from the gene. This similarity ends at the boundary to region II, when&nbsp;  PgiC1  becomes different from the other sequences, thereby presumably marking the end of the upstream region necessary for regular gene expression.   The similarity between&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;extends beyond this point, and includes region II in&nbsp;  Fig. 1  . This implies that the transfer of genetic material from&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;into&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;involved a chromosome fragment that most likely contained not only a structural gene but also its necessary controlling sequences. If&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;from&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;were similar beyond the region of homology with&nbsp;  PgiC2  , then the apparently normal regulation of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;expression would need its own separate explanation.   The differences and similarities of these three sequences in the up- and downstream regions give renewed support to and  we would claim  finally prove our earlier conclusion that&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  F.ovina  &nbsp;is the result of a horizontal transfer from&nbsp;  Poa  &nbsp;  [3]  ,&nbsp;  [4]  . The close similarity in upstream regions between  PgiC2  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;in the distantly related species&nbsp;  P. palustris  , can only be explained by a very recent common history. No evolutionary scenario, involving any kind of stabilizing or directional selection, could lead to the pattern shown in&nbsp;  Table 1  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  Figure 1  &nbsp;if&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;were a duplication of the  PgiC1  &nbsp;gene within the&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;lineage. This conclusion is strongly confirmed by the downstream data. The sequence downstream the&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;gene is highly similar to the corresponding sequence from&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;for hundreds of base pairs, while no sequence similarity exists relative to&nbsp;  PgiC1  . Given the complete reproductive separation between the&nbsp;  Festuca  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  Poa  &nbsp;genera&nbsp;  [10]  ,&nbsp;  [11]  , and the extensive sequence divergence found between these genera with respect to their standard&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;genes&nbsp;  [4]  &nbsp;as well as their ITS sequences&nbsp;  [12]  ,&nbsp;  [13]  ,&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;undoubtedly represents a case of a horizontal gene transfer, and  as yet  the only example involving a functional nuclear gene among angiosperms&nbsp;  [16]  ,  [17]  .   With respect to the question of how this horizontal gene transfer came about, we know as yet too little, but the results from our analysis of the transgene characteristic fragment, TAF, in upstream region III are suggestive. When the end of similarity between the upstream regions of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  PgiC  from&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;was found, it seemed reasonable that we had detected the end of the horizontally transferred region and that the standard DNA of&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;returned here. To check this suggestion we constructed primers that would amplify only this fragment. However, when targeting these primers to non-transgenic&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plants no amplification was detected. Such amplification was only obtained in plants already known to contain the transgenic&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;gene. From this we conclude that region III in  Fig.1  &nbsp;does not correspond to any region in the standard&nbsp;  F.ovina  &nbsp;genome, but must have been brought into this species by the HGT event. In correspondence with this conclusion, the sequence can be found in polyploid&nbsp;  Poa  &nbsp;species.   The TAF sequence has properties associated with transposing elements. As reported above, from the  PgiC2  &nbsp;plant we also obtained a sequence with one end as in TAF and region III but with a completely difference sequence at its upstream end. This result can be taken to imply that TAF exists in more than one copy within the horizontally transferred fragment. It is also notable that TAF resides in&nbsp;  P. palustris  in a different position(s) than immediately upstream&nbsp;  PgiC  , since no trace of it could be detected in the 1844 bp upstream region. Among different grasses, TAF was found in the closely related group of polyploids from which we have earlier shown that&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;must be derived&nbsp;  [4]  , but not in any of the other tested species. Taken together these data indicate that TAF represents DNA of a mobile nature and that it may have played a role in the HGT process. Further cloning studies to determine the genomic contexts in which TAF are found in different grasses will, thus, be important, as will investigations of its sequence variation (that may cause PCR based methods to fail to detect its presence).   Of the two suggested modes by which horizontal gene transfers may occur  non-standard pollination and vector mediation  we cannot formally exclude the first possibility. We failed, however, to detect any chromosome fragment from&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;in&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plants with&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;in preliminary experiments with GISH&nbsp;  [18]  , which  if found  would have supported the first alternative. Instead, the small upstream size of the transferred segment (as judged from the comparison with&nbsp;  P. palustris  ), the duplication of the&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;gene at or just after its insertion into a&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;chromosome (as judged from the similarity between the active and the pseudogene versions of&nbsp;  PgiC2  ), plus the fact that it is closely associated with a sequence with transposing characteristics, make us prefer the alternative suggestion that&nbsp;  PgiC2  has been transferred to&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;by a vector of so-far unknown kind.    Materials and Methods&nbsp;  Top  Plant Material, Genome Walking and Sequence Analysis   Sequences of&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;were obtained from two plants belonging to&nbsp;  Festuca ovina  &nbsp;L. The first had genotype&nbsp;  PgiC1 d/d PgiC2 cc/  0, the second&nbsp;  PgiC1 d/d PgiC2 bc/  0. The sequence of&nbsp;  PgiC1  &nbsp;was obtained from a&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plant with genotype&nbsp;  PgiC1 d/d PgiC2  &nbsp;0/0. These three plants have earlier been used for descriptions of the&nbsp;  PgiC1  and&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;genes and for sequence comparisons&nbsp;  [4]  . The sequence of&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;in  Poa palustris  &nbsp;was based on the same plant as used for an earlier sequence comparison&nbsp;  [4]  .  DNA was extracted using Plant-Mini kit from Qiagen. Genome walking was performed using the Genome walking kit from Sigma-Aldrich according to the suggested protocol in the kit manual. DNA was digested using standard digestion protocols for restriction enzymes. PCR products were ligated into pGEM-T Easy vectors (Promega) and transformed into JM109 Competent cells from Promega. Ampicillin was used for selection. The colonies were used in a PCR reaction with universal primers SP6 and T7. The PCR products were purified and sequenced by Macrogen.   Whenever a new presumptive sequence was obtained, primers were constructed based on the new sequence information and used with a primer inside the well-corroborated sequence in order to validate the result. This was particularly important when the new region was suspected to contain transposable elements. Sequences were aligned and analysed using Sequencher version 4.7. Position numbers were determined from consensus sequences. The up- and downstream sequences of&nbsp;  PgiC2  ,  PgiC1  &nbsp;and of&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;from&nbsp;  P. palustris  &nbsp;have been deposited in GenBank (accession no. xx-xx).   The&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;locus is obviously complex. The plant used as our reference has at least one active gene and one very closely linked pseudogene between which strong sequence similarity holds. With respect to the upstream sequences reported on here, we take them to represent the sequences upstream of both of these genes, since no difference was found between PCR runs with primers specific for the active and the inactive genes. The crucial difference between these genes is instead found in a deletion affecting the boundary between intron 12 and exon 13&nbsp;  [3]  .  Analysis of the Transgene Associated Fragment (TAF).   To test for the presence of the TAF region, DNA from&nbsp;  P. angustifolia  ,&nbsp;  P. nemoralis  ,&nbsp;  P. compressa  ,&nbsp;  P. chaixii  ,&nbsp;  P. supina  ,&nbsp;  P. annua  ,&nbsp;  L. perennes  ,&nbsp;  F. pratensis  ,&nbsp;  F. arundinacea  ,&nbsp;  F. polesica  ,&nbsp;  Dactylis glomerata  ,&nbsp;  Zea mays  ,&nbsp;  Oryza sativa  &nbsp;and&nbsp;  Hordeum vulgare  were obtained from the same plants as used in our earlier sequence comparisons&nbsp;  [3]    [4]  . For the same purpose additional&nbsp;  F. ovina  &nbsp;plants were taken from the earlier analysed population samples&nbsp;  [4]  (1 to 4 individuals with and without&nbsp;  PgiC2  &nbsp;from Bornholm, Haget, Eketorp, Mosty and Dresden). The PCR screening was performed using standard method with the TAF primers (xxx) and (xxx).    Acknowledgments&nbsp;  Top  We thank Bengt Jacobsson for taking good care of the plants, Pernilla Andersson and Arnulf Merker () for cooperative work using GISH, and Alf Ceplitis, Maarit Jaarola, and Torbjrn Sll for encouraging discussions and helpful comments.    Author Contributions&nbsp;  Top   Conceived and designed the experiments: PV LG. Performed the experiments: PV. Analyzed the data: PV BOB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: PV LG. Wrote the paper: PV BOB.    References&nbsp;  Top    Bergthorsson U, Adams KL, Thomason B, Palmer JD  &nbsp;(2003) Widespread horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes in flowering plants. Nature 424: 197201.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Diao X, Freeling M, Lisch DR  &nbsp;(2006) Horizontal transfer of a plant transposon. PLoS Biol 4: 119128.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Ghatnekar L, Jaarola M, Bengtsson BO  &nbsp;(2006) The introgression of a functional nuclear gene from  Poa  &nbsp;to&nbsp;  Festuca ovina  . Proc R Soc Ser B 273: 395399.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Vallenback P, Jaarola M, Ghatnekar L, Bengtsson BO  &nbsp;(2008) Origin and timing of the horizontal transfer of a&nbsp;  PgiC  &nbsp;gene from&nbsp;  Poa  &nbsp;to&nbsp;  Festuca ovina  . Mol Phylogenet Evol 46: 890896.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Davis CC, Wurdack KJ  &nbsp;(2004) Host-to-parasite gene transfer in flowering plants: Phylogenetic evidence from Malpighiales. Science 305: 676678.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Davis CC, Anderson WR, Wurdack KJ  &nbsp;(2005) Gene transfer from a parasitic flowering plant to a fern. Proc R Soc Ser B 272: 22372242.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Davies DR  &nbsp;(1974) Chromosome elimination in inter-specific hybrids. Heredity 32: 267270.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Laurie DA, O;Donoughue LS, Bennett MD  &nbsp;(1990) Wheat  maize and other wide sexual hybrids: their potential for genetic manipulation and crop improvement. In: Gustafson JP, editor. Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement II. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 95126.   Vallenback P, Bengtsson BO, Ghatnekar L  &nbsp;(2010) Geographic and molecular variation in a natural plant transgene. Genetica 138: 355362.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Knobloch IW  &nbsp;(1968)&nbsp;  A check list of crosses in the Gramineae  &nbsp;(Michigan State University, East Lansing).   Hegi G  &nbsp;(1996)&nbsp;  Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa  . Bd 1.T.3. Lief 8/9 (Parey, Berlin).   Ghatnekar L  &nbsp;(1999) A polymorphic duplicated locus for cytosolic PGI segregating in sheep;s fescue (  Festuca ovina  &nbsp;L.). Heredity 83: 451459.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Grime JP, Mowforth MA  &nbsp;(1982) Variation in genome size  an ecological interpretation. Nature 299: 151153.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Gaut BS, Tredway LP, Kubik C, Gaut RL, Meyer W  &nbsp;(2000) Phylogenetic relationships and genetic diversity among members of the&nbsp;  Festuca-Lolium  &nbsp;complex (Poaceae) based on ITS sequence data. Plant Syst Evol 224: 3353.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Torrecilla P, Cataln P  &nbsp;(2002) Phylogeny of broad-leaved and fine-leaved&nbsp;  Festuca  &nbsp;lineages (Poaceae) based on nuclear ITS sequences. Syst Bot 27: 241251.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Richardson AO, Palmer JD  &nbsp;(2007) Horizontal gene transfer in plants. J Exp Bot 58: 19.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Bock R  &nbsp;(2010) The give-and-take of DNA: horizontal gene transfer in plants. Trends Plant Sci 15: 1122.&nbsp;  FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE   Vallenback P  &nbsp;(2009)&nbsp;  Horizontal Gene Transfer in Plants  The Story of PgiC2  &nbsp;(Doctoral Thesis in Genetics, Lund University, Lund).













Document Number: 4498 



 Natural GMOs Part 82: Relocation of genes in new homes creates most of evolution in bacteria 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 January 2011 


Gene ;Relocation; Key to Most Evolutionary Change in Bacteria


ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2011)  In a new study, scientists at the University of Maryland and the Institut Pasteur show that bacteria evolve new abilities, such as antibiotic resistance, predominantly by acquiring genes from other bacteria.  The researchers new insights into the evolution of bacteria partly contradict the widely accepted theory that new biological functions in bacteria and other microbes arise primarily through the process of gene duplication within the same organism. Their just released study will be  published in the open-access journal PLoS Genetics on January 27.


Microbes live and thrive in incredibly diverse and harsh conditions, from boiling or freezing water to the human immune system. This remarkable adaptability results from their ability to quickly modify their repertoire of protein functions by gaining, losing and modifying their genes. Microbes were known to modify genes to expand their repertoire of protein families in two ways: via duplication processes followed by slow functional specialization, in the same way as large multicellular organisms like us, and by acquiring different genes directly from other microbes. The latter process, known as horizontal gene transfer, is notoriously conspicuous in the spread of antibiotic resistance, turning some bacteria into drug-resistant ;superbugs; such as MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a serious public health concern.  The researchers examined a large database of microbial genomes, including some of the most virulent human pathogens, to discover whether duplication or horizontal gene transfer was the most common expansion method. Their study shows that gene family expansion can indeed follow both routes, but unlike in large multicellular organisms, it predominantly takes place by horizontal transfer.  First author Todd Treangen, a postdoctoral researcher in the University of Maryland Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology and co-author Eduardo P. C. Rocha of the Institut Pasteur conclude that because microbes invented the majority of life;s biochemical diversity ; from respiration to photosynthesis ;, ;the study of the evolution of biology systems should explicitly account for the predominant role of horizontal gene transfer in the diversification of protein families.;


Story Source:  The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by University of Maryland.  Journal Reference:  Todd J. Treangen, Eduardo P. C. Rocha. Horizontal Transfer, Not Duplication, Drives the Expansion of Protein Families in Prokaryotes. PLoS Genetics, 2011; 7 (1): e1001284 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1001284


Abstract  Gene duplication followed by neo- or sub-functionalization deeply impacts the evolution of protein families and is regarded as the main source of adaptive functional novelty in eukaryotes. While there is ample evidence of adaptive gene duplication in prokaryotes, it is not clear whether duplication outweighs the contribution of horizontal gene transfer in the expansion of protein families. We analyzed closely related prokaryote strains or species with small genomes (Helicobacter, Neisseria, Streptococcus, Sulfolobus), average-sized genomes (Bacillus, Enterobacteriaceae), and large genomes (Pseudomonas, Bradyrhizobiaceae) to untangle the effects of duplication and horizontal transfer. After removing the effects of transposable elements and phages, we show that the vast majority of expansions of protein families are due to transfer, even among large genomes. Transferred genesxenologspersist longer in prokaryotic lineages possibly due to a higher/longer adaptive role. On the other hand, duplicated genesparalogsare expressed more, and, when persistent, they evolve slower. This suggests that gene transfer and gene duplication have very different roles in shaping the evolution of biological systems: transfer allows the acquisition of new functions and duplication leads to higher gene dosage. Accordingly, we show that paralogs share most proteinprotein interactions and genetic regulators, whereas xenologs share very few of them. Prokaryotes invented most of life;s biochemical diversity. Therefore, the study of the evolution of biology systems should explicitly account for the predominant role of horizontal gene transfer in the diversification of protein families.













Document Number: 8626 



 Those naughty plants! 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 22 January 2010 


Potentially promiscuous pollen from corn tassels by circulating via Flickr.


Many people, including me, are concerned about potential harm to crop biodiversity from gene flow. Most people;s concern focuses on transgenics. There is a certain probability, albeit small, that transgenes will end up in the progeny of non-transgenic plants, weedy relatives of the crop, or wild relatives that grow nearby due to pollen flow. Transgenes can also be moved from place to place by accidental or purposeful movement of seeds.


How much transgene flow is actually happening is a subject of some controversy, but what about gene flow between non-transgenic plants?


There is potential for problems whenever plants that aren;t supposed to cross stray from their intended mates. Some things to think about include how gene flow happens at the field and genetic levels and what characteristics of the genes themselves can affect permanence of contaminating genes once they get into a variety they shouldn;t be in.


Gene flow with transgenes can help us to think about gene flow of ;regular; genes


In the 2004 paper  Gene Flow from Cultivated Rice (Oryza sativa) to its Weedy and Wild Relatives  , Li Juan Chen showed that a  marker gene  ;flowed; in their test field from transgenic cultivated rice to weedy rice at rates between 0.011 and 0.046 % and to wild rice at rates between 1.21 and 2.19 %. The marker gene Chen used is called  bar  , which is easy to screen for because it makes plants resistant to the antibiotic and herbicide biaphalos. Just spray the progeny and you;ll know if they;ve got the gene. Chen confirmed presence of the bar gene with  PCR  . These rates seem pretty low, but rice is mostly a self-pollinator, and the pollen is very short lived. If out-cross rates in rice reach 2.19 % we could expect to see rates even higher in other species. This tells us that transgenes can be passed to weeds, but also, more broadly, tells us that any gene can be passed from cultivated rice to weed rice.


Gene flow could be a problem in the opposite direction as well. In the 2009 paper  Gene flow from weedy red rice (Oryza sativa L.) to cultivated rice and fitness of hybrids  , Vinod Shivrain showed that progeny of a cross between weedy red rice and cultivated rice were more successful if their mother was the cultivated plant. These hybrid grains can fall back to the field on accident or be collected and planted the following year with the regular seed. Either way, the rice farmer now has rice plants that don;t have all of the desired characteristics of the cultivated rice. The plants will have at least some genes from the weedy rice that could help it out compete the desired rice plants but produce less grain. This paper shows that gene flow from weeds to crops can happen, and that it can be a problem.


Maize, unlike rice, is a promiscuous out-crosser. The pollen is heavy and still fairly short lived, so mostly pollinates plants that are nearby, but wind-carried pollen and stray seed can carry transgenes away from their intended fields. The story of transgenes in landraces of maize is summed up beautifully in the 2007 paper  Gene flow from transgenic maize to landraces in Mexico: An analysis  (pdf).  Kristin Mercer  tells us that research on the subject has had mixed results. Transgenes likely do exist in landraces in Mexico, but the extent of the ;contamination; is not as wide as some researchers have proposed. Some of Kristen;s other research focuses on how crop alleles move in wild sunflower populations. The sum of her research is that we can expect gene flow back and forth between any compatible plants: wild, weedy, cultivated, transgenic, landrace.


Gene flow;s effect on biodiversity


Image of corn plant by University of Nebraska Lincoln, adapted by Anastasia Bodnar. All other images in this post by Anastasia Bodnar.


Understanding the impact of gene flow on biodiversity (or more appropriately,  crop diversity  ) requires some understanding of what happens at the genetic level. I like to sit down and draw pictures to help me think about genetics. I hope it helps some Biofortified readers as well!


The image to the right shows two hypothetical varieties of corn. On the left is a modern inbred variety. All the plants are identical. There is no or low genetic variability within the inbred, because there is only one version of each gene present in the variety. On the right is a  landrace  or heirloom variety. All the plants are different from each other to some degree. There is high genetic variability within the landrace because there can be many versions of each gene present in the variety.


Below is a (very) simplified view of what happens at the chromosomal level when an inbred is crossed with a landrace (in a hypothetical crop with one chromosome). Note: a hybrid or even an open pollinated variety could be substituted for inbred here, it was just easier to use an inbred. Similarly, a wild variety could contaminate a landrace. One landrace can contaminate another. One inbred could contaminate another. Weedy relatives can contaminate crops. Crops can contaminate wild varieties; you get the idea.


In the inbred (red), the two  sister chromatids  for each chromosome are identical to each other. There is only one version of each gene in the inbred, also known as two copies of the same  allele  . In the landrace (blue), the two sister chromatids are different from each other. For each gene in the landrace, there can be two different alleles. The different shades of blue indicate different alleles for some genes on the sister chromatids.


Imagine a situation where a field with the inbred is right next to a field with the landrace. Pollen will flow between the fields (to some degree ; depending on weather conditions, pollen size, and tons of other factors). If the inbred and the landrace are crossed (whether pollen from the inbred fertilizes the landrace or vice versa), each of the offspring will have about half of the genetic information from the inbred and half from the landrace. Since the two chromatids are the same for the inbred, none of the information from the inbred is lost in any individual. Since the two chromatids in the landrace individual are different, each of the offspring only receive half of the genetic information from the landrace.


When those offspring make gametes, recombination often occurs which results in chromatids that contain some alleles from each grandparent.  Crossing over  , shown here, is one type of recombination. If those gametes then combine with the inbred, their progeny will only have about 1/4 of its genes from the landrace grandparent.


Genetic diversity can be lost in certain situations. For example, if a farmer growing a landrace finds plants in the field that have positive traits, the farmer will choose to plant those seeds for the next year. If those beneficial traits are due to genes from the inbred, the farmer could effectively select for plants with one or more genes with the inbred and against plants that don;t contain any genes from the inbred. If pollen from the inbred is reintroduced year after year, the farmer could plant seeds from those plants that contain more and more alleles from the inbred variety, and alleles from the landrace could be lost over time.


On the other hand, if the farmer chooses seeds from plants that look more like the landrace, then alleles from the inbred could be lost fairly quickly. If pollen or seeds from the inbred are introduced infrequently, the landrace would maintain a low level of alleles from the inbred, with those alleles eventually disapearing.


Of course there are many situations in between, and those depend greatly on what effect each gene or allele has on the plants they have contaminated.


Once it;s in there, how long will it stay?


Transgene or not, wild or cultivated, all of the genetic material goes into a big mixing pot to be stirred by random mating and natural selection in the case of wild plants or by breeding and artificial selection in the case of cultivated plants. One of Kristen;s points in  Gene flow from transgenic maize to landraces in Mexico: An analysis  (pdf) is that the permanence of transgenes in a non-transgenic population depends a lot on what the transgene is exactly, and the same idea applies to non-transgenic alleles.


To break it down: Any given transgene or any allele of a gene can have one of three effects on the plant: positive, neutral, and negative. The effect depends on what plant the allele is contaminating and what trait is conferred by the allele. Finally, how long a contaminating allele stays in a population depends on all of these factors.


Positive


Some alleles would be beneficial in almost any situation. Herbivore resistance, including genetically engineered Bt toxin and increased expression of non-transgenic  chemical defenses  , would help both cultivated and non-cultivated plants escape damage from susceptible herbivores. These types of transgenes and alleles would be likely to persist in any population they contaminated. These would definitely be bad traits to have in weeds. They could be desirable in a landrace from a farmer;s point of view.


Neutral


A gene that increases the size and number of fruits produced by a plant is desirable from an agricultural perspective, but could have a negative effect a wild plant, because the plant would have less resources to devote to other needs like herbivore defense and drought tolerance. These types of alleles will not persist in a wild population, but could persist in a landrace if it is seen as desirable to farmers.


Negative


Alleles or genes that are specific for certain farming systems won;t persist in wild populations, weeds, or landraces unless they are exposed to those farming conditions. These include genetically engineered genes like glyphosate tolerance and the non-transgenic allele for Clearfield tolerance. If these alleles or genes contaminate a population but that population is never sprayed with the chemical, there is no selection pressure to keep the trait.


Of course these are just three examples of different traits and there are thousands if not millions of traits out there that might have different effects, but you get the idea.


Every day, pollen blows and seed is moved. Every day, genes and alleles are transferred from one plant population to another, no matter if they are transgenes or not. Those naughty plants just won;t keep to themselves! If we are truly concerned about gene flow, we really should be considering gene flow from all sources, not just transgenic crops.


Chen LJ, Lee DS, Song ZP, Suh HS, &amp; Lu BR (2004). Gene flow from cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) to its weedy and wild relatives.  Annals of botany, 93  (1), 67-73 PMID:  14602665


Shivrain VK, Burgos NR, Gealy DR, Sales MA, &amp; Smith KL (2009). Gene flow from weedy red rice (Oryza sativa L.) to cultivated rice and fitness of hybrids.  Pest management science, 65  (10), 1124-9 PMID:  19530257


Mercer, K., &amp; Wainright, J. (2008). Gene flow from transgenic maize to landraces in Mexico: An analysis  Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment, 123  (1-3), 109-115 DOI:  10.1016/j.agee.2007.05.007













Document Number: 4263 



 NCCC-167 2011 Edition 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 18 March 2011 


A  couple  years  ago, Anastasia wrote about the NCCC-167  North Central Region Corn Breeding Research meeting  . (NCCC stands for North Central Communications Committee.) This time around, it was my turn to attend, and it went pretty well if you ask me. After a short drive from Madison to St. Charles, IL, the one-day conference started just after lunch.


Some of  the talks  on the first afternoon were on the effect of pieces of the wild teosinte genome in maize varieties, aka introgression lines, and selecting for dark orange color in the kernels, for example. Reid, a fellow UW-Madison grad student, gave a great presentation on the performance of some new sweet corn lines compared to popular varieties.


On the second day, the first order of business was a round-table discussion from 8-11:30, where breeders and grad students could get up in the middle of the group and draw their breeding strategies on an easel.  During a break, I snapped this photo of some of the presenters and other innocent bystanders, and as a result, when I went in front of the group to talk about my plant breeding videos, my only question was about the blog! As you can see, Frank here was telling people about it.


Note Wenwei Xu on the left, and Seth Murray and Marilyn Warburton in the 3rd and 4th positions. Marilyn studies resistance to fungi that produce Aflatoxin, a toxin that stunts growth in both livestock and human beings. Aflatoxin levels are highly regulated in the US, while in developing countries it remains a persistent health issue.


After a delicious build-yourself sandwich lunch, it was back to a few more talks. Wenwei Xu talked about how to evaluate how big your sample size must be if you are studying corn earworm resistance. It turns out that with a statistical model, he showed that sampling 5 ears is just as good as 10. Seth Murray gave an interesting talk about modeling the effective recombination rate in maize chromosomes. The ;Big Science; project in the maize genetics community is a huge crossed population called the Nested Association Mapping population, or NAM for short. He was able to model how often chromosomes trade arms in meiosis, an important process that recombines or mixes up the DNA an organism inherits from each of its parents.


There was also a great presentation by another graduate student named Joana, where she talked about modeling the roots of maize. She showed how she put together a computerized photo box for photographing the root structure of plants that were dug up from the field. This presentation was not only image-rich, but it also had some video clips of rotating root balls, making it a great way to round out the end of the NCCC-167 meeting.


The whole group gathered for a photograph in the beautiful 65 degree March weather we were having. As he usually does, Frank N. Foode wandered through the crowd ; as you can imagine a Supersweet ear of corn can be popular amongst corn breeders. Where;s Frank?


The meeting was over in the afternoon, and it was time then to rest up and get ready for the main event of the week, the 2011 International Maize Genetics Conference, held at the same hotel. Soon enough, Anastasia was on the scene and James as well. The conference adventures are just beginning!













Document Number: 535 



 New approach to fish feed 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 8 December 2007 


Fish as human food present a unique problem. The protein they provide is high quality and low in fat. People all over the world enjoy fish as a staple of their diet. Unfortunately, the demand for fish has overtaxed natural populations. Regulation has been successful in some areas (  Alaskan salmon  ), yet failed miserably in others (  Mediterranean tuna  ). The big question is: how can humans continue to enjoy eating fish but avoid the extinction of popular species?  Aquaculture is one solution. Farming has been especially successful with vegetarian fish like tilapia and catfish, because they can be fed grain based meal. It hasn;t been as sucessful with carnivorous fish because they require a high protein meal that is typically made from smaller fish like anchovies. Overfishing of the smaller fish has negative effects on wild ecosystems. Researchers at Mississippi State may have found the solution. Feed made from insects contains high quality protein and is cheap to produce. Excerpts from the  press release  are below the cut.


Aquaculture, the commercial production of seafood in managed ponds or tanks, currently supplies about 46 percent of all seafood consumed in the world today. The United Nations; Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that commercially grown supplies will rise to 75 percent of consumption in the next 20 years.  ;The supply of wild-caught fish has really been flat since the late 1980s, and those stocks have little chance of regaining their past levels because of pollution, overfishing and other factors affecting commercial fishing,; Papadoyianis said. ;Aquaculture is left to bridge the widening gap, and we have to be sustainable in all aspects of our industry.;  More than 25 percent of all fish harvested today are used for fish meal, and the majority of fish meal is used to produce other fish, he said. These baitfish stocks, such as anchovies, menhaden and herring, are exploited, and growing scarcer as time goes on. The result is an ever-tightening supply situation, which has caused sharp price increases over the last year. This trend is expected to worsen.  ;The first phase of the research was the selection of insect species with high amounts of protein that can be economically produced by the millions,; Davis said.  By early fall the species were selected and feeding trials began with hybrid striped bass supplied by Neptune.  The feeding trials are being conducted by MAFES scientist Lou D;Abramo, who is comparing feed pellets made with fish meal to pellets produced from insects. Both were commercially produced and look identical.  ;The early trial results indicate the fish have no real preference for one over the other,; D;Abramo said. ;In the wild, fish do come to the surface to feed on dragonflies and other insects, so it makes sense that they will eat pellets made from insects.;  D;Abramo is also studying weight gain and other factors that will determine whether the insect-based diet is acceptable for commercial fish production.  The next phase of the research was conducted at MSU;s Garrison Sensory Evaluation Laboratory to determine whether an insect diet affects the taste, texture or other qualities of the fish.  ;Our evaluation of the samples of hybrid striped bass from the feeding trail indicated no difference in appearance, flavor or texture of the fish grown on the insect-based diet and those grown on the fish meal diet,; said Patti Coggins, director of the sensory evaluation lab. ;The only difference we found was that the fillets from the fish raised on the insect diet did not have a strong fishy; smell.;  With research pointing to the potential success of insect-based diets in fish production, Papadoyianis is looking ahead to the next step in the process ; construction of a pilot insect-rearing facility to test growing, harvesting and processing methods.  ;We;ve already had inquiries from all over the world about this,; Papadoyianis said. ;Our vision is to have insect production facilities in all of the geographical regions with major commercial aquaculture industries in order to reduce freight costs. That will require researching the use of local insect species, nutrition and production methods, so we envision a long-term relationship with Mississippi State University.;


I;ve always said that algae and fungi would be the final solution to hunger problems as we move into the future. I may have to add insects to the list!













Document Number: 4567 



 New comments flagged 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 9 March 2011 


Long discussions are starting to become more and more commonplace here at Biofortified. While this is an awesome thing, combined with threaded comments it can be difficult to find every new comment to make sure that you have taken in everything new that has been said before you write your own posts. It was expressed that wouldn;t it be great if there was something to highlight new comments when you return to a post? Well, your wish is my command!


I toyed around with a wordpress plugin that was supposed to do this automatically, but for some reason it wouldn;t work. When you visit a page, it was supposed to store a cookie on your computer that would have a record of the time you last visited the blog. But every test I tried (if you noticed my comments) didn;t work, and it was displaying errors even when unmodified by me. Eventually, I realized that I understood the code that was the basis of this plugin, and decided to write my own plugin. An hour in the evening, and half an hour in the morning, I had a working plugin on our testing server. I added a nice image of a  sunflower  Gazania  to indicate new comments, and if it wasn;t for some odd server-wide inaccessibility problems we were having, it would have been activated last night. And a final test this morning revealed that it needed one more component to work properly ; something that took into consideration the timezone of the site ; otherwise it would have only flagged comments older than exactly 6 hours ; which, as I now believe, is why the original plugin didn;t work. Hah!


So I am pleased to announce that when you visit a post or a page for a second time or more, you will have this handy-dandy flower  to help you draw your eyes to comments that were made since your last visit. If you refresh the page or leave a new comment yourself, however, the flower will be gone. And when you leave a new comment it will highlight that comment when the page reloads. Give it a test drive on this post ; try leaving comments, refreshing, and leaving more! Have fun, and enjoy conversing on and into the future.













Document Number: 5064 



 New NUE stuff 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 11 December 2009 


Matt Ridley  , author of an upcoming book on science called The Rational Optimist, wrote an article for The Economist called  The new NUE thing  . NUE stands for Nitrogen Use Efficiency, a trait that can maintain yields with lower applications of costly fertilizer. Nitrogen Use Efficiency has got him, well,  rationally optimistic  about the environmental benefits of some GE traits.


Imagine you could wave a magic wand and boost the yield of the worlds crops, cut their cost, use fewer-fossil fuels to grow them and reduce the pollution that results from farming. Imagine, too, that you could both eliminate some hunger and return some land to rain forest. This is the scale of the prize that many in the biotechnology industry now suddenly believe is within their grasp in 2010 and the years that follow. They are in effect hoping to boost the miles-per-gallon of agriculture, except that the fuel in question is nitrogen.


In a play on those who call GE crops an ;unmitigated environmental disaster,; he instead calls them an unmitigated environmental miracle. While I wouldn;t go so far as to call them a miracle, it is quite astonishing what has been achieved in the literature in so short a time, and what traits we are likely to see commercialized in the next decade.


The Union of Concerned Scientists, however, just released another report, this time questioning the usefulness of genetic engineering to make crops more nitrogen-efficient.  Previously,  they claimed  that GE crops have failed to significantly increase yields, a couple months after  an announcement  of a GE trait developed by Mendel Biotechnology that does that remarkably well in soybeans. This time, while people have been  talking  about nitrogen use efficiency, the report gives the impression that such traits are a long way off. (I;m beginning to notice a pattern here.)


The report is titled  No Sure Fix  .


Besides the fact that this is not a peer-reviewed report (which  does matter  ), I have already noticed one glaring problem ; while the report focuses on pleiotropy (effect on other genes and traits) for genetically engineered traits, it ignores the same topic with regard to non-GE nitrogen-use-efficient genes. Here is the only place where the comparison is made on this topic (page 30):


Since little visible effort has been made thus  far to explore this variation, either within crop  species or their sexually compatible wild relatives,  the potential exists for improving NUE by making  use of this variation through breeding. As with  GE, however, it is possible that NUE traits within  the crop gene pool could have unintended negative  side effects.   But we do not believe this risk is  as high for genes that are part of the normal crop  genome as it is for exotic genes introduced to the  crop genome through GE, or engineered genes  expressed in ways outside the typical range of  crop metabolism.  (emphasis added)


The bold sentence is a completely unreferenced, unsupported statement in the paper. Notice how they make this statement about non-GE genes for NUE traits, after just saying that little visible effort has been made exploring this variation. This is an error in scholarship  and  logic.


If you want to change a trait through introducing a new gene from a wild relative, you are technically introducing an exotic gene, just like with GE. Or if you are instead introducing a new allele with different expression from another variety, you are changing the expression of the genes in the crop. The Bottom Line: If you are trying to change the [nitrogen] metabolism of a crop you  want  to change the genes and gene expression in your crop. If you are not changing expression outside the ;typical range of crop metabolism,; you are not making an improvement.


Still, there are some other good things to look for in the report, such as info about enhancing nitrogen use efficiency with precision farming and other practices. I;m interested to see what people  think about it  ?













Document Number: 9947 



 New possibilities for drought tolerance 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 13 June 2010 


An Arabidopsis stomate showing two guard cells exhibiting green fluorescent protein and native chloroplast (red) fluorescence. via Wikipedia.


This image is an extreme closeup of a stomate (singular, the plural form is stomata). These two cells, called guard cells, control the plant;s respiration: how much carbon dioxide gets in and how much oxygen and water vapor gets out. The control isn;t very good, though. Most plants just have their stomata open all day every day so they can pull in lots of CO2 to use during photosynthesis to make sugar. And that means a lot of water, painstakingly pulled up from the soil, through the roots, gets lost. If stomata could be more selective, only opening when more CO2 was needed for photosynthesis, then water could be conserved.


An enzyme called  carbonic anhydrase  raises the levels of CO2 in chloroplasts so the plant can make plenty of sugar. It does this by converting CO2 from its storage form  carbonic acid  back to it;s useable form: CO2 + H2O  H2CO3.


Carbonic anhydrase also appears in the guard cells, where it controls the opening and closing of stomata.


Julian Schroeder  , Professor of Biology at UC, San Diego hypothesized that more carbonic anhydrase in the guard cells would place tighter control over opening and closing. His group tried shutting off the carbonic anhydrase gene in the stomata of a little plant called   Arabidopsis  . Those plants were unable to respond to increased CO2 concentrations in the air, remaining open all day. They also tried expressing additional copies of the carbonic anhydrase gene in the stomata. Those plants closed their stomata when water was scarce. This makes sense ; carbonic anhdrase needs water to function, so it can;t function when water;s not around.


Honghong Hu, a postdoctoral research working on the project, said in the press release  Newly Identified Enzymes Help Plants Sense and Respond to Elevated Carbon Dioxide and Could Lead to Water-wise Crops  : The guard cells respond to CO2 more vigorously. For every molecule of CO2 they take in, they lose 44 percent less water.


This research,  Carbonic anhydrases are upstream regulators of CO2-controlled stomatal movements in guard cells  , published in January 2010, indicates that increasing the number of carbonic anhydrase genes in the stomata could potentially decrease the water lost through stomata in crops. The implications for drought prone regions are obvious. Plants could need less water and could hold on to the water they have longer. It won;t be plug and play, though. As stated in the press release, water that evaporates from stomata cools the plants just like water evaporating from our pores cools us. Increased expression of carbonic anhydrase will have to be tested to determine its effects on plants in high temperature environments.


Hu H, Boisson-Dernier A, Israelsson-Nordstrm M, Bhmer M, Xue S, Ries A, Godoski J, Kuhn JM, &amp; Schroeder JI (2010). Carbonic anhydrases are upstream regulators of CO2-controlled stomatal movements in guard cells.  Nature cell biology, 12  (1) PMID:  20010812


.


Thanks to @  RivenCactus  for bringing this research to my attention by Tweeting a link to the TreeHugger article  Newly Discovered Enzyme Could Create Crops That Thrive in Dry, High CO2 Conditions  .


If a gene like this was used to make crops more drought tolerant, could it spread to weeds and make weeds weedier?


Yes and no.


If there was a sexually compatible wild relative or weed species growing nearby the drought tolerant crop, it is possible that weed/crop hybrids could include the gene. Sexual compatibility means that the weed not only has to be a fairly close relative to the crop but also means that they have to be pollinated by the same method, have pollen shed at the same time, not have any incompatibility genes, etc. In the United States, there are few weed species that are sexually compatible with crop species, but there are some. In these cases, farmers can use the same sort of strategies to reduce gene flow that they would use to avoid spread of a conventionally bred trait.


If gene flow does happen, the gene will only be present in the weed population at low levels, unless the gene makes the weeds that have it able to outcompete weeds that don;t have it. See  Escape! Crop-Specific Gene Flow to Wild Relatives  and  Those naughty plants!  on Biofortified for more discussion of gene flow.













Document Number: 8728 



 No risk assessment for sugar beets? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 22 September 2009 


Often, risks of transgenic plants are made to appear larger than they are, and often risks arent put into context. There are always exceptions, of course. Sometimes, risks are underevaluated inappropriately. Thankfully, the USDAs deregulation process has ways to involve stakeholders such that there are safety controls. Its not a perfect system, but it seems to work. The latest example regards sugar beets in Oregon.


Map from Guide to Oregon.


There is a large valley on the West side of Oregon named Willamette Valley (shown in green on the map). The valley is heavily agricultural in between all of those highways, and is where a lot of sugar beets, table beets, and chard are grown for seed (according to Organic Seed Alliance). Because these seeds are used all over the country, its important to have genotypic integrity.


This seed is even more sensitive because lot of it is organic. Farmers who buy the seed and eventually sell the beet roots as organic need to have them GM free, especially with the advent of new voluntary testing and labeling of products by the Non-GMO Project (which I discuss in  Labeling GMOs  ).


According to the Organic Seed Alliances post  Judge Whites Decision: USDA-APHIS Violated National Environmental Policy Act in deregulation of RR sugarbeets  and  Judge overturns approval of Roundup Ready beets  from the Associated Press, USDA/APHIS failed to consider transgene flow to seed production fields in Willamette Valley in their environmental risk assessment. When I first read about this, I was shocked! How could the USDA release this transgenic plant before considering the impact!? Then, I did some research.


The  USDA/APHIS Environmental Risk Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact  (pdf) from February 2005 is the document that allowed deregulation has a lot of great info (EA for short). I found it on the USDA/APHIS website,  Petitions of Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS  , along with the pre-comment  USDA/APHIS Environmental Risk Assessment  (pdf), and all of the other EAs that are in current consideration (side note: the list is rather telling, Monsanto needs to get going on some new traits). Before I get into the details of this report, Id like to introduce some sugar beet biology.


Beet flowers and seeds, originally from Koehlers Medicinal-Plants circa 1887, via Wikipedia.


Sugar beets are biennial, which means they need two years before they reach maturity. During the 1st year, the plants produce a large root that, when dried, is 15-20% sugar. During the 2nd year, the plant uses those stored sugars to produce flowers and then seeds (  Wikipedia  ), which you can see in this image (also  Wikipedia  ).


Sugar beets harvested for sugar, therefore, dont produce flowers or pollen or seeds. This means that GM beets wont contribute to gene flow except when they are specifically grown for seed.


However, sometimes a few plants will bolt or flower when they arent supposed to. This is due to a variety of factors, including unseasonable weather, and happens in both GM and non-GM beets. Some plants bolt due to a bolting gene from wild beets. These bolters can be a problematic pollen source because its unexpected.


Modern beet varieties have mostly had bolting bred out of them. Even still, some small amount of certified beet seed has been fertilized by pollen from weed beets. This results in a very low percentage of bolters ; fewer than 1 per 1000 square meters of field ; and only 1/2 of the seed from these accidents will have the GM trait.


Some beets can be missed during harvest, and these will flower during the following year as volunteers. There is also a chance that a broken piece of beet can be left in the field, and a small chance that that piece will grow into a plant the following year.


Sugar beet by Mary Claire Garrison, via North Carolina State University.


When they do flower, sugar beet pollen is quite mobile, according to the Jan 2009  Pollen dispersal in sugar beet production fields  . It is carried by the wind and possibly by insects as well. They found that pollen carried up to 1200 meters (thats about 0.75 miles). These results are fairly consistent among papers testing dispersal of beet pollen. In the 1967  Cross-pollination between fields of sugar beet  , the amount of pollen falling from one 20 acre beet field onto another that is 1000 meters away is estimated to be 0.004 compared to the amount of pollen coming from the field itself. There is a lot of background pollen out there from different types of cultivated beets, wild weed beets, and a variety of beet relatives. Even though theres all of this pollen flying around, most of it falls close to the parent plants.


In order to have GM sugar beet pollen pollinate non-GM sugar beet flowers, quite a few conditions would have to be met:


Plants in the GM sugar beet field bolting  OR GM sugar beets growing from a broken beet piece and bolting  AND a non-GM sugar beet field within the distance that beet pollen can be carried on the wind  AND plants in the non-GM sugar beet field flowering at the same time


Even if all of these conditions are met, there is still one important factor ; the seeds of sugar beets grown for harvesting are irrelevant. You can not both harvest the root for sugar this year  and  harvest the seed next year. Even if the seed from a plant contains a transgene, the beet from that plant will not. So, there is no risk of contamination of non-GM beets with GM beet pollen ; except in the case of seed production.


Red chard via Wikipedia.


Sugar beets, table beets, and chard are all grown for seed in Willamette Valley, and they are all capable of cross breeding. How do seed producers keep pollen from the other two and weed beets from contaminating the one they want? They have to do this, or theyd end up with red sugar beets, or worse, and wouldnt be able to get their seed  certified  . They must have some sort of system that works for them. Barrier rows? Why dont they just keep using this system to keep GM sugar beet pollen out of their flowers? If there is no problem with pollen intermingling between table beets, sugar beets, and Swiss chard, then the likelihood that another pollen source wont cause any additional problems is rather high.


Now that we know all of that ; lets go back to the USDA/APHIS report. Did they consider the problems of pollen control, especially since beet pollen is so mobile? Did they consider the problem of bolting, which produces pollen practically at random?


Table beets via Wikipedia.


I hope you will read the entire EA because it includes a lot of information about exactly how the Roundup Ready sugar beets were created, the kinds of tests considered by USDA/APHIS prior to deregulation, and much more. Ive pulled out selections of the text that pertain to this case. The EA includes responses to shareholder comments made during the open comment period on the EA.


While the entire document is important, the first section that obviously pertains here is Potential impacts on organic farming on page 13. In short, Organic defines a process, not a product. The processes of organic farming will go unchanged. This is the last part of this section, and Ive italicized the part that seems particularly relevant.


The presence of a detectable residue of a product of excluded methods alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of the National Organic Standards. The unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods will not affect the status of an organic product or operation when the operation has not used excluded methods and has taken reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan. Organic certification of a production or handling operation is a process claim, not a product claim.


It is not likely that organic farmers, or other farmers who choose not to plant transgenic varieties or sell transgenic sugar beets, will be significantly impacted by the expected commercial use of this product since: (a) non-transgenic sugar beet will likely still be sold and will be available to those who wish to plant it; (b) farmers purchasing seed will know this product is transgenic because it will be marketed and labeled as glyphosate tolerant.


No transgenic varieties of sugar beet are currently in commercial production.   Varieties derived from event H7-1 should not present new and different issues with respect to impacts on organic farmers. With the exception of seed production fields, sugar beets do not typically flower in their one year production cycle, therefore, the likelihood of cross pollination to organic fields is unlikely.  Current seed certification standards  are sufficient to address this issue.


In Potential Impacts on Biodiversity on page 14:


After careful evaluation, APHIS believes that event H7-1 sugar beets exhibit no traits that would cause increased weediness, its cultivation should not lead to increased weediness of other cultivated sugar beet or other sexually compatible relatives, and it is unlikely to harm non-target organisms common to the agricultural ecosystem or threatened or endangered species recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on this analysis, APHIS believes that it is unlikely that event H7- 1 sugar beet or its progeny will pose a significant impact on biodiversity.


Finally, Sugar Beet Biology and the potential for introgression into related species on page 19. I am not satisfied with this section, as I do not think it adequetely addresses the potential of glyphosate tolerant weed beets (the concern is addressed in the response to comments):


APHIS believes that if and when the glyphosate tolerance trait moves from H7-1 to other sexually compatible Beta sp. this will not have a significant impact in the United States. Since the wild or weed beet is regarded as a weed, there will be no impact on the genetic resources of this species, and if glyphosate tolerant individuals did arise through interspecific or intergeneric hybridization, the tolerance would not confer any competitive advantage to these plants unless challenged by glyphosate. This would only occur in managed ecosystems where glyphosate is applied for broad spectrum weed control, or in plant varieties developed to exhibit glyphosate tolerance and in which glyphosate is used to control weeds. As with glyphosate tolerant sugar beet volunteers, these individuals, should they arise, would be controlled using other available chemical and/or mechanical means. Hybrids, if they developed, could potentially result in the loss of glyphosate as a tool to control these species. However, this can be avoided by the use of sound crop management practices.


The potential problem of gene flow is addressed more completely then in the EA in response to comment number 2, Bolting potential and the possibility of gene flow to wild relatives:


APHIS considers issues related to bolting and gene flow to be closely linked, and so will consider both together.


As the commenter recognizes, the issue of bolting of sugar beets and possible gene flow to wild or weedy sexually compatible species is primarily a concern in California where  Beta macrocarpa  can be found. Bolting, in and of itself, does not represent an increased plant pest risk or other issue for which APHIS has regulatory authority. A number of management practices have led APHIS to conclude that this is not a significant concern. California sugar beet growers have been managing the bolting of sugar beets for many years and recognize the benefit to continuing this practice: increased sugar yields and lesser incidence of disease are the primary drivers of  these practices  . They also recognize that allowing beets to flower may lead to increased incidence of weed beets in subsequent crops. Bartsch, et al (2002) indicate several points germane to the issue relating to gene flow to compatible beet relatives: (1) Conventional sugar beet has been cultivated for over 200 years, (2) this species has not shown unwanted ecological effects despite the introduction and spread of this European species to the New World (Bartsch and Ellstrand, 1999). Sugar beet growers in CA currently manage weed beets (  Beta vulgaris  species) and/or  Beta macrocarpa  in some fields. The extent of this need is difficult to determine, however, these weed beet species are not listed as major weeds in any publication that APHIS could locate. Management of weed beets can be difficult because these species are generally tolerant to the same herbicides that are commonly used for other weed control in beet fields. The ability to utilize glyphosate over the top of growing sugar beets in these fields will provide a simplified and effective control method not currently available to growers and  may actually minimize the likelihood of gene flow to these sugar beet relatives  . Kaffka and Peterson (2000) address the issue of the consequence of  possible hybrid formation  of sugar beet with sexually compatible relatives. Resistance to sugarbeet herbicides characterizes both wild beetsand  Beta macrocarpa  seedlings, so escape would not materially change sugarbeet weed management. Both transgenic weed beets and weedy relatives would still be controlled by the herbicides used for other crops in the rotation to which beets are susceptible at present. Crop rotation practices are commonplace in all sugar beet growing regions to address build up of diseases and pests. These rotations are discussed in section VII.B.2 of the petition. In California, sugar beets may be grown only 2 or 3 years in 10 in specific fields for just this reason (S. Kaffka, personal communication).


Sugar beets have been cultivated in California for 60-70 years (Dr. Robert Lewellen, personal communication). It is known that the flowering times of cultivated and wild beet species will overlap in some years under some environmental conditions (R. Lewellen, personal communication). Historical data on gene flow from cultivated to wild beet populations, however, suggests relatively minimal gene introgression. One study attempting to document outcrossing of sugar beet into wild beet populations, detected introgression of  Beta vulgaris  genes into wild beet individuals (morphologically similar to  Beta macrocarp  a) at a rate of approximately 2% (13 of 594 plants examined) (Bartsch, et al., 2002). It is likely that several factors lead to this relatively low rate of outcrossing: (1) the use of cytoplasmic male sterility in many commercial sugar beet lines leads to limited pollen production, (2)  B. macrocarpa  is self fertile (R. Lewellen, personal communication), (3) control of weed beet populations through normal agricultural practices such as tillage, use of alternate herbicides, hand weeding and other methods currently available to growers. All these data and management considerations lead APHIS to conclude that use of H7-1 sugar beet lines do not present an increased plant pest risk when compared to current sugar beet cultivars.


This brings up the potential of CMS as a way to control pollen from transgenic plants, which I find to be very interesting. There will likely be some traits for which CMS or some form of GURT is required as a condition for deregulation, but glyphosate resistance is not one of those. There are plenty of herbicide resistant traits out there in various species that were created by either selective breeding or mutagenesis which are not regulated at all.


Potential impact on organic sugar beet farming is addressed in response to comments number 5, Impact on organic producers and other growers:


The commenter states that APHIS environmental assessment fails to analyze the socio- economic impacts of a possible determination of nonregulated status of glyphosate tolerant sugar beets on farmers and processors seeking to avoid genetically engineered sugar beets and derived products. Analyzing the full socio-economic impacts of an action goes well beyond the intent of an environmental assessment (EA). CEQs own guidelines suggest that:


Since the EA is a concise document, it should not contain long descriptions or detailed data which the agency may have gathered. Rather, it should contain a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and persons consulted.  Section 1508.9(b)  .


Many genetically engineered (GE) organisms are no more a plant pest risk than their non- genetically engineered progenitor strain. The impacts of the GE organism, itself, on the environment are then not significantly different than the impacts of the progenitor. If a plant is no more a plant pest risk than its progenitor then it has no more economic impact as a plant pest than the progenitor. To enter into a discussion of the socio-political and economic impacts of granting nonregulated status goes beyond the intent an EA and the authority of APHIS. APHIS did, however, consider the impact of granting nonregulated status to sugar beet line H7-1 on the organic sugar beet industry.


The commenter provided no data suggesting that an organic sugar beet industry exists in the U.S. and APHIS has found no evidence to this effect either. Organic sugar beet seeds cannot be located from seed producers (  Beet Seed  ,  Beta Seed  ) and no one contacted by APHIS was aware of an organic sugar beet industry. It is therefore unlikely that any major economic impact could occur on the organic sugar beet industry.


In other words, they  did  consider the impact to the organic sugar beet industry, and they were not able to find one. How hard they tried, I dont know. Why didnt any of the organic sugar beet seed growers in Willamette Valley or elsewhere contact the USDA back in 2005? Maybe they didnt know about glyphosate resistant sugar beets? Maybe there wasnt an organic sugar beet industry in 2005? Was the USDA supposed to consider the possibility of an organic sugar beet industry, even if there wasnt one at the time? Is it even the USDAs responsibility to consider  economic  impacts in an  environmental  impact statement?


Whether they are or are not responsible for economic assessment for an industry that may or may not have existed at the time, a Federal District Judge has effectively overturned the USDAs decision to deregulate this particular event of glyphoste resistant sugar beets. Again, see the Organic Seed Alliances post  Judge Whites Decision: USDA-APHIS Violated National Environmental Policy Act in deregulation of RR sugarbeets  .


According to OSAs post, the Judge was considering precedent from  Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns  , stating that consumer choice is more important than a companys right to sell (as I understand it ; I am not experienced in interpretation of laws or court cases at all ; feel free to comment if you have an alternate and probably more accurate interpretation). The OSA article goes on to point out that there is a possibility that all non-organic sugar beet farmers will plant glyphosate tolerant sugar beet seed, leaving consumers with a reduced choice.


While I sympathize with consumers that may end up with a reduced choice, is this something a court should decide? We do have a relative free market economy in the United States, last time I checked. If a consumer wants something that is not currently on the market, they can start a business, or encourage someone else to start one. We dont prohibit any other technology that might replace another technology, why single out biotechnology? Hybrids have essentially replaced open pollinated varieties for any species for which hybrids are possible. Should we ban hybrids because they reduce consumer choice? Doesnt banning a technology reduce consumer choice too? What about farmer choice?


I suppose one might say this was a huge victory for opponents of biotechnology, but I think its more like a lack of understanding by the judge and plantiffs of the biology of sugar beets. The OSA posted   Center for Food Safety,  et al  . Plantiffs v. Thomas J. Vilsack,  et al  . Defendants  , which supports this idea. From the court document, page 4:


Montsano (sic) contends that sugar beet pollen remains viable for a maximum of 24 hours, depending on environmental conditions. (AR 0535.) However, other sources provide that sugar beet pollen may remain viable for much longer. (AR 4100 ([S]ugar beet pollen can remain viable for 50 days when stored cold and dry, but does not survive wetting by dew or usually remain viable for more than a day.).


When stored cold and dry means a refrigerator, not a field in the height of beet pollen shed in June and July. In Oregon,  low temps  in June and July are no lower than 50F, which makes for nice morning dew. No offense meant to the Judge, who is probably very well versed in the law, but why is a lawyer making decisions about biology? I suppose thats the nature of the system, but its very frustrating that in a days work I was able to get a reasonably good understanding of sugar beet biology, and the Judge was not able to at least gain a small grasp of the material despite 13  amicus briefs  ? Were the briefs badly written? Anyway, moving on, it is getting late


The legal analysis on NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requirements states on page 7 (legalese omitted):


NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.  NEPA ensures that the agency  will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts; it also guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the larger [public] audience. 


Accordingly, a threshold question in a NEPA case is whether a proposed project will significantly affect the environment, thereby triggering the requirement for an EIS.  Where an EIS is not categorically required, the agency must prepare an Environmental Assessment to determine whether the environmental impact is significant enough to warrant an EIS.  An EA is a concise public document that briefly provide[s] sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact. 


The USDA/APHIS did conduct an EA, and decided that they did not need to conduct an EIS. Im not entirely comfortable with an organization effectively regulating itself, but I did find the EA to be fairly sufficient after the comments were addressed (anything could be  more  detailed, but the EA is supposed to be brief). The Judge goes on to say, among other things, that USDA/APHIS should have considered potential economic impact because it is related to environment impact. The strange thing is, the EA did consider environmental impact as it relates to gene flow, although I think they should have said in plain text that even if non-transgenic sugar beet plants were pollinated with pollen from transgenic plants it wouldnt matter because the seeds arent harvested anyway.


So, now, USDA/APHIS has until October 30 to respond. Thankfully there is already a ton of data out there, it just needs to be collected. I wonder if theyll end up with a conditional deregulation that prohibits growing transgenic sugar beets a defined number of miles from non-transgenic beet and beet relative seed production. Well see what happens. As usual, after a lot of investigation, I find myself with more questions than answers. What do you think?


Potential Conflict of Interest Statement: The above assessment should not be taken to be an endorsement of Monsanto, the Roundup Ready trait, Roundup, glyphosate, or even of sugar beets themselves. I have no connection financially, emotionally, or otherwise to any of the above subjects. I am employed as a research assistant (graduate student) by a USDA/ARS researcher, but did not receive any official or unofficial assistance on this assessment.













Document Number: 929 



 Non-traditional Comestibles Suitable for Holiday-specific Ingestion 


 by  Guest Posts  on 29 November 2009 


by Cody Cobb


Before Thanksgiving break, my plant systematics professor told us that if we handed her a list of the scientific names of every plant species we consumed over the holidays we would get extra credit. I toyed with the idea of simply rewriting a recipe to include the latin names but considered that too easy. Instead, Id have to go all out and write a full-on academic paper of my holiday experience. Since this would also be my first Thanksgiving away from home, I had cause to experiment. What follows, then, is my extra credit assignment:


Thanksgiving celebrations traditionally involve the ceremonial consumption of a flightless avian species,  Meleagris gallopavo  . Prepared as the centerpiece of an intricate meal that may also include  Ipomoea batatas  ,  Cucurbita pepo  ,  Brassica rapa  , etc.,  Meleagris gallopavo  is widely perceived as an indispensable component of the holidays festivities. Presented here is the first report of a successful Thanksgiving feast lacking  Meleagris gallopavo  .


Full text  here  (pdf).


Cody Cobb is a first year Ph.D. student in plant biology &amp; pathology at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. He has lived his entire life previous to this point in Texas and is currently enjoying his first autumn. He feels he should mention that his earliest desktop PC was an Acer. So is his mustache.













Document Number: 4741 



 Non-transgenic genetic engineering continues its market progress 


 by  David Tribe  on 28 October 2010 


Deliberate engineering of mutations to predetermined sites in plant genes is made possible by a technique being exploited by the company Cibus. There are several different posts about this company Cibus at GMO Pundit. The interesting thing about this technique is that it leaves no trace behind after is being carried out except the desired alteration, which is equivalent to a natural mutation that can occur when DNA is damaged or mistaken DNA replication occurs to alters the letters in the genetic alphabet. Thus the end result is the same as if a plant has been selected from the field as a natural genetic mutation.


Some people argue that this means that engineered plants from Cibus made by deliberate engineering of mutations should not be subjected to the same regulations that are imposed on transgenic plants.


BIOTECH, AGRICULTURE, INNOVATION  Agricultural Biotech Cibus Expanding as Launch of First Enhanced Crop Nears  Bruce V. Bigelow 10/27/10  [Corrected 10/28/10, 9:45 am. See below.] San Diego-based Cibus Global held an open house last night at the companys new headquarters, which gave me an opportunity to get an update from CEO Keith Walker on the agricultural biotechs growth spurt since last year.


The startup, which officially spun out of Pennsylvania-based ValiGen in late 2001, is marking the commercial introduction of its first enhanced cropan herbicide-resistant strain of canolain coming weeks. Cibus also plans to expand its workforce, from 52 to 60 employees by the start of 2011, and has moved its headquarters into a refurbished leased facility once occupied by La Jolla Pharmaceuticals. The impressive, platinum LEED-certified space might even mark the beginning of a tech resurgence among the vacancies that pockmark Sorrento Valleys Nancy Ridge Drive;continues at link













Document Number: 2151 



 Why I;m not pro-GMO (in the way anti-GMO people think) 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 9 August 2010 


Science and technology have provided humans with many advances. Some have been very beneficial, some have been horribly destructive, with everything in between. Many advances have both positive and negative aspects, which can make discussing and implementing them really complicated. I;m not the first one to say that science is neutral, and humans are the ones that implement it in good or bad ways.


The various methods of generating electricity are a great example. Humans have become dependent on energy for so many things, some frivolous and some necessary (depending on your point of view). Unless we are all willing to forego electricity, we must find some way to power our lives. Current methods, including coal, have harmful unintended consequences that many of us would say outweigh the positives that we get from the electricity that is generated. Water power, once thought to be one of the cleanest methods of generating electricity, has been found to cause problems big and small. Nuclear has its own set of problems, as does wind.


Because each solution has positive and negative effects, the best we can do is examine each situation individually using the best science available and decide how to achieve the most positive effects while decreasing the negatives. Plant genetics is no different from power generation in this respect.


Every individual plant trait obtained with biotechnology, mutagensis, wide crosses, etc has its own set of positives and negatives. This means that sometimes a biotech solution will work well, sometimes a low-tech traditional solution is best, sometimes the necessary solution is totally out of the box. It makes no sense at all to be ;pro-GMO; or ;anti-hybrid; or anything like that because those stances don;t take into account the intricacies of individual situations. There might be times when using a hybrid is a bad idea and times when using a GMO is a good idea, but there will also be times when the opposite cases are true!


To complicate things further, plant traits can;t just be considered on their own merit. There will usually also be a complex set of factors including psychology in the form of tradition, fears, education, and so on. There;s economic factors from the individual level all the way up to local, national, and global levels. There;s environmental factors of course, since any agricultural methods can have an effect on ecosystems near and far. And that;s just a few of the many factors that might be involved. We also have to consider what our goals are and how they fit into the big picture.


Considering all of these factors isn;t easy, which I think is a big part of why some people like to sum things up and be anti this or pro that. Easy isn;t always right, though.


How about you? Are you pro-GMO? Anti-GMO? How about pro- or anti-mutagenesis or tissue culture or any of the other techniques out there? Does it make more sense to be pro- or anti- a specific technology or method or to consider an application of that method?













Document Number: 7109 



 Now Serving 9 Billion video 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 26 February 2010 


Not too long ago  , a few of us participated in the twitterpated webcast put on by Croplife, BIO and CAST called  Now Serving 9 Billion: Global Dialogue on Meeting Food Needs for the Next Generation  . We watched a live webcast, sent in questions, and followed the conversation in twitter with the hashtag #agcast. It was a pretty fun two hours because not only were people discussing the webcast real-time, the discussion was leaking into the webcast itself in the form of comments and questions being read from it. Very cool and 2.0-ish. Alex Rinkus from Croplife has provided a link to the entire webcast on Vimeo, feel free to watch the whole thing. I will make  a few  several comments after the fold.


The whole affair probably took a lot of planning, and the integration of twitter comments into the video webpage was impressive. This is the first time I have seen that kind of detail. It is especially good because even people who don;t twitter can see the discussion unfolding. The display of twitter comments behind the speakers was also a nice touch, however it was difficult to read them in the video ; it was probably more for the physical audience at the event. But seeing as how Anastasia had two of her ;tweets; read aloud on the webcast, making both Frank and me jealous, it


The format got me thinking about how we might be able to do something like that on Biofortified. As a community (!) of people around the world, it would be exceedingly difficult to get a lot of people in one place ; but if it was done online it could happen. Something to dream about doing someday!


I do have a nitpick about some of the questions asked of the panelists ; the ;Youtube; questions. While participation on facebook and twitter was announced, I was surprised to see video questions included, and it was said on the webcast that they were ;Youtube; videos. However, there was no such announcement prior to the event. I received confirmation of this from Alex Rinkus. He said that they solicited questions from partner organizations and some questions were asked by random people on the street who were explained what the panel was about. But putting them on Youtube didn;t work out because the video quality degraded at each step of the way. That;s understandable, but the  press release  after the event said something different:


Participants were able to ask real-time questions through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and e-mail.


Pre-recorded questions  Real-time Youtube submissions. I don;t want to overemphasize this point, but I think it would have been better to just call them questions from the street or something. Maybe I just would have liked to send a video question ; they had me googling frantically looking for this!


As for the panel discussion, there were a lot of good things talked about. As I have said before, I was already familiar with Nina Fedoroff and Robert Paarlberg. I was particularly impressed with some of Gale Buchanan;s comments and demeanor, and Mark Cantley said some good things about the UK. Calestous Juma added some good perspective on Africa and elsewhere.


I thought that the discussion was good, but I felt that it could have used more diversity of opinions and perspectives. There really weren;t any big disagreements over any particular issue or another. I think the panelists communicated their perspectives well, but it was very ;on message; and wasn;t an exploration of differences and confluences. One thing to consider is that if a group of people does not agree fully on everything then when they  do  agree the power of that agreement is much stronger. This isn;t to say that the panel should have included someone like Jeffrey Smith ; that would be absurdly unproductive. And I know how hard it is to plan good discussion panels because I;ve had to do that myself on several occasions. But a wider and richer discussion could have been achieved.


One thing that I certainly liked seeing was the piece on  Norman Borlaug  that they played at the beginning. Not only do I think more people need to know about  Borlaug;s contributions  to the world, but it highlights a critical issue ignored in many discussions of the future of agriculture:  There are soon going to be several billion more people on this planet and the Green Revolution helped safeguard the lives of just one billion.


Heh,  just  one billion!


As of 2008, the global population was estimated at 6,692,030,277. (Source:  Google  ) In 2050 we may have 2.3 billion more mouths to feed, and to feed well. We must do this on less land and with less water and to have a lower impact on the environment. We must do this with healthier food and safer food. It must be done amidst climate changes and our diminishing ability to pump more previously-sequestered carbon into the atmosphere ; for both peak-oil and greenhouse gas emission reasons. It will take more than 2.3 more Borlaugs, I;m afraid.


There are many people who argue  against  the need to produce more food. Yes, we can also work to improve equity and food distribution, however, that will not be enough to feed 50% more people. I was once talking to a wheat breeder and he quizzed me on how much wheat stores we had in the U.S. ; I guessed a few months worth. The answer he gave me was 11 days. The recent food shortages in the past couple years due to weather has caused the public and the media to realize that although we may feel comfortable (in this country) at the present, that comfort could easily be upset. Any future plan for how to proceed must take these issues into account, and I daresay that we have not yet figured out how to do it.


And so in finality, however you may feel about genetic engineering and other aspects of farming, I think you can agree that the emphasis placed on this future need was not misplaced. We didn;t see many of the twitter-savvy anti-GE folks participating in the discussion during this webcast, but I hope that the magnitude of the world;s needs as communicated by the panel was not lost on them, because it certainly is higher in my consciousness still a couple weeks later.













Document Number: 3846 



 Now syndicating feeds 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 25 August 2010 


For more genetically engineered goodness!


For almost a year we have been anticipating this. It was one of the specific items that  I brought up  during the Changemakers contest as to why we needed the grant money. I;m talking, of course, about the ability to syndicate feeds from contributor;s blogs ; but not only that ; to have it automatic, hands-free, and self-formatting for this blog. Like many a layperson might be able to imagine a genetically engineered plant that they would not know how to transform, setting up this capability was beyond the coding abilities of the geneticists editing this blog. I for one, have learned about html and php through fiddling as a geneticist might make a mutation and study its downstream effects. Although the metaphor may seem backwards, it makes perfect sense to me to see lines of computer code as if they were analogous to genes and not the other way around.  But like many genes in a genome database, there;s no easy annotation for special features for blog plugins that don;t yet exist. Rather than wait for natural variation to give something for bloggers to select for, we had to call on the help of an intelligent designer to produce it ex nihilo.


Charles Johnson created the highly versatile plugin,  FeedWordpress  , which allows you to subscribe to feeds on other blogs to import their posts into your own. It was perfect for a group blog like Biofortified with authors that already have their own blogs to manage, except it imported the whole post without any pleasing front-page breaks. I got in touch with Charles and he agreed to  design us a special modification for FeedWordpress that will automatically insert ;more; tags where we want them to, after a certain number of words, paragraphs, or where the original break was inserted on the imported post. This took a little chunk of cash from our grant, but that;s what it is for, after all! When we got to arranging the deal, Charles was very quick and thorough and it appears to be working perfectly! While testing it on our near-isogenic testing server, rather than having any errors itself, the modification helped me diagnose errors on the testing server instead! A big thanks to Charles for helping us  transform  (pun intended) our blog! I fully expect that others will be able to benefit from this modification in future releases of his plugin add-ons.


I just activated the plugin on the blog. Now, David Tribe and Pam Ronald will be able to have posts that they choose cross-post from their blogs effortlessly, and that is only just the beginning. As we gather more regular contributors, we can add more blogs to the syndication roster. I have set up David;s feed, and it has  already imported  several of his posts. For some reason, the most recent two that he selected have not imported, but that may be because the plugin thought they were already imported. I encourage you to check out one that was missed, on the  World Wildlife Fund and its position on GE  . I;ll keep a close eye on the continuous update process to make sure his posts are coming through properly in the future. But if you;ll look a few posts below this one, you;ll find some  very troublesome news  about public grape disease research involving genetic engineering being vandalized in France. It will be great to have the news that  David scours from the ;net  showing up here as well!


Pam is also ready to go: Science Blogs has made a  special feed  that she can assign posts to that will lead to here. I;m waiting on (hopefully) just one little modification before I set it to blast our blog with her gene gun full of commentary. While you can comment on David;s posts here, comments for Pam;s posts will be sent to  her blog  .


Happy blogging, and let us know if you see any glitches.













Document Number: 7421 



 Nutrition is key to everything 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 November 2010 


Looking at all of the notes I;ve taken at the  First Global Conference on Biofortification  hosted by  Harvest Plus  , I;m a little overwhelmed. There were so many important ideas, from specific details on the ground in Uganda to broad discussions that affect everything we do in communicating risk.


The take home message, for me, is that there are people in dire need that deserve better, and improved nutrition is the key to solving many problems. As  Mark Whalqvist  said in a symposium about ;Weaving biofortification into the global development agenda;, good nutrition is not really about rights. It;s about equity, fairness. A child growing up in rural India or Uganda deserves a chance for healthy brain and body development just as much as a child growing up in Washington, DC or Ames, Iowa. It;s only fair.


Just defining the problems can be difficult. On a global scale, we have one list that has been agreed upon by representatives from counties all around the world. The  Millennium Development Goals  , developed by the UN and adopted in 2000, are a good list of the things that those of us in the developed world need to work on both in our own countries and in the developing world (bonus: cute logos). The list isn;t so good for accountability and determination of success because it is based on many factors that aren;t easy to measure but it;s still a useful list. And, every one of these goals has roots in nutrition.


Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger  Calories aren;t enough. Brains and bodies need macronutrients like proteins and fats as well as micronutrients like iron and beta carotene to grow strong and healthy. People who suffer from nutrient deficiencies have a reduced ability to help themselves and their neighbors.  Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education  Without healthy brain development, education is far more difficult. This is true no matter where a child lives.  Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women  As men leave the farms in search of work in cities, women are left to tend children and farms. This means women have even more control over nutrition than ever before. We need to empower them with the ability to choose healthy foods for their families.  Goal 4: Reduce child mortality  Child mortality is a direct result of poor nutrition. Not only can a lack of key nutrients cause health problems and death on their own, the lack of those nutrients can reduce immune response so fighting off illness is harder if not impossible.  Goal 5: Improve maternal health  Well nourished moms have healthy babies.  Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases  Well nourished bodies can better fight off disease. While nutrition isn;t going to cure AIDS or malaria, it can reduce secondary infections and help keep the diseases from being debilitating.  Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability  Biodiverse diets are the best for nutrition, and there is a lot of evidence that biodiverse farms are better for the environment, provide habitat, and require fewer inputs. Because farming is the biggest human land-impacting activity, making farms more biodiverse results in more environmental sustainability.  Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development  This one might be more of a stretch, but I think we can all agree that one of the few things that unites all humans is an appreciation for a good meal. Whether it;s green papaya salad in Thailand, wood fired pizza in Naples, or fufu soup in Ghana ; food is more than the nutrients it carries. Food is pleasure, food is livelihood, food is economics, food is the one thing we can not do without.













Document Number: 8339 



 Obama will (probably) not label GE foods 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 30 January 2009 


Last week, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. It was a monumental inauguration for many reasons. Never in the history of this country has a non-white man held this high office.Never before has the internet played such a huge role in the election, transition, and  future administration  of a president. And at least in my memory, I haven;t seen a president so prepared to hit the ground running in a crisis. The last two times a president decided to do something about a crisis, he first had to cancel his vacation!


There are a lot of things on his list, and executive orders are flying out of the Oval Office. Some believe that among his list of things to do is to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, but as I will demonstrate below, it is not on his list. First, a bit of background.


Obama has made his policy priorities public, and has made it a point to include people who both agree and disagree with him a part of his administration. Further channeling the memory of Abraham Lincoln, he even rode from Illinois to Washington D.C. on a train. The first 100 days are going to be a very exciting time in the realm of presidential politics.


President Obama has already vetted and selected several people to form his cabinet, which were announced late last year. No doubt the planning went back well into the election season, and his selection of  Steven Chu  as Energy Secretary gets high marks from me. Including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State also raises an approving eyebrow. The process has been  remarkably free of lobbying  and special interests, but plenty of public attention.


There has been quite a bit of attention on his pick for Secretary of Agriculture,  Tom Vilsack  . Probably more so than any previous Ag Secretary. Many people in this country are hungry for reforms in how we do agriculture, and following the Farm Bill Wars of 2007-2008, Vilsack comes at a time when Ag is in the  spotlight  .


The Claim


But Jeffrey Smith, anti-GE activist, is not taking Obama;s ag appointments sitting down, in an article titled  Obama;s Team Includes Dangerous Biotech ;Yes Men.;  (  repeated here  ) He criticizes Vilsack, although apparently before the nomination was announced ; he seemed to think that Vilsack;s name was withdrawn. He points out that Obama;s transition team includes Michael Taylor, who was involved in some of the early regulation of GE crops, and Sharon Long, who was a scientific advisor to Obama;s campaign, and once worked for the biotech company Monsanto.


He also points out Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who authored a key study on GE crops for the National Academy of Sciences. Smith does not explain how Varmus is supposed to be a problematic pick as he did the other people in the list, so it seems all you have to be to be a Biotech ;Yes Man; is be in favor of GE crops. (Even if you;re a woman, in the case of Long.)


But two statements of Smith;s seemed rather odd, the first is:


I don;t know Barack Obama;s position on GMOs.


You could say that we all don;t know Obama;s full position on GE crops, but you could also say that Smith didn;t do much research for his article.


ScienceDebate2008 sent a list of questions to then-candidates Obama and McCain, and here is Obama;s GE-focused  response  in full:


Advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers. I believe that we can continue to modify plants safely with new genetic methods, abetted by stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.


The article cited in Smith;s article,  Obama, like Bush, may be ag biotech ally  , bolsters the case that Obama is favorably disposed toward GE crops.


Obama;s official statements on development are ;pretty strong on agricultural science,; said Robert Paarlberg, author of the recent book ;Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out of Africa.;  ;I certainly haven;t seen any sense of opposition to technology.;


On to the second odd statement by Smith. It was put in  BOLD  so there;s no possibility of confusing the emphasis with his other,  underlined  emphases:


There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.   President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.


Really? When did he say that? Smith cited no reference, and given the above, it didn;t seem likely. So I decided to put on my skeptical thinking cap and trace this claim to its source.


Tracing the Claim:


After a few repeated searches, I found a few more folks saying the same thing. The OCA claims that Obama made a ;  campaign pledge  ,; promising mandatory labels for GMOs. Their source, however, is Jeffrey Smith again, at his website,  responsibletechnology.org  . This is where it gets a little weird. The link (above) provided by the OCA was a link to a petition for Obama to support the mandatory labeling of GE foods. Wait, if Obama has already promised to support mandatory labeling of GE foods, why the petition?


It gets better. NJ Jaeger, Smith;s communication representative,  wrote a story  a year ago claiming a bit more.


In late November, after reviewing the latest data about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as ;biotech foods;, all leading democratic presidential candidates agreed to fast track the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.


Apparently, they, including Obama, all agreed not only to mandatory GE food labeling, but also to ;fast-track; it ; like you could expect them to get it done in their first 100 days or something.


But if you read Obama;s stated agenda at  Change.gov  , you will find no reference to GE food labeling, mandatory or not, nor for fast-tracking it either. There are quite a few other things in his  Rural Agenda  like tightening down on CAFOs and rebuilding rural infrastructure. No GE labeling promise there. (I have also not found anything from the Clinton or Edwards campaigns that use this language either.)


All references lead to Smith, so I contacted his organization. NJ Jaeger responded, saying that   written support  for mandatory labeling of GE foods was secured the previous fall by Craig Winters at  TheCampaign.org  ; a site devoted to labeling foods derived through genetic engineering.


Not in the Agenda


After searching the site, I found only two references to the claim that Obama would push these labels. The first is  a page  on the campaign that just states that Obama, along with a few others, ;supports mandatory labeling.;


The  second is an article  from early on in the primaries. The Democratic Candidates were asked about various rural issues, and genetic engineering was mentioned. According to the article, published on November 10, 2007 in the Des Moines Register,


He said he will stand up against conglomeration in the farm industry, and that hes already working to support the packer ban, which would limit ownership of livestock by meatpacking companies.  Obama said he wants food labeled for its country of origin, and marked if its genetically modified. And he would push for renewable energy, by investing in biofuels, solar and wind.


Notice the difference between what is attributed to Obama in the article, and some of the items on his Rural Agenda:


Regulate CAFOs:  Strictly regulate pollution from large factory livestock farms, with fines for those that violate tough standards. Support meaningful local control.   Establish Country of Origin Labeling:  Implement Country of Origin Labeling so that American producers can distinguish their products from imported ones.   Encourage Organic and Local Agriculture:  Help organic farmers afford to certify their crops and reform crop insurance to not penalize organic farmers. Promote regional food systems.   Promote Leadership in Renewable Energy:  Ensure that our rural areas continue their leadership in the renewable fuels movement.


Meat, check. Country of Origin, check. Local Agriculture, check. Biofuels, check. GE food labeling, absent. I tried to get in touch with the author of the article to see if they had more details in the form of notes, audio or video clips, but I have not received a response at all.


I did manage to get in contact with Craig Winters, and he confirmed that the Des Moines Register article was the source for the claim that Barack Obama ;promised; to label GE foods. Unless I hear back from the author of the Register article, the only evidence we have is a sentence that states that he ;wants; GE crops labeled, which is not a promise for mandatory labeling.


According to  this YouTube video  , he also thinks we should decriminalize marijuana. As much as I might hope that he would make some effort in this area during his presidency, he has not made it a part of his platform or agenda, and I do not expect that he will do it.


Craig was not aware of the positive statements Obama has made about genetic engineering, and he was doubtful about Obama;s true position, hoping that Obama could be convinced to oppose genetically engineered crops. He also told me that he has not received  any  written statements from, nor had any contact with Barack Obama;s election campaign on the issue. It;s beginning to unravel.


From the text of the TheCampaign.org site, however, it implies that they have gotten a response from Obama;s campaign, so I can understand where Smith et al may have misunderstood it. The site does not state that Obama promised anything, although from talking to Craig it appears he took the sentence in the Des Moines Register article as a promise.


So I contacted NJ Jaeger again. Now that NJ had the article to look at, the response was:


In the article [Obama said he wants food labeled for its country of origin, and marked if it's genetically modified.] He also said [ ;We;ll take action on a rural agenda in my first 100 days in office,; } That is a pretty powerful fast track statement.


President Obama is a smart cookie, and his oratory skills and communication abilities are virtually unmatched. I believe that if Obama made a campaign promise to label GE crops, it would indeed be a clear, unambiguous pledge. And it would be in more places than a single article, it would be on his agenda, and there would be consistent campaign statements. NJ seems convinced that this article still supports their claims. Take a second look.


Obama told the farmers that as soon as he takes office, he would hold a summit on rural issues in Iowa, bringing Democrats and Republicans together.  Well take action on a rural agenda in my first 100 days in office, he said.  He pledged to put the peoples interests ahead of the special interests.  Thats why Washington insiders matter when theyre in Washington County, Iowa, not Washington, D.C. said Obama, who was flanked by four Secret Service agents.  He said he will stand up against conglomeration in the farm industry, and that hes already working to support the packer ban, which would limit ownership of livestock by meatpacking companies.  Obama said he wants food labeled for its country of origin, and marked if its genetically modified. And he would push for renewable energy, by investing in biofuels, solar and wind.


Notice that the statement that he ;wants; GE foods labeled does not indicate a promise. Notice that the ;rural agenda; statement in reference to 100 days was separate. In fact, Obama  did  make a fast-track promise on a rural agenda, but his  published agenda  does not include GE food labels. You cannot honestly twist this article to reach the conclusion that Jaeger and Smith have.


At the time that he wrote his article, Jaeger was not aware of the Des Moines Register article, which was the de facto source of the claim. When I asked what the ;fast-tracking; part of her article was based on when he wrote it, she said:


The information I had at that time was that all leading democratic presidential candidates had been approached and it was a priority for them.


You can easily see that not exercising a degree of skepticism, or doing the necessary fact-checking that comes with responsible journalism, combined with incomplete communication and wishful thinking is the basis for this claim. In light of this, Jeffrey Smith and all others who have repeated the claim that Barack Obama promised to label GE crops should retract their statements. But I won;t hold my breath.


Reconciling statements


How can we reconcile his statement regarding GE crop labeling early in the primaries with his agenda? He could certainly have changed his mind. Think about this: when focusing on an issue that ties together climate change, national security, energy policy, and agriculture, he settled on plant-based biofuels as a major issue. Some advances in genetic engineering may make biofuel production more efficient and environmentally friendly. Another development that is nearing the market are crops that use half the fertilizer, which could drastically cut the energy requirements of farming.


As I remember from the presidential debate that focused on the economy, he may need to choose a few plans from his stated agenda to cut for revenue reasons. He would be even less likely to add an extra cost that is not even on his agenda.


Added cost in a troubled economy, no tangible consumer benefit, and the fact that if there;s an added cost consumer support for labeling evaporates ; may have persuaded Obama that it was not an important enough issue for him to take up. Additionally, the general desire to prevent a ;Brain Drain; of experts to other countries, and to stay ahead of technological developments worldwide may also contribute to his decision. Even if it these points weren;t mind-changers during the election, they may dissuade him from pursuing GE food labels while in office.


And on that note, his generally favorable disposition toward GE crops may be an indicator that he may not want to pursue mandatory GE food labels. The two correlate, but I would like to note that being pro-GE does not  necessarily  translate to being anti-label. But that;s a post for another day.


Politicking?


On the other hand, the issue may not have been important to him from the start. According to  this article  , Obama was the only Democratic candidate to  not  respond to a request for a position on GE food labeling, less than a month before the Des Moines article was written. He may have wanted to avoid setting himself apart from his colleagues on this issue, and so tried adding it to his prepared speech, to try it on for size, but it has not been seen since.


What if Barack Obama did indicate that he did want to label GE crops during the primaries to try not to let his opponents get an edge over him in a close race, but did not plan to make it part of his platform? In that case he was being a politician. But the reverse, which anti-GE activists are counting on, is that he fully intends to fast-track GE food labeling, but didn;t want to make it a stated position on his platform, which instead makes him; a politician. But one version of this politician has the weight of evidence, and the other, wishful thinking.


Conclusion:


I realize that this wild goose chase has become a long post, so here;s a bullet-point summary of my findings:


If anything, President Barack Obama appears to be warmly in favor of genetic engineering, although there is some wiggle room with his campaign statements.  President Obama;s picks for Ag Secretary, campaign advisers, and other cabinet positions further suggest that he is positively disposed to GE crops. Given his emphasis on plant-based biofuels, he may also see it as a means to achieve his domestic renewable fuel goals.  Obama did not make a written campaign statement promising to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.   Obama  did not respond  to  mailings  from The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods, nor did his presidential campaign contact them.  Obama;s declared agenda, now housed at the White House website, indicates that these labels are not on his agenda.  The claim that he will ;fast track; GE food labeling appears to be an invention or the result of miscommunication.  President Obama only once expressed a desire for GE food labeling, but has not made a campaign promise or pledge that he will ;require mandatory labeling; for GE food.


Maybe he will push for labeling. Maybe when he comes out of his Rural Agenda summit, the Obama Administration will announce that mandatory labeling for GE foods will be enforced within one year. That is still possible, which is why I say that Obama  probably  will not label GE foods. However one thing is clear and unambiguous:  There is no evidence that Barack Obama ever made a statement strong enough to be considered as a campaign promise to label GE foods.  He;s got a lot to work on cleaning up the mess that this country is in, and the last thing that President Obama needs are false claims of campaign promises that he never made.


It is important that the political discussions surrounding this historic presidency be honest and accurate. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said,


A lie cannot live.













Document Number: 8080 



 Obsessive precaution leaves us with no choice but to defer to our fate. 


 by  David Tribe  on 9 October 2010 


Fear is key to irresponsibility  Frank Furedi From:  The Australian  October 09, 2010 12:00AM


In a world rife with conspiracy theories, there;s little scope for human agency


WHO decides our individual fate? How much of our future is influenced by the exercise of free will?


Humanity;s destiny has been a subject of controversy since the beginning of history. So it is not surprising that, back in ancient times, different gods were endowed with the capacity to thwart our ambition or bless us with good fortune.


The Romans worshipped the goddess Fortuna (sometimes depicted with the blindfold of disinterest and a cornucopia) and conceded her great power over human affairs. But they still believed her influence could be contained and even overcome by men of true virtue. As the saying goes, ;fortune favours the brave;;


;Today, conspiracy theory has become mainstream and many of its most vociferous supporters are to be found in radical protest movements and among the cultural Left. Increasingly, important events are interpreted as the outcome of a cover-up; the search for the hidden hand manipulating an unwitting public, or the story behind the story, dominates public life.


Conspiracy theory constructs worlds where everything important is manipulated behind our backs and where we simply do not know who is responsible for our predicament. In such circumstances we have no choice but to defer to our fate.


It is through conspiracy theories that fortuna reappears, but it does so in a form that is far more degraded than in Roman times. To their credit, the Romans were able to counterpose virtus to fortuna. However, in a precautionary culture fortune favours the risk-averse and not the brave. The deification of fear instructs us to bow to fate. In such circumstances there is not much room left for freedom or the exercise of free will. Yet if we have to defer to fate, how can we be held to account?


In the absence of freedom to influence the future, how can there be human responsibility? That is why one of the principal accomplishment of precautionary culture is the normalisation of irresponsibility. That is a perspective that we need to reject for a mighty dose of humanist courage.


Edited extract from a speech,  The Precautionary Principle and the Crisis of Causality  , by Frank Furedi at the Philosophy Festival in Modena, Italy, on September 18. Furedi is professor of sociology at the University of Kent. His latest book is  Wasted: Why Education isn;t Educating













Document Number: 529 



 Oddities on a college campus 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 6 June 2008 


I;ll start this by saying that I haven;t seen a marijuana plant for over twenty years. So, I could be completely wrong on this one. Walking past the  ISU Memorial Union  this morning, I saw a patch of weeds. Being the curious plant nerd that I am, I looked a little closer, only to find um, actual weed.  While I was taking the photos off of my iPhone, I found this photo. During this terrible winter where temperatures were often 10 below 0 Fahrenheit, a solitary juvenile  sandhill crane  appeared near  Lake LaVerne  on campus. These large birds spend their summers in Canada and are supposed to migrate to Mexico for the winter, so I have no idea how this poor guy got lost or how he survived. I saw him many times, including after some harsh storms, so I think he made it. Then, he just disappeared, hopefully to find his flock! I could never get close enough to get a good shot with the camera, so all I have for proof is this:  I just love his little knoby knees and the way he;s trying to hang out with the Canadian geese. The other residents of Lake LaVerne are Lancelot and Elaine, the cheeky swans. I;ve seen them walk up to and harass students before. Here, they say ;no parking!;  Ok, that;s enough of my silliness (can you tell that I;m glad it;s Friday?). Back to your regularly scheduled science blogging.













Document Number: 4501 



 Omega 3 oil from yeast similar to fish oil in safety and nutritional effect 


 by  David Tribe  on 19 September 2010 


By Stephen Daniells, 16-Sep-2010


The safety of an EPA-rich oil from genetically modified yeast is comparable to that of GRAS fish oil, says a new study from DuPont.


Results of a 90-day rat study with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-rich oil produced from GM Yarrowia lipolytica yeast produced no adverse effects at doses up to 976 mg EPA per kilogram of body weight per day, according to findings published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.


Exposure to EPA oil produced no test substance-related effects on body weight or nutritional parameters, neurobehavioral parameters, clinical or ophthalmological observations, hematology or urinalysis parameters or microscopic pathology at any tested dose, wrote researchers from DuPont, led by Susan MacKenzie.


The safety profile of EPA oil was comparable to that of GRAS fish oil. These results support the use of EPA oil produced from yeast as a safe source for use in dietary supplements, they added.


More at &nbsp;  Nutra ingredients


Scientific report  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2010 Sep 6. [Epub ahead of print]  Safety assessment of EPA-rich oil produced from yeast: Results of a 90-day subchronic toxicity study.  Mackenzie SA, Belcher LA, Sykes GP, Frame SR, Mukerji P, Gillies PJ.


DuPont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences, E. I. duPont de Nemours &amp; Company, 1090 Elkton Road, Newark, DE 19711-3507, USA.


Abstract  The safety of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) oil produced from genetically modified Yarrowia lipolytica yeast was evaluated following 90days of exposure. Groups of rats received 0 (olive oil), 98, 488, or 976mg EPA/kg/day, or GRAS fish oil or deionized water by oral gavage. Rats were evaluated for in-life, neurobehavioral, anatomic and clinical pathology parameters. Lower serum cholesterol (total and non-HDL) was observed in Medium and High EPA and fish oil groups. Lower HDL was observed in High EPA and fish oil males, only at early time points. Liver weights were increased in High EPA and Medium EPA (female only) groups with no associated clinical or microscopic pathology findings. Nasal lesions, attributed to oil in the nasal cavity, were observed in High and Medium EPA and fish oil groups. No other effects were attributed to test oil exposure. Exposure to EPA oil for 90days produced no effects at 98mg EPA/kg/day and no adverse effects at doses up to 976mg EPA/kg/day. The safety profile of EPA oil was comparable to that of GRAS fish oil. These results support the use of EPA oil produced from yeast as a safe source for use in dietary supplements.













Document Number: 1812 



 Omics approach shows fewer changes from GE than breeding and environment 


 by  David Tribe  on 27 February 2011 


Ricroch AE, Berg JB, &amp; Kuntz M (2011).  Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling techniques  .  Plant physiology  PMID:  21350035


The authors conducted a literature survey on 44 recent omic comparisons between GE and non-GE crop lines. Those profiling techniques (transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) have been increasingly applied to the analysis of genetically engineered (GE) crop plants with regard to their food safety and nutritional equivalence.  None of the published omic assessments has raised safety concerns about GE cultivars.  The results show that genetic engineering has less impact on the expression of RNA or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or environmental conditions (e.g. drought).  Differences between GE crops and their comparators should be analyzed in a wider context of natural variation. The most pronounced differences were consistently found between the various conventional varieties, a trend linked to the crop diversity maintained or created by plant breeders. This should be put in perspective taking into account that conventional breeding is generally regarded as safe, despite the fact that the nature of the changes in new conventional cultivars are usually unknown.  Metabolomics is becoming the prevalent approach but does not yet provide added value for food safety assessment compared to the currently used analytical methods. More basic research is required before non-targeted large-scale methodologies can be internationally certified and accepted.


The study concludes (emphasis added):


Today, the fast accumulating data from targeted approaches as well as non-targeted profiling, consistently indicating that transgenesis has less impact than conventional breeding, should lead at least to a convergence of regulations for various crop breeding methods.  Obviously, on a scientific basis this should mean lowering the current regulatory burden for GE crops  (Chassy, 2010). Considering that health problems have not been identified for GE crops after 15 years of commercialization, time may have come to simplify the risk assessment of modern biotechnology products, and therefore reduce cost. This would make risk assessment more affordable for small companies, academic institutions, or low-income countries.   However, considering that regulations ruling GE crop marketing have been strengthened continuously due to  political pressure  , especially in the European Union (see Morris and Spillane, 2010), it is more likely that the non-GE authorization, and firstly of mutagenized crops, will be brought in to line with the GE regulation. In addition, although there is no evidence that more food safety testing is necessary for GE crops, one can predict that a whatever is possible should be done policy will push for the use of omics technologies in their mandatory assessment.


Abstract:


Transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques have been increasingly applied to the analysis of genetically engineered (GE) crop plants with regard to their food safety and nutritional equivalence. This literature survey is based on 44 recent omic comparisons between GE and non-GE crop lines with or without deliberate modification of metabolic pathways. Metabolomics is becoming the prevalent approach but does not yet provide added value for food safety assessment compared to the currently used analytical methods. All three omic approaches, on either crop plants or on Arabidopsis thaliana, a research model organism, converge in their conclusions when the effects of a genetic modification itself is compared to inter-variety variation or environmental effects. Transgenesis has less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or plant (non-directed) mutagenesis when comparison is available. In addition, environmental conditions usually have a larger impact. The present update highlights the need to place pair-wise differences between GE crops and their comparators in a wider context of natural variation. None of the published omic assessments has raised new safety concerns about marketed GE cultivars. From a scientific point of view, these observations indicate that the current regulatory burden on GE crops should be lowered. Mandatory use of omics techniques in reglementary GE food safety assessment cannot be recommended. More basic research is required before non-targeted large-scale methodologies can be internationally certified and accepted.













Document Number: 248 



 On Monday night, Tomorrow;s Table meets Dr. Oz 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 21 November 2010 


On Monday afternoon, yours truly will appear with  Dr. Oz  , ;America;s doctor,; (the tag bestowed on him by no less than Oprah Winfrey) before a live audience in New York City. Although I have never seen the show,  a New York Times magazine article written by the brilliant Frank Bruni  , suggests that the show, and Dr. Oz himself, are both pretty entertaining.


As one of the most accomplished cardiothoracic surgeons of his generation, Mehmet Oz has transplanted lungs and repurposed hearts; implanted mechanical devices to provide the pump and pulse for patients that cannot manage that on their own; and otherwise pressed, pulled, cut and stitched inside bodies where a second;s lapse of attention or a millimeter of miscalculation could kill.   But on a morning not long ago, around a conference table high in the NBC building in Rockefeller Center in Manhattan, the challenge before him and dozens of assistants was less obviously urgent. They talked of testicles. Specifically, they discussed what sorts of props might accurately (and tastefully) mimic said sexual organs in a television demonstration, on ;The Dr. Oz Show,; of how men should examine theirs for tumors and cysts;  The show holds him up as the sort of finely tuned machine that you, on the couch at home, yearn to be. And that underscores his determination to be an omniscient and omnipresent commentator on health-related affairs, one-stop shopping for all your somatic curiosities and some of your spiritual and intellectual ones to boot.


The topic tomorrow will be sustainable agriculture and genetically engineered crops.


Appearing with me will be Jeffery Smith, whose claim to fame is his opposition to genetically engineered crops. Despite the lack of any discernible scientific training or agricultural expertise, Smith makes 65 specific claims about the danger of these crops. Each of his claims has been thoroughly debunked by the non-profit  Academicsreview team.


Science, pseudoscience and sustainable agriculture altogether on an entertainment/ health show? Will it work? Will the estimated 3.5 million viewers learn anything useful?


Tune in and find out.


Note: Although it will be taped live Monday afternoon, I don;t know when it will be broadcasted to the syndicated sites.













Document Number: 8027 



 On rice, water, and wine 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 30 April 2008 


The NY Times has had some very good articles on the rice shortages. ;  A Drought in Australia, a Global Shortage of Rice  ; has some first hand information about conditions in Australia that are worsening the shortages in Southeast Asia.  Asia has its own problems, including floods and food-unfriendly government policies, as I described in ;  Rising rice prices not caused by biofuels  ;. However, Asians have been increasingly dependent on Australian rice, instead planting cash crops for export in their own fields. Droughts and economics in Australia have resulted in decreased rice harvests just when the food was needed most. Worse, limited water rights mean that farmers in Australia have to choose what crop to plant. The price of wine grapes is higher than that of rice, so the farmers did what they had to do.  Sadly, as I;d gleaned from other reports, the shortages doesn;t seem to be anyone;s ;fault;, with no one thing to blame. Instead, it;s a mash of mostly unrelated events and conditions that have come together in an unforeseen way to create a terrible result.


Lindsay Renwick, the mayor of this dusty southern Australian town, remembers the constant whir of the rice mill. It was our little heartbeat out there, tickety-tick-tickety, he said, imitating the giant fans that dried the rice, and now it has stopped.


The Deniliquin mill, the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere, once processed enough grain to meet the needs of 20 million people around the world. But six long years of drought have taken a toll, reducing Australias rice crop by 98 percent and leading to the mothballing of the mill last December.


Ten thousand miles separate the mills hushed rows of oversized silos and sheds  beige, gray and now empty  from the riotous streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, but a widening global crisis unites them.


The collapse of Australias rice production is one of several factors contributing to a doubling of rice prices in the last three months  increases that have led the worlds largest exporters to restrict exports severely, spurred panicked hoarding in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and set off violent protests in countries including Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, the Philippines, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Yemen.


The article also makes the very real connection between the rice shortages and global warming (although I would have liked some links):


The droughts effect on rice has produced the greatest impact on the rest of the world, so far. It is one factor contributing to skyrocketing prices, and many scientists believe it is among the earliest signs that a warming planet is starting to affect food production.


It is difficult to definitely link short-term changes in weather to long-term  climate change  , but the unusually severe drought is consistent with what climatologists predict will be a problem of increasing frequency.













Document Number: 2738 



 Organ Failure? Organ Damage? Cancer?!? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 14 January 2010 


If you have been paying attention to the blogosphere lately, you;ve heard about a study that came out in the International Journal of Biological Sciences called  A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health  , by Vendomois et al. It is a reanalysis of feeding trail data from Monsanto corn-fed rats. While its conclusions essentially call for ;more research; because they claim to have found ;signs of toxicity; they admit that they do not have proof of such toxicity.


But if you read the blog reports on the subject, the claims accelerate into the stratosphere from  organ damage  , to  organ failure  , even to  CANCER  ! (Blog author removed cancer from the post without noting the mistake, but left it in the URL.) All of these descriptions are false even if you accept the conclusions of the paper. The only major news organization to pick up the story is Democracy Now, with a short,  unbalanced mention in this program  . None of the blogs or news reports declaring organ damage/failure/etc are mentioning that this study was funded in part by Greenpeace.


A few bloggers have responded to it,  Andrew Moseman at Discover Blogs  , and the Monsanto bloggers have  posted a short response  as well. The Australia and New Zealand regulatory agency  FSANZ also has a response  . It turns out that the authors have a little history of making mistakes with statistics with this same data set,  there;s a lot of information about this with regard to their 2007 paper at the GMO Pundit  (including some recent commentary).


We have received several emails already about it asking for input, and like all good analyses these things take time to put together. I;ve taken it upon myself to write up an analysis of the paper to post to the blog this weekend. I;m also interested to see what people with more experience in environmental toxicology have to say, and what the responses will be in the journal that published the paper, as well as elsewhere. Feel free to take a look at the paper and join in the discussion ; as a topic has already started in the Forum,  head on over there to add your thoughts!


Note:  Comments on this post have now been enabled following my experiment in irrigating the forum. (4/29/2010)













Document Number: 3080 



 Organic consumers not very concerned about GE 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 16 March 2010 


(Hat tip to  Elton Robinson at South East Farm Press  )


The  Consumers Union  wanted to know what consumers felt about genetically engineered crops cross-pollinating with organic crops. So in early February, they conducted a poll. They called a thousand random people over the phone and asked them just two questions:


1. Do you buy organic food, such as produce, meat or dairy products? (Yes/No)  2. Please rate your concern with organic food crops that are contaminated by genetic engineering. Are you   Extremely concerned  Very concerned  Somewhat concerned  Not concerned at all


Sounds like a pretty simple exercise. However, I question the use of the term ;contaminated.; This is a loaded term, and assumes one of the things that they want people to believe ; that organic agriculture  should not  include genetic engineering. This introduces a bias into the poll. For instance, if you asked these two similar and benign questions, you would get two different results:


A. Please rate your concern with organic food crops that cross-pollinate with hybrid crops.  B. Please rate your concern with organic food crops that are contaminated by pollen from hybrid crops.


Of course, hybrids are allowed in organic agriculture, but I;ll bet my backyard garden harvest for this entire year that if you ask these two questions the word ;contaminated; will have a measurable effect and cause people to answer that they are more concerned than they would be otherwise.


Ok, that issue aside, it is good that the Consumers Union did a poll such as this, because there hasn;t been very much research investigating what people really think about genetic engineering and organic agriculture, and there;s been some talk about it in numerous channels. So how concerned are consumers about this ;contamination?;


The Consumers Union  announced its results  on the 2nd of March:


Consumers Union Poll: Two-Thirds of Organic Foods Consumers Concerned with Genetically Engineered Contamination   Results Contradict USDAs Position That Consumers Dont Care   Yonkers, NYConsumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of  Consumer Reports  , today released new poll data showing that two-thirds of organic food consumers are concerned about genetically engineered (GE) ingredients contaminating organic food. Given the popularity of alfalfa sprouts among health-oriented eaters, Consumers Union urges the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to consider the overwhelming consumer concern before deciding to allow GE alfalfa on the market. USDA has until Wednesday, March 3 to receive public comment on its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on approval of GE alfalfa. The poll results can be found online at   http://greenerchoices.org/pdf/OrganicFood Poll_Public Release_Feb 2010.pdf  .


What did they find? Although they linked to the paper itself, those less inclined to delve into those details can easily just read a few more lines down to find out what people thought.


A majority of respondents expressed some level of concern with genetic engineering contamination of organic food crops. Overall, 58% said they were extremely concerned, very concerned or somewhat concerned with this contamination.  Two-thirds (66%) of consumers who purchase organic food indicated being concerned versus half (50%) of those who dont make organic food purchases.


This announcement came one day before the close of the  comment period  for the Environmental Impact Statement for GE alfalfa. It seems that this poll was conducted specifically to address the question of organic concern over GE crops, which has  been amplified recently  by calls from the Center for Food Safety that has been challenging the biotech alfalfa and recently, sugar beets in court. 58% of consumers concerned about pollen drift from GE crops to organic crops sounds like an impressive opposition! However, if you read the poll results themselves, you will find that they found the opposite of what was claimed in the press release.


Luckily, they  published  the poll results so that inquiring minds could figure out what was being obscured from casual readers. I have reproduced their main data table, showing the breakdown of consumer opinions:


Buy Organic  Don;t Buy Organic   Gender  Age  Gender  Age   Buy Organic  Men  Women  18-34  35-54  55+  Don;t Buy  Men  Women  18-34  35-54  55+   Respondent Base  998  528  236  292  183  193  151  469  247  222  122  187  159    %   Extremely concerned  11  12  12  13  12  15  10  9  4  15  11  8  7   Very concerned  13  18  11  24  18  17  19  7  5  10  9  6  8   Somewhat concerned  34  35  36  35  32  36  39  33  31  36  46  30  28   Not concerned at all  41  33  40  28  37  32  30  49  59  39  34  54  55   Don;t know  1  1  1  1  1  0  2  1  1  1  0  1  1


As you can see, when you look at the individual percentages for each response, it comes out completely different from how they describe. The category with the highest number of responses is ;Not concerned at all; at 41 percent followed by ;Somewhat concerned; at 34 percent. ;Very concerned; and ;Extremely Concerned; only make up 13 and 11 percent each. While their categorical description that consumers expressing  any  level of concern at all add up to 58%, this hides the distribution of the level of concern.


Usually when you design a poll (assuming you don;t use loaded terms!) you try to include several responses that can inform you about the distribution of respondents; opinions. This is often on a 1 to 5 scale, where 3 is the neutral or undecided category. This poll had five categories, with ;Extremely concerned; at one end and ;Not at all concerned; at the other end. The next two categories inward from the extreme positions are the moderate opinions, ;Very concerned; and ;Somewhat concerned;. Somewhat concerned is the moderate partner of Not at all concerned, and if you were to properly categorize is on the scale of concern, it goes with ;Not at all concerned.;


To put it another way, say you designed a poll that asked people if they had any politically conservative opinions. The responses could be, ;Extremely conservative,; ;Very conservative,; [Neutral], ;Somewhat conservative,; and ;Not at all conservative.; You would find moderate liberals who have some conservative opinions falling under the ;somewhat conservative; category. But would it make any sense to say that people in this category count overall as conservatives? That;s what the Consumers Union did.


You could say that they could have designed better responses. This would go hand-in-hand with a more neutrally-worded question.


;Somewhat concerned; = ;Not very concerned;  (but still a little concerned;)


The vast majority of consumers polled by the Consumers Union are not very concerned or not at all concerned about organic ;contamination; by GE crops, at 75% of the sample. Those who are very or extremely concerned only make up 24%. Even amongst the people who say that they buy organic food, it is still 68% not to 30% yes. Those who don;t buy organic are 82% to 16%.


Mind you, half of the people who answered the phone at dinnertime said that they buy organic food, and since we all know that organic makes up only about 2% of the food out there, they;re not all buying a lot of it. I imagine that the hard-core organic folks are far more in the ;very; and ;extremely; concerned categories. Perhaps they should have asked  how much  organic food respondents purchased, perhaps there would have been an interesting trend from low concern to high concern as you go from infrequent to frequent organic food consumption?


In case there was any doubt in your mind about the shape of public opinion, here;s a handy graph of the answer to their poll question:


So I think it is pretty clear that the actual distribution of the results differ from the way readers were led to believe. And these results are right in line with the USDA;s  analysis  of general consumer opinions on GE crops. And, might I add, maybe  Michael Pollan;s  as well. The fact is, most consumers do not really care very much if at all ; it;s not on their radar screen. The Consumers Union, although accurately quoting the 58% figure, is still misleading people when they say that their poll data disagrees with the USDA;s conclusion.


But it doesn;t stop there, look at what Michael Hansen, their senior scientist said:


;The EIS states that consumers and organic farmers don;t care if their organic food is GE contaminated, said Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist with Consumers Union. Consumers Unions poll states the exact opposite: consumers care greatly.;


But as we have seen from looking at the actual results from their own poll, this is entirely NOT the case. I don;t know very much about the Consumers Union, and I know even less about Michael Hansen, but he is being  flagrantly dishonest  about their results. Since he is the senior scientist for the Consumers Union and this is an official press release, this reflects poorly on the organization itself as well. There are all kinds of cases where wishful thinking plays a role in people;s opinions of polls and trends like this, but you cannot conclude what Hansen has from this data. It is rare that I find cases where I can say for sure that falsehoods are knowingly being propagated, and this is one of them.


If this is what they do with reasonable and understandable data, I daresay we should be wary if the Consumers Union does any more polls on genetic engineering in the future.


Finally, here;s the big irony ; let;s come back to what I said about using the term ;contaminated.; Even though the question was loaded, they still couldn;t produce the result they were looking for!













Document Number: 8543 



 Organic Farms Not Always Best for Butterflies 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 21 September 2010 


The most devastating impact on biodiversity is caused by agriculture. Farming is already the greatest extinction threat to birds, and its adverse impacts look set to increase, especially in developing countries (  Green et al. 2005  ).


Thus one of the global challenges for the next century is the need to develop high-yielding varieties that require minimal inputs, so that impacts on biodiversity can be minimized.


An alternative to the ;high-input; approach is to expand the number of organic  farms. Because organic farmers do not use synthetic pesticides, their farms support  higher levels of biodiversity than conventional farms. Some organic farms can yield as much, for some crops, as conventional agriculture (  Reganold et al. 2001  ;   Maeder et al.  , 2002  ), although in some cases the yields of organic cropping systems is considerably lower than that of conventional or integrated cropping systems (  Bruulsema TW  et al. 2003;  Maeder et al., 2002  )


In cases of low yield, organic practices would require more land be farmed to maintain and increase output levels, thus potentially leading to reduced overall biodiversity. What is the net effect on wildlife when the land being converted to wildlife-friendly farming has a lower yield, and so more land, somewhere, must be farmed to provide the same harvest?


A new study this week  published in Ecology Letters seeks to answer this question. The research indicates that when the organic yield per hectare falls below 87% of conventional yield, wildlife does not benefit.


The researchers surveyed Sixteen 10  10 km landscapes in the Central South West and North Midlands of England. Within each landscape they surveyed one organic farm, one conventional farm, and one grassland SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest: a UK conservation designation). They then counted butterflies in each area.


A few of the butterflies surveyed are shown here:


Thymelicus syvestris, Ochlodes venata, Erynnis tages, and Pieris napi (my favorite).


They found that, for the type of fields and farms investigated, organic farms support a higher density of butterflies than conventional farms, but a lower density than grassland reserves. Organic farms support more butterflies than conventional farms, so if there were no difference in yield it would always be better to farm organically. However, the lower the organic:conventional yield ratio, the more advantageous an alternative land sparing strategy would be.


What this means is that even if we convert ALL of agriculture to organic farms (now only ca. 2% in the United States), we still need to increase yield on these farms if we want to spare land and protect wildlife. The study also suggests that if our goal is a sustainable farming system, we may not be investing wisely. The authors indicate that in the UK alone, 435 m was spent on agri-environment schemes in 2008, as compared to a budget for all other nature conservation of c.80 m. More interdisciplinary research is urgently needed on how the net benefits of different farming methods compare, so that agricultural policy can be as environmentally sustainable as possible. And, as readers of this blog will not be surprised to hear me say, we need to use the most effective modern genetic methods to increase crop yields on ecologically managed farms.


Hat tip to Stephen Daubert, author of ;  Threads in the Web of LIfe  ; for alerting me to this paper.













Document Number: 2422 



 Organic food company steps forward with $25k to &quot;protect the sacred natural order for future generations&quot; (and their business) 


 by  David Tribe  on 17 February 2011 


Nutiva Pledges $25,000 to CFS for Challenging USDAs Approval of Monsanto;s Genetically Engineered Alfalfa


Organic food brand Nutiva is pledging $25,000 in support of the Center for Food Safety;s effort to halt Monsanto;s spring planting of GMO alfalfa crops.


Nutiva is concerned about the impact that genetically modified organisms are having on our natural world;;  Oxnard, CA (Vocus/PRWEB) February 17, 2011


Last month the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the deregulation of Monsantos genetically engineered, Roundup-Ready alfalfa. According to the New York Times, this would authorize the unrestricted commercial cultivation of genetically modified alfalfa, a decision profoundly disappointing to the organic community and one that promises an epic battle to determine the future of organic foods in North America. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), is pursuing all legal remedies to oppose this decision. CFS, a nonprofit organization, representing 180,000 members across the nation, is focused on curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and promoting organic agriculture. CFS Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell said,   CFSs legal team is the organic communitys last line of defense  against this GMO threat to farmers and consumer choice. Nutiva has pledged $25,000 to CFS to support its legal work.


With Organic Foods Endangered, Who Will Take a Stand Against Monsanto?  Nutiva founder and CEO, John W. Roulac, comments on the deregulation, Nutiva is concerned about the impact that genetically modified organisms are having on our natural world and human health. Since its inception in 1999, Nutiva has exclusively sourced non-GMO ingredients. According to Roulac, the impending massive spring 2011 planting of Monsanto GMO alfalfa seed could contaminate vast acres of organic food production. Now is the time for every corporation that has profited from the organic movement to unite and stop Monsanto. Who else will step forward to protect the sacred natural order for future generations? If Nutiva, a modest company in a land of large organic firms, can contribute $25,000, what will the largest organic dairy brands, international retailers and distributors do to join in the fight? Nutiva is encouraging all organic advocates to add their financial support to the efforts of CFS. Roulac is no stranger to taking on special interests. In 2002, Nutiva, in cooperation with Dr. Bronners Magic Soaps, the Hemp Industries Association and Natures Path, successfully sued the DEA in the US 9th Circuit, HIA vs. DEA (# 03-71366) to establish the rights of Americans to consume hemp foods. Also experienced in espousing food industry rights, the Center for Food Safety has tackled GMO alfalfa and prevailed against Monsanto and the USDA before. A recently filed case (# 3:10-CV-04038) CFS vs. Vilack, covers GE sugar beets and is now at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


Can Organics Coexist with GMO Alfalfa?  In the view of CFS, if the biotech industry achieves market dominance in numerous crops, the majority of organic foods will be genetically contaminated with foreign genetic material through pollen drift and accidental co-mingling. Said David Lively, a board member of the Organic Seed Alliance, The reality is simple: When farmers lose the genetic purity of their seed, they lose their freedom to operate free of GE contamination. A genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified organism (GMO) is created in a laboratory process whereby DNA genes of one species, which may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, or animals, are artificially inserted into genes of an unrelated plant or animal. In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated, . . . studies indicate serious health risks associated with GMO food. These risks include the chance of infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.


About Nutiva  Nutiva is dedicated to a healthy and sustainable world, demonstrating its mission to nourish people and planet by using delicious organic ingredients, enriching the soil, and donating 1% of sales to sustainable-agriculture groups. Founded in 1999, Nutiva is the worlds best-selling brand of nutritious organic hemp, coconut and chia superfoods. Its products are offered nationwide, as well as in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, at more than 10,000 natural-food retailers. The company can be followed at  http://nutiva.com/  or at  http://www.facebook.com/Nutiva  .


About the Center for Food Safety  CFS is a national, nonprofit membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. The Center for Food Safety, currently represents more than 180,000 members across the nation.













Document Number: 4919 



 Organic grown strawberries can taste better 


 by  David Tribe  on 4 September 2010 


Commercial organic farms have better fruit and soil, lower environmental impact, study finds   ScienceDaily (Sep. 2, 2010)  Side-by-side comparisons of organic and conventional strawberry farms and their fruit found the organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically diverse.  ;Our findings have global implications and advance what we know about the sustainability benefits of organic farming systems,; said John Reganold, Washington State University Regents professor of soil science and lead author of a paper published in the peer-reviewed online journal, PLoS ONE. ;We also show you can have high quality, healthy produce without resorting to an arsenal of pesticides.;  The study is among the most comprehensive of its kind, analyzing 31 chemical and biological soil properties, soil DNA, and the taste, nutrition and quality of three strawberry varieties on more than two dozen commercial fields ; 13 conventional and 13 organic.  All the farms in the current study were in California, home to 90 percent of the nation;s strawberries and the center of an ongoing debate about the use of soil fumigants. Conventional farms in the study used the ozone-depleting methyl bromide, which is slated to be replaced by the highly toxic methyl iodide over the protests of health advocates and more than 50 Nobel laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences. In July, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked the EPA to reconsider its approval of methyl iodide.  Reganold;s study team included Preston Andrews, a WSU associate professor of horticulture, and seven other experts, mostly from WSU, to form a multidisciplinary team spanning agroecology, soil science, microbial ecology, genetics, pomology, food science, sensory science, and statistics. On almost every major indicator, they found the organic fields and fruit were equal to or better than their conventional counterparts.  Among their findings:  The organic strawberries had significantly higher antioxidant activity and concentrations of ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds.  The organic strawberries had longer shelf life.  The organic strawberries had more dry matter, or, ;more strawberry in the strawberry.;  Anonymous testers, working at times under red light so the fruit color would not bias them, found one variety of organic strawberries was sweeter, had better flavor, and once a white light was turned on, appearance. The testers judged the other two varieties to be similar.  The researchers also found the organic soils excelled in a variety of key chemical and biological properties, including carbon sequestration, nitrogen, microbial biomass, enzyme activities, and micronutrients.  DNA analysis found the organically managed soils had dramatically more total and unique genes and greater genetic diversity, important measures of the soil;s resilience to stress and ability to carry out essential processes.


Pundit;s thoughts:  Over at  Biofortified  there has been some debate in the comments section about on the merits of this study













Document Number: 6930 



 The organic halo alters food and exercise choices 


 by  Colby Vorland  on 12 October 2010 


Nutrient-based claims on food labels are shown in some research to promote calorie underestimation. This is often called the health halo effect; certain buzz words associated with what people consider healthy cause them to overgeneralize other attributes of a food, downplay the number of calories, and not pay as much attention to the nutrition facts panel.


A couple recent studies by Schuldt and Schwarz (1) show this happens with the word organic on the label as well, with food and exercise. Indirect evidence has suggested this for awhile (associations of organic withhealthy among many other inferences).


Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.


In the first study  , they showed 114 college students, split into 2 groups a Nutrition Facts panel for conventional Oreos or Oreos that were made with organic flour and sugar that had the same number of calories. They were asked to rate on a scale if they thought the cookies they were shown had in comparison to other brands more or fewer calories and if they should be eaten more or less compared to other brands. They also completed a New Ecological Paradigm scale which measured how pro-environmentalist they are.


On average the organic oreos were rated as having fewer calories compared to other brands, and were rated more appropriate to eat more often. They also found that a higher level of pro-environmentalism more strongly biased the calorie content perceptions of the organically made oreos- they rated other brands higher on the calorie perceptions scale.


So having the word organic on the label made the product seem better compared to other brands of the same product, and more ok to consume, and this was influenced more by level of pro-environmentalism.


In the second study  , they tested whether organic labeling can influence the perception of the need for exercise. In this one, 214 students were split into 5 conditions, in which they were told a fictional person trying to lose weight who usually runs after dinner was considering skipping it for schoolwork. Then they were given different meal choices, which included dessert variations of organic or conventional ice cream or cookies, or no dessert. They rated on a scale if they thought it was ok if the fictional person to skip exercise. They also again did the pro-environmentalism scale.


When the fictional person had an organic dessert, the raters were more lenient in suggesting that she should skip exercise (though not by much). Interestingly the suggestion that she could skip exercise in the no-dessert situation was not as high as with the organic-dessert. This time, pro-environmentalism did not influence results.


These findings were interesting but not as dramatic as the first experiment (still statistically significant but just at P=.05), and the expected association with pro-environmentalism was not there (though the authors provide evidence-based reasoning why this may be). This could still mean a real effect or that larger subject numbers could produce differing results.


The Sherlock Holmes of food himself,  Brian Wansink, and his group at Cornell  similarly studied 54 college students with oreos- organic or non, also surveying for environmentalism and also behavior. They apparently found organically labeled cookies were estimated with 40% fewer calories than unlabeled ones, and rated appearance and fiber content higher. This one doesnt appear to be published yet except for the details noted in various media reports (2).


Conclusions


Most people wont consider the health halo effect when weighing in on a discussion of organic and conventional foods. It would seem that most of the claims for organic foods, such as that they have more nutrients or are healthier or are universally better for the environment are not evidence-based, as ive explored a little previously. But if labeling a processed food organic skews perceptions of calorie content or negatively influences activity level, it is troubling and further supports the banning of package labels. Many people demand that they deserve to know if a food is organic or not, which raises an interesting ethical conundrum. Assuming most organic consumers are choosing based on ideological not logical reasoning, do we allow them to fall prey to subconscious biases when science finds them? All we can do for now is educate about them and hope this reduces the halo effect.


It should be important to note that these studies are obviously on a food product- it seems we should be less concerned about a health halo effect of organic food when people are purchasing real (unprocessed) foods- in fact it may even get them to eat more of these good foods. That would be an interesting follow-up study for sure.


And what about the countless other words like vegetarian, vegan, and gluten free that appear on labels as well?


I would have to agree with the  banning of front-of-package labeling  .


References


1. Schuldt, Jonathon P., &amp; Schwarz, Norbert (2010). The organic path to obesity? Organic claims inuence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations  Judgment and Decision Making, 5  (3), 144-150.  http://journal.sjdm.org/10/10509/jdm10509.pdf


2. Stein, Jeannine. Beware foods with organic label  they may be higher in calories than you think. LATimes Booster Shots Column. Published April 30, 2010. Accessed October 6, 2010.  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/04/organic-foods-calories.html


Related Posts:    Organic pesticides arent necessarily more sustainable than synthetic   Organic vs. conventional food on health: not enough data   Organic agriculture pest control through enemy evenness   Oxypowder is a scam.   Critically evaluating Hersheys/ADAs The Moderation Nation campaign













Document Number: 7739 



 Organic Infighting over GE Alfalfa 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 24 February 2011 


The USDA announced recently that Roundup Ready alfalfa is cleared to be planted anywhere in the US without restrictions. In contrast to previous GE crop approvals, this time the USDA listed three potential options, the first being no approval at all, the second, unrestricted approval, and the third, approval with certain geographic restrictions. (For some discussion on this, see  Anastasia;s post on alfalfa  and mine on our  joint comment to the USDA  .) So already, the political process with GE crop deregulation is getting more interesting, but one fascinating aspect of all this is the new and surprising level of infighting amongst opponents of genetic engineering, particularly in the Organic agriculture sector. All it took was proposing something between a blanket Yes or No ; something that recognizes that all farmers have a reasonable right to grow crops as they see fit ; and that the goal should be coexistence amongst all segments of agriculture.


As soon as the topic of coexistence came up. Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association fired off a shot, with  USDA Recommends ;Coexistence; with Monsanto? We say Hell No!


The Agriculture Department is dutifully drafting a comprehensive ;coexistence policy; that supposedly will diffuse tensions between conventional (chemical but non-GMO), biotech, and organic farmers. Earlier this week industry and Administration officials met in Washington, D.C. to talk about coexistence. Even though the Organic Consumers Association tried to get into the meeting, we were told we weren;t welcome. The powers that be claim that the OCA doesn;t meet their criteria of being ;stakeholders.; The unifying theme in these closed-door meetings is apparently that Monsanto and the other biotech companies will set aside a ;compensation; fund to reimburse organic farmers whose crops or fields get contaminated. That way we;ll all be happy. Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, and Dupont will continue planting their hazardous crops and force-feeding animals and consumers with GMOs. Organic farmers and companies willing to cooperate will get a little compensation or ;hush money.; But of course our response to Monsanto and the USDA;s plan, as you might have guessed, is hell no!  There can be no such thing as ;coexistence; with a reckless and monopolistic industry that harms human health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world;s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. Enough talk of coexistence.


It is no small wonder to me why Ronnie was not invited. Even so, he gets the whole thing wrong about ;hush money.; The USDA was not proposing a cross-pollination compensation fund, actually, the Organic Seed Alliance was, along with several other organizations.


The  minutes of the USDA meeting in question are available online  , and there is some good discussion there, worthy of its own post. Matthew Dillon from the OSA was on the phone talking about the  hush money  compensation fund idea, and Bill Freese was well, not talking about coexistence at all but instead weed resistance to glyphosate. Mark McCaslin from Forage Genetics was talking about what they;ve done to foster coexistence in the 4 years they;ve been waiting for the USDA;s shiny new EIS, and Doug Goehring from the North Dakota Department of Agriculture made the radical suggestion that if the proverbial ;bull; gets out of its pen to tear up your neighbor, that ;Maybe you;ve got to establish two fences on both sides.; (A much more workable situation with pollen flow, actually ; it;s called incompatibility genes.) The USDA also explained the three deregulation options and how it might work to place geographic restrictions on alfalfa fields.


In the short time between this December meeting and the close of the comment period, while you heard some talk about  End Times for Organic  agriculture if GE alfalfa was approved, Whole Foods surprised me when it  announced on its company blog  that it supported the 3rd option, in favor of approving GE alfalfa with geographic restrictions.  Organic Valley  and  Stonyfield Farm  opined similarly, in what would seem to be a coordinated fashion. When the USDA laid down its decision on the alfalfa in question, all hell broke loose in the organic community. (And I;m not talking about Michael Pollan deciding to  reclassify alfalfa as a grass  .)


The first to come out swinging was Ronnie Cummins, of course. He accused the   ;Organic Elite; of  surrendering  to Monsanto  .


In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto;s Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation;s 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America;s organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by  Whole Foods Market  ,  Organic Valley  , and  Stonyfield Farm  , has decided it;s time to surrender to Monsanto.


To support this thesis, Cummins weaves together a surprising web of campaign contributions and tales of greenwashing and ;Natural; fraud. Them;s fightin; words. But the response did not come from those food companies first, instead, it came from the Non-GMO Project, which was also criticized. In  Team Organic will Never Surrender to Monsanto  , Director Megan Westgate corrected some of Cummins; false claims, while calling for him to work together with them to fight genetic engineering. In her response, however, I would like to point out two very curious statements.


The first is her opening statement about the rush of radical activism. While trying to appeal to Cummins; desire for a return to radicalism, this is instead adding to the legitimacy of such actions. While Megan only interrupted a inaugural ceremony, others thinking along the same lines have destroyed field stations and research in UC Davis in 1999 to uprooting GE grapes in France last year. While she is trying to convince Cummins; that her organization is sincere about being totally-completely-non-negotiably anti-GE, there is a danger in promoting the direct action style of ;combat; in what it can lead to. ;Combat; was her choice of words, and it does not promote civil political dialog.


The second thing that stuck out was how Megan Westgate described herself ;As a founding board member of the Non-GMO Project, and its first (and only) Executive Director;. This implies that she both founded the Non-GMO Project and directed it from the beginning. Neither is true. Nor is her description of its history in the following paragraph, where she says that the organization started in Tuscon, Arizona. It started in Berkeley, California, and it mimicked the approach initially going on in Tuscon (which Megan doubtlessly was involved in by her description) of contacting manufacturers to pressure them to not buy GE crops for use in their food. Later, when the food companies (Whole Foods, Organic Valley, Stonyfield Farm and several others) took over the project, they made her the Executive Director even though there was someone else who ran it before her ; they just didn;t have the title of ;Executive Director.; How do I know all this? Robin Jane Roff, a geography researcher wrote half of her thesis on it, and what not only a volunteer for the project at one point, but also interviewed the then-organizer. The Non GMO Project;s history is briefly described in  No Alternative  , a peer-reviewed article. Suffice to say, both Cummins; and Westgate;s descriptions of the history and purpose of the Non-GMO Project are wrong.


My take on the Non-GMO Project is that it is an organization intended to create a niche market for non-GE foods. As such, it has even been saying that being certified organic is not enough to avoid genetic engineering ; you have to get certified as such. Insofar as it verifies products of being below a certain amount of GE material, it is not a greenwashing effort. However, in the past year they have begun to market themselves by trying to raise doubts about the safety of GE foods, and presenting their verified products as being ;safe; from those risks. As they are trying to build a brand name, they need people in their target demographic to want to pay more for the ;verified; food products, which is probably why the public response to Cummins and the OCA is not to condemn the accusations of ;surrender; but to instead try to make peace. His audience is their niche market.


And I almost forgot one detail that makes the Cummins vs Westgate argument more interesting still ; Ronnie Cummins   is on the  communications committee  of the Non-GMO Project  . Sounds like harmonious communication.


Publicly, the response from these food companies (and other anti-GE organizations) was all along the lines of ;  fighting the common enemy  ; ; that being Monsanto, of course. Within a day of each other,  Whole Foods  and  Stonyfield Farm  said pretty much the same thing. Blogs and twitter accounts lit up with chatter. (In what was a smart move for their group, they are trying to rally around raising money to sue the USDA over the alfalfa decision and more.) In particular, I would like to mention Barth Anderson at Fair Food Fight, who  gives an animated summary  of other parts of this story that I have left out, and whose opinion I will come back to.


In private, however, Whole Foods circulated an email that went a little further. This was revealed by Cummins in his next tirade against Whole Foods and more, titled  Monsanto Nation: Exposing Monsanto;s Minions  .He took umbrage at the following passage from their no-longer-internal memo:


Why is the OCA spreading misinformation? That;s a hard question for us to answer. Perhaps because we don;t share their narrow view of what it means to support organics, or perhaps because we do not support them with donations. Either way, it;s a shame that an organization that claims to ;campaign for health, justice and sustainability; can;t simply tell the truth. This just confuses consumers. Despite all their noise, no industry leaders listen to the OCA ; but uninformed consumers might. Their fear-mongering tactics, combined with the OCA;s lack of transparency about its funding sources, underscore the fact that it is neither credible nor trustworthy. We can only assume their activities are intended for further fund-raising.


Ouch. Cummins; response was less visceral, but still focused on trying to divert them from their current business practices, and trying to highlight how much this event has pushed these organizations to campaign harder against GE. He also considers campaigning against Whole Foods. (The full Whole Foods email is  available here for context  , courtesy of the OCA.)


While the chatter about this deregulation event is dying down, it has revealed something very interesting about the landscape of opinion about genetic engineering amongst its opponents in the organic community. Some are willing to pursue options for coexistence of GE and non-GE, while others are unwavering in their position and will accept nothing short of no-GE-whatsoever. In other words, that one farmer;s right  not to grow  trumps another;s  right to grow  . In response to Cummins and the Organic Consumers Association, the organizations that advocated for co-existence could have used this opportunity to call out the unilateral stance of the OCA and how it reveals the kind of thinking that leads to polarized debate and likely, a complete loss for their side. Ronnie Cummins is probably not the ally that they seek, and the next time they talk about anything smacking of co-existence this will come up again, and again.


This is one interesting exchange, but it is part of a wider issue that appears to be troubling the non-GE sector of American agriculture: to be non-GE or anti-GE? To coexist or to impose? (To commit absolutely to a philosophy or do what makes money?) The USDA was considering an option that could have changed how GE crops would be regulated, something that would have been better, from their perspective, than the complete deregulation that did occur for alfalfa. If these organizations instead backed the coexistence proposal, would the outcome have been different? Strangely, I have heard many people complain that the USDA didn;t choose the third ;coexistence; option, but when asked, none of them supported it when it was proposed. I guess agreeing to co-existence would mean giving up on the pure anti-GE campaign to just be non-GE. There is an identity crisis going on in the organic and non-GE community, and all it took was giving a third option to reveal it. The next step should be to explore the diversity of opinions and see what people actually think, not a handful of opinion-leaders. Those opinion leaders are saying that co-existence is not possible.


How about actual co-existence? Let me return to Barth Anderson:


But lets face up to the cold, cruel reality on coexistence, organic activists and bloggers. Organic ag has  been  coexisting with Monsanto and GE crops  for  years   and to believe otherwise is lunatic, crazypants denial. To claim that organics will never coexist with biotech when GE corn is popping up in Mexico of all places; to show the unmitigated gall of telling organic farmers that they  shouldnt  receive compensation for damages or expect organic consumers to endorse such a thing; to believe that fighting for a ban is better than giving farmers the regulations they need to exist in the real world alongside biotech ag  its the absolute, astonishing height of absurdity.  Coexistence is not the death of organics, and compensation is not hush money.


While everyone seems to be talking about compensation and losing organics and  political  pressure  , etc, there is a glimmer of good news about the prospect of getting disparate segments of agriculture to cooperate. For several years there has been an agreement in place in the Imperial Valley, CA, where most alfalfa seed is grown. The agreement states that none of their GE alfalfa is to be grown there, to protect the markets of the many non-GE alfalfa seed producers.  Coexistence, without any lawsuits, grandstanding, or name-calling.  You mean  farmers talk to each other  and figure out solutions between each other and companies like Forage Genetics? Amazing!


While rifts appear to have emerged between those who are happy with compromises and those who are not, for now these anti-GE organizations appear to be trying to get along again.  Ronnie Cummins will be talking Thursday  evening during a  live internet broadcast  about the issue of ;coexistence; (in scare quotes) with genetic engineering, for those interested. It will likely be an attempt to bring wavering opinions back in line with their uncompromising viewpoint, which will ultimately only make it harder for them all.













Document Number: 2146 



 Organic pesticides arent necessarily more sustainable than synthetic 


 by  Colby Vorland  on 25 October 2010 


It would seem illogical that organic compounds are all more sustainable than synthetics, or vice versa. The term organic has a health halo, biasing many people toward believing organic growing techniques are best for the environment. Ive already covered  analyses suggesting  that there isnt enough evidence that suggests organic foods are better for your health, so is the higher cost justified by a lessened environmental impact? Bahlai et al.  published a paper  suggesting that the dichotomous classification of organic and conventional is not optimal for sustainability, we must evaluate pesticides individually.


According to the authors, sustainable agriculture programs put an emphasis on the development of organic and natural insecticides to control pests, with the assumption that they are safer on the environment compared to synthetics. Public opinion also leans toward this assumption as well. The various practices (organic, conventional, or integrated) have been studied producing different results on sustainability. Differences in methodologies, practice classifications, and a number of other variables make it difficult to draw conclusions at this point. Importantly, they note:


each system is characterized by a suite of practices which are ideologically, rather than empirically defined,  these systems are not mutually exclusive from each other  , and vary from region to region depending on regulations. Because of these variations, generalizations about the overall sustainability of one system over another are never universal.


Organic farms do indeed (generally) use pesticides, they just arent synthetically made, while conventional farms can use both natural and synthetics.


This study focuses on soybean aphid, which is a major pest in North America. The investigators chose 4 new potential reduced risk insecticides with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2 synthetic and 2 natural (certified for organic crops in Canada). 2 synthetic controls (currently used) were also included (click to see a full size table):


First, lab tests studied toxicity of the pesticides against 2 species that help control aphid populations:  Harmonia axyridis  and  Orius insidiosus  , and found that the currently used synthetic pesticides were most toxic to the beneficial species compared to the 4 new ones. Of these, the 2 organics were more toxic than than the synthetics.


Then, a 2 year, 5 site study examined efficacy and selectivity of target pests.  The organic pesticides had a lower efficacy than the synthetics at 1 and 2 weeks post-treatment. Selectivity was greatest with both synthetics.  Here are the graphs; the mineral oil and beauveria bassiana are the organic pesticides, compared to the new synthetic spirotetramat and flonicamid.


Going back to the first table, the net environmental impact was estimated as an Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), which is a ranking that incorporates MSDS data and application rate. According to the EIQ-FUR (field use), the organic pesticides had a higher (in the case of the mineral oil, much higher) environmental impact compared to synthetics. The authors mention some controversy about using EIQ compared to other ranking methods, but point out the inverse relationship they found between selectivity and EIQ in this study, supporting its use.


Conclusions


The synthetic pesticides studied here tend to be more sustainable compared to the organics. The authors clearly favor  integrated pest management systems  over completely organic techniques:


Carefully designed integrated pest management systems are likely the best strategy for minimizing environmental impact of agriculture: where certified organic systems may reject the technology with the smallest environmental impact based on ideology,  IPM maintains the flexibility to incorporate any strategy empirically determined to have the smallest impact.


This sounds most sensible to me: we should study each pesticide using methods like this rather than making misguided generalizations about sustainability. Indeed, the authors sum it up nicely:


 we reject the organic-conventional dichotomy and emphasize that, in order to optimize environmental sustainability, individual tactics must be evaluated for their environmental impact in the context of an integrated approach, and that policy decisions must be based on empirical data and objective risk-benefit analysis, not arbitrary classifications.


I do have to question whether measuring only efficacy and selectivity and making conclusions about sustainability is appropriate. Hopefully future studies will measure other impacts.


Bahlai CA, Xue Y, McCreary CM, Schaafsma AW, &amp; Hallett RH (2010). Choosing organic pesticides over synthetic pesticides may not effectively mitigate environmental risk in soybeans.  PloS one, 5  (6) PMID:  20582315


.


Related Posts


Organic agriculture pest control through enemy evenness   Organic vs. conventional food on health: not enough data   The organic halo alters food and exercise choices













Document Number: 4869 



 Page of images for Media 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 14 December 2010 


Anastasia and I just got out of a Skype interview with John for  Truffle Media  , and the question came up, how to visualize a genetically engineered food? As I;m sure you all know when you read articles about genetic engineering, you get all kinds of crazy pictures from this:


To this:


When the scientific truth is more like this:


While we may write a lot about this topic, part of the battle for ideas is fought with pictures, and video too. I decided that we should put together a page of images for media to use. Here it is in  its bare glory  . So far, I thought that there could be four categories of pictures: Food, Science, Field, and Fun. The plan is to have several pre-edited sizes for each image, and full credits for those images. I want to make it easy for media to illustrate their stories.


So now the question is, how to depict genetic engineering? What kinds of pictures will be helpful? We have pictures such as the comparisons between GE and non-GE plants like the rotating images at the top of the blog. Have you seen anything you have liked, or might have some ideas for things to look for (or photoshop)? Let me know in the comments.













Document Number: 2546 



 Pami;s Purple Haze Carrots with oranges, ginger, and walnuts 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 3 January 2011 


Happy New Year!


Here is a post from Raoul at the Student Farm at UC Davis.


From the vegetable;s point of view the holidays weren;t that great. Continuous rain or fog was only broken up by hard frosts. Our head rot resistant broccoli varieties proved to be not as resistant as advertised, hence there is no broccoli in the Student Harvest baskets today. The good news is that greens and root vegetables are doing fine.


Today;s baskets include: rutabagas, fennel, collards, delicata squash, cilantro, radicchio, Purple Haze carrots, Komatsuna, Dino kale, Chinese cabbage, beets, carinata kale, and lemons and kiwis (both not certified organic, but from the Eco Garden and PLS 2 fields respectively).


The baskets were picked and packed with love by: Raoul, Eric, Sasha, Izzie, Mark, Kase, Megan, Sheryl and Ethan. The Market Garden at the Student Farm is CCOF Certified Organic.


The recipe for the week is something I prepared over the holiday after seeing this inspirational photo in the  NYT  .


I tried it with Raoul;s purple Haze carrott (an older genetically altered variety that provides an unusual and lovely color). The improvised recipe turned out very well, we think. Try it and see.


Raoul calls it ;Pami;s Purple Haze Carrots with oranges, ginger, and walnuts;.


Saute 2 minutes:  3 Tb butter  1-2 Tb brown sugar  2 Tb grated fresh ginger


Add and cook until nearly done, covered:  6 medium purple haze carrots, cut in half lengthwise  4 orange carrots, cut in half lengthwise


Add and saute 2-3 minutes:  10-15 walnut halves  2 satsuma mandarins, sectioned


salt to taste, serve hot.













Document Number: 6527 



 Parents cannot weigh risks sensibly 


 by  David Tribe  on 20 September 2010 


Parents are poor risk assessors


Parents are worried about all the wrong things when it comes to their childrens safety, Lisa Belkin writes in a New York Times column published Saturday. They constantly overestimate the danger of rare but highly publicized risks like school snipers, terrorists and strangers, when in fact the real risks to children come from car accidents, drowning and abuse  most often by people they know.


It just goes to show how  and how poorly  we evaluate risk, says Stier. Because school shootings always seem to show up on the evening news, and even though such incidents are rare, parents tend to focus on such events.


The most dangerous thing parents can do that puts their child at risk, according to the NYT article? Drive them anywhere.


ACSH newsletter, Sept 20 2010













Document Number: 7588 



 Pest Control Part 1: What is a Pest? 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 7 August 2010 


Since I;m the resident entomologist on Biofortified, and because the main pests in almost all agricultural systems are insects it only makes sense for me to write something about pests and how they;re managed in agricultural situations. My role here on Biofortified is to write about the basic biology of pests, but I will be discussing management from time to time.


Ellipsidion australe: Cockroach? Yes Pest? No.


To say that insects are pests would be far too simplistic because of their sheer diversity. The two families of parasitoid wasps I;ve been discussing, the Braconids and Ichneumonids consist of about 180,000 species together. If you want something to compare this to, there are roughly 10,000 mammalian species. There are a lot of insects around us, and they all have different ecological roles.


While some insects feed on crops, others feed exclusively on other insects which makes them the enemies of our enemies and thus;our friends. Even in a monoculture system, there are interactions between pest animals, their environment and people. Understanding these interactions is key to understanding things like why we need pesticides or why your town is inundated with ladybugs every year.


So;what, exactly constitutes a pest?


The most simple definition of a pest is an organism which pisses us off. That;s really it; the term is completely anthropocentric. Pests are creatures which interfere with our activities in any way, shape or form. In agricultural settings, insects cause damage in a variety of ways. The most common are the direct or indirect consumption of our goods such as a corn earworm or corn borer feeding on corn. There;s also the transmission of disease to livestock, plants and people. Some such as bed bugs feed on us directly and others like cockroaches share our dwellings and offend our sense of cleanliness. Others such as wasps or yellow jackets will inject us with harmful substances. Some like mosquitoes or aphids transmit diseases to us or our plants.


There are three very broad categories of pests which overlap: Medical/veterinary, urban and agricultural. Veterinary/medical and agricultural pests are fairly self explanatory; respectively they are insects which harm livestock and humans while agricultural pests harm crops. Urban pests are generally pests which infest our dwellings, although as I mentioned earlier theres quite a bit of overlap between the categories.


Blattella germianica. Cockroach? Yes. Pest? One of the hardest to get rid of...


There are also natural enemies, the insects which feed on pests. A good example of natural enemies are the parasitoid wasps I;ve written about because they kill caterpillars which would normally eat our crops. There are several families of flies which feed on insects in a similar manner that parasitoid wasps do. There are also predatory insects which will help keep pest populations down.


There are also pollinators. Bees are a textbook example of this. Without bees, about 80% of the food we eat wouldn;t exist because they pollinate crops. No pollination, no fruit, nuts and other food crops. Even pollinators we don;t raise contribute millions of dollars to the economy every year.


Bear in mind, though, that there;s a lot of overlap between all of these categories. Whether an insect is a pest or whether it;s beneficial will depend solely on where it currently is, what it;s feeding on and what it;s interacting with.


Let;s use the example of the common insect family Meloidae as an example of how the term ;pest; and ;natural enemy; can almost paradoxically overlap. Some Meloid beetle larvae feed on grasshopper egg cases, which helps keep grasshopper populations down and reduces the amount of alfalfa lo  st through grasshopper damage. You;d think they;re a good thing to have around;and in some ways they are.


The problem comes when the adult beetles emerge. Meloid beetles are popularly known as ;blister beetles; because they produce a chemical called cantharadin which destroys skin and creates large, characteristic blisters. You can imagine how eating them would cause problems because cantharadin is incredibly toxic when ingested.


Herein lies the problem.  Blister beetles  are pests of alfalfa fields because alfalfa is fed to farm animals. You get a handful of beetles into a racehorse;s food and you;re out a multimillion dollar horse. Although they;re a good thing to have around as larvae, the adults are quite capable of killing animals as large as a horse. Some  horse owners  even take extreme measures to ensure the safety of their animals, sometimes buying feed from across the country to avoid any potential problems.


Ladybird beetles are another great example where this paradox comes into play. Ladybird beetles are prized in most agricultural situations because they consume aphids, which suck plants dry and transmit disease. They;re not prized in vineyards because they, too, secrete their own defensive compound in the form of bitter tasting alkaloids. They won;t kill you but even a small amount of ladybug ca  n ruin very expensive wine by making it taste bad, which is known in the industry as  Ladybug Taint.


They can also be urban pests, as anyone who lives in areas where asian ladybird beetles can be found. At the end of the growing season when food is scarce, the beetles look for places to overwinter. The best places are small cracks that allow high densities of ladybird beetles to congregate. Unfortunately for homeowners, they tend to find their way inside dwellings and become annoying uninvited houseguests.


Pest is a word that;s very simply defined. The problem is that a lot of the time, lines can be blurred depending on what you;re growing and the insect in question. Furthermore, a lot of the animals we consider pests play important roles in the environment. In the coming weeks, I;ll be talking more about the science of pest control and how it relates to agricultural settings.













Document Number: 745 



 Pest Control Part 2: How Pesticides are Used in Integrated Pest Management 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 12 August 2010 


Doesn;t this corn earworm larva look delicious? Image courtesy of Cyanocorax from Wikipedia Commons.


In  Part 1 of Pest Control  , I discussed what a pest was and how they were divided into categories as well as how those categories overlap. Identifying pests and how they cause damage is only one part of the puzzle. There;s another part of the puzzle that comes along when you start treating the crops and when talking about pesticides, it;s one that;s the most frequently overlooked. Economics need to be taken into account when treating crops because, believe it or not, going easy on the pesticides can actually be beneficial to farmers.


The latest paradigm for pest control in agricultural situations is called ;integrated pest management;, which I;ll refer to as IPM from here on out. It takes an economical approach to pest management by sampling pests, looking at how they damage crops and what numbers of a pest are sufficient to damage a set of crops. This is much better than randomly spraying pesticides at anything which looks like it might be eating your crops because it takes into account how much money you;ll spend and save on treatments. It also encourages a conservative use of pesticides which not only lessens a pest;s exposure to pesticides and selection pressure for pesticide resistance but also lowers the amount of pesticides sprayed in the field. Although not all farmers use IPM (although most figures I see are well over 50%), it;s the best way to deal with pests because you know roughly how much money you;re saving by treating versus spraying randomly and you limit the amount of pesticides you spray on your fields.


When studying entomology, one of the things you begin to realize is that you;re probably never going to be able to completely eradicate any pest. There are, of course, some  regional exceptions  but completely eradicating a pest under most circumstances is impossible with chemical control, and difficult with other means. Some pests such as the infamous Colorado Potato Beetle,   Leptinotarsa decimlineata  , simply evolve too fast for us to be able to eliminate them with conventional pesticides alone. Others, such as   Melanoplus differentialis  , the Differential Grasshopper have a large host range and can live in many habitats other than farmland. Eliminating pests completely can be very difficult.


We also probably shouldn;t  eliminate  all pests, either. If you remember part one of this series, you;ll remember that a major theme in that article was that various insects could be good in one situation and bad in another. The Differential Grasshopper is a great example of this. While they are undoubtedly pests because they;re able to reduce fields of soybeans and corn to stubble within days, they play a vital role in nutrient cycling. Next time you walk through a vacant lot (if you live in their range, that is) pay attention to the sheer number of grasshoppers. Those grasshoppers end up as food for spiders, birds and other animals who in turn end up as food for other critters. Eliminate that link in the food chain and you;re in for some serious problems. Pest  management  is the key, instead of pest elimination.


The Colorado Potato Beetle is an example of an insect which causes indirect damage. They can wipe out an entire field of potatoes by defoliating the plants but they don;t touch the tubers themselves. Image Courtesy of John F. Carr from Bugguide.net


However, there;s also something else to consider other than simply how easy killing a pest is. Let;s see you;re a farmer walking through a field and see an aphid. The question quickly becomes one of whether or not to spray for aphids. On the surface, it would seem like if you see pests you should spray but this isn;t necessarily the case. Just because you see insects feeding on your crops doesn;t necessarily mean they;re causing enough damage for you to take a loss.


Insects cause damage in a number of ways. Some, such as the codling moth, eat the product directly. Others, such as the European Corn Borer, eat parts of the plant which aren;t necessarily related to the product you;re selling. Others such as  Aphis glycines  , the soybean aphid, cause damage by removing resources from the plants but cause relatively small amounts of physical damage. Under certain circumstances and with high enough numbers, the damage from any of these insects can be significant. Plants aren;t static objects, however and most can tolerate small amounts of damage without reductions in yield.


Plants are more vulnerable at some times than others. High populations of soybean aphids early in the season when soybeans are growing the most causes the biggest problems because in addition to the nutrients they remove, their waste material (honeydew) will culture fungus quite easily and slows plant growth by inhibiting photosynthesis in addition to removing nutrients. On the other hand, if you have the same population at the end of the season after the pods have already formed you can tolerate a much higher population of the same pest. In a similar manner, if you;re producing soybeans destined to become tofu a pest which removes amino acids will be more devastating than a pest which removes mostly sugars. In essence, at certain times in the season you can tolerate higher levels of pest just by virtue of where the plant is in it;s life cycle.


This codling moth caterpillar is an example of an insect which causes direct damage, which is an insect feeding on the useable product. Image courtesy of USDA-ARS from Wikipedia Commons.


One of the key points to IPM is that we can figure out how much damage insects do by measuring how populations damage crops in terms of the most important measure-the reduction in yield. If we know about how much a farmer will lose at the current pest population level, we can definitively say that ;yes, treating is a good idea; or ;no, treating is a bad idea at this point;. There are two points which farmers take into consideration. The first is the economic threshold, and the second is an action threshold. The point at which a farmer takes an economic loss is the ;economic threshold; and the point at which treating a population of pests becomes cheaper than letting them be is called an ;action threshold;. These will vary from pest to pest, crop to crop and the stage of the plant;s growth.


A great example of how economic thresholds are set was an article I hyperlinked in my last post about  ladybug taint  . In the paper, researchers added a bit of the chemical responsible for the ;Ladybug taint; in wine to wines and asked a panel of wine tasters to see if they could detect the taint. Given the data from that test, they calculated the concentration of ladybugs which would produce the minimum undetectable amount of ladybug taint during harvest and set a threshold much lower than the number which would cause the undesirable taste to give a bit of wiggle room to account for discrepancies in sampling. The numbers were also different for red and white wines, because these beverages have very different tastes and the chemical would be more noticeable in one over the other.


Of course for many other crops there are other things to consider; I chose the above example for simplicity;s sake. In  soybeans  , the action threshold for soybean aphids takes into account the stage of the plant, the cultivar (or type of plant), the cost of insecticides, what the properties of the desired product from the plant are and how they;re changed by the insects. The action threshold also takes into account the population of pest because to potentially cause economic damage, the pest population levels have to be increasing. Remember, farm fields aren;t completely barren except for pests;they have their own special ecology and pest populations are still regulated by predators, parasitoids and disease. It;s a complicated figure that takes many, many factors into account.


The soybean aphid is the largest pest of soybeans in the US. Photo courtesy of Robert J. O;Neil and Ho Jung Yoo from Wikipedia Commons


We need to be careful when treating because the way we treat pests is imperfect at best. There are all sorts of ecological control measures, like tilling corn stubble underground to prevent the emergence of corn borer moths as well as biological control measures such as biopesticides and natural enemy introduction (my area of study). The most common and most effective method at this point is chemical control, and this is why I;m making these posts. Pesticides are taken very seriously in IPM. We only use them when we have to, and we do a lot of time consuming and unglamorous research to figure out how and when to use them.


Despite the fact there are legitimate risks associated with pesticide use (which is why the USDA monitors pesticides in food), they still play an important role in agriculture and even medicine. The main reason you and I are alive today is because we have gotten so very good at killing insects. Pesticides are used to control malaria vectoring mosquitoes and largely because of pesticides we no longer have malaria in most of North America, although I;m also quick to point out that a thorough understanding of mosquito ecology helped us in furthering that goal as well. In America, we not only demand cheap food we also demand perfect food. The average consumer will quickly discard an entire ear of corn because they;re grossed out to find a giant corn earworm larva even though the rest of the ear is still quite edible. To prevent insects from eating our food, and to prevent insects in the final product we;ve got to spray pesticides. There are few, if any other viable options at this point in time.













Document Number: 1133 



 Philip Alcabes on fear 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 28 April 2009 


(via  onegoodmove  )


Philip Alcabes was just on the Daily Show, and talked about how our fear gets the better of us. We fear things that are less real than the real dangers that we are exposed to every day. Here is the interview:


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  M ; Th 11p / 10c    Philip Alcabes    thedailyshow.com         Daily Show  Full Episodes   Economic Crisis   First 100 Days


His book is  Dread: How fear and Fantasy have Fueled Epidemics from the Black Death to the Avian Flu  . Here is the description.


The average individual is far more likely to die in a car accident than from a communicable diseaseyet we are still much more fearful of the epidemic. Even at our most level-headed, the thought of an epidemic can inspire terror.  As Philip Alcabes persuasively argues in  Dread  , our anxieties about epidemics are created not so much by the germ or microbe in questionor the actual risks of contagionbut by the unknown, the undesirable, and the misunderstood.  Alcabes examines epidemics through history to show how they reflect the particular social and cultural anxieties of their times. From Typhoid Mary to bioterrorism, as new outbreaks are unleashed or imagined, new fears surface, new enemies are born, and new behaviors emerge. Dread dissects the fascinating story of the imagined epidemic: the one that we think is happening, or might happen; the one that disguises moral judgments and political agendas, the one that ultimately expresses our deepest fears.


Sounds like some insight can be gleaned from this book on the debate over GE crops? What hidden political agendas are behind the frankenfood fears, and how real is it compared to other dangers. Jeffrey Smith, for example,  calls  genetic engineering ;one of historys greatest man-made health and environmental threats.; Case in point?


Update 9:35 pm: Maybe if I could embed the right video; fixed now.













Document Number: 1281 



 Planting for a Greener Yield 


 by  Guest Posts  on 3 March 2010 


By Brandon Hunnicutt


Over the last 15 years, agriculture has been changing technologically at an amazing pace. It is something that is truly fun to look back at and realize where we have come. As a producer of corn, soybeans, wheat, seed corn, and popcorn over many of those years it has truly changed what we are able to do and what we will be able to do in the future.


Equipment technology has created a way for us to be able to be better stewards of our ground and resources. Biotechnology has allowed us to push the food, feed, and fuel production to levels that only a few short years ago, many people would not have thought possible. Plus, we are utilizing fertilizer at a better rate.  We are reducing our need for irrigation, in irrigated crop production. We are using fewer and fewer pesticides, which not only allows for a healthier product but also for cleaner natural resources like streams and drinking water.


For the farmer, this new wave of biotechnology, has allowed him to plant sooner and get over more acres faster. It also allows for a crop that can remain in the field in good condition longer. It is also allowing for new ;green; technologies to come along with the feedstocks from the field being used for future cellulosic ethanol production and for helping coal fired electric plants to create a cleaner energy as well. All this is possible because of the healthy plants that biotechnology is allowing us to have. A plant that can protect itself, will be stronger then the plant that isn;t. Whether that protection is from in field pests or whether that is from the plant being able to be resistant to certain herbicides, it all helps in the final standability and yieldability of the crop that is planted.


Farmers love to plant biotech corn and soybeans. According to the USDA June 2009 Acreage report, US farmers planted 85% of their corn to biotech hybrids which was up from 80% in 2008. They also planted 91% of their soybean acres to biotech which was down 1% from 2008. Farmers have seen the value of these crops and are willing to plant them.


This doesn;t mean there doesn;t need to be more work done. Seed companies are going to have to realize that even though farmers are willing to plant biotech hybrids and varieties, they will start decreasing biotech acres, especially in ;multi-stacked traits;, if they do not maintain an acceptable final yield. At the end of the day, farmers want yield. It is the final measuring stick of what the year was like.


As we move forward, we will need to find the way to feed an ever growing world. With population projections of 9 billion by 2030-2050, biotechnology is going to have to be the key to making sure the world has a plentiful, healthy, affordable food supply. And we, as farmers, will continue to plant it.


Brandon Hunnicutt farms in South Central Nebraska with his dad, brother, and cousin. They raise corn, soybeans and popcorn. All their corn and soybeans contain some aspect of biotechnology in them, except for the popcorn. Brandon has been involved with defending biotechnology and promoting throughout the years and currently serves as President of the Nebraska Corn Growers Association.













Document Number: 3657 



 Plastid Engineering 


 by  Cody Cobb  on 3 November 2009 


Long ago  before you or anyone in your family photo albums were born  a small, unassuming cyanobacterium was busy being engulfed by another cell. The engulfing cell;s intentions were most likely along the lines of ;Yum, food!;, but lucky for us the cyanobacterium was not consumed. Instead, it stayed there, establishing a new home inside the confines of its voracious captor. We now know this happy accident was a momentous first step towards a greener,  more botanical planet, because our little cyanobacterium was the photosynthetic ancestor to that most remarkable organelle: the  chloroplast  .


(By law, any discussion of chloroplast origins compels me to mention the similar origin of the mitochondrion. With those requirements now met, let us now continue.)


The focus of this post will be more technological than biological, but there are a few basic facts we need to get out of the way before we can proceed.  Briefly:


 Chloroplasts, along with leucoplasts, proteinoplasts, elaioplasts, amyloplasts, statoliths, and chromoplasts, belong to a class of organelles known as  plastids  . The names of these other plastids aren;t important so long as you realize the chloroplast isn;t the only game in town. That;s why the title of this post is ;Plastid Engineering; and not ;Chloroplast Engineering.;


 Plastids replicate separately from their host cell, and in any given cell there can be 100 to 1,000 plastids. Moreover, plastids contain multiple copies of their genome (  plastome  ) to the point where a single plant cell may contain 10,000 plastomes. By contrast, the nuclear genome has only one copy (this is manifestly untrue, but we;re talking orders of magnitude here).


 Plastids behave a lot like prokaryotes. Their genome is circular, their proteins aren;t glycosylated (i.e., have sugars attached to them), and they can process polycistronic mRNA (i.e., more than one protein produced from a single mRNA; most eukaryotic genes are monocistronic).


 Over history, most plastid genes have migrated into the nucleus, even though the protein produced might still accumulate in the plastid. Those proteins are instead brought back to the plastid by a specific targeting sequence. Quite a few genes have been lost from the original cyanbacterial ancestor, leaving only 50 to 200 of the original ~3,000 genes in most plastids today. In scientifically and agriculturally important species, these genes have all been sequenced and characterized.


 Plastids are inherited uniparentally, that is, from one parent and not the other. In most flowering plants, only maternal plastids are passed on. In some species, such as pine trees, paternal transmission in the pollen is the norm.


Ideally as you pored over those facts your brain started piecing together the reasons why we would want to tinker with plastid  rather than nuclear ; DNA. Uniparental inheritance is a big one: even people who know next to nothing about GM crops know there;s concern about, say, GM corn in one farmer;s field contaminating non-GM corn in their neighbor;s field. Crops with genetically engineered plastids (known by the awesomely retro-sounding name  transplastomics  ) don;t have this problem since plastids aren;t usually found in pollen. Of course plant biology is, technically, a biological science, so there are exceptions that will to be need to be addressed.


Extreme polyploidy is another attractive feature: inserting a gene of interest (GOI) into the chloroplast genome means having up to 10,000 or more copies of that gene  per cell  . That translates (hah!) into very high levels of protein production indeed. And since most plastid genomes are already well characterized, we can know in advance where our inserted DNA will wind up.


Non-glycosylation differs in usefulness depending on the source of the foreign gene. Plants, mammals, fungi, and insects all have different patterns of glycosylation, with plastids and prokaryotes not participating in the ritual at all. So, proteins normally present in prokaryotes are produced identically in plastids, whereas proteins of eukaryotic origin might be missing structural elements crucial to their function (or the protein might find it does just fine without those extra sugars, you never know).


So what are some limitations and problems with plastid engineering? To answer that question, we must first learn how transplastomic plants are created.


Today, only a few species have had their plastids successfully transformed. The first transplastomic organism was created in 1988 using the unicellular alga  Chlamydomonas reinhardtii  , notable for having only one large chloroplast. Two years later, stable tobacco transplastomics were created. Since then, varying levels of success have been achieved with potato, tomato, rapeseed, cauliflower, poplar, rice, soybean, and a few others, but only in tobacco is plastid transformation routine.


The first step in plastid transformation is introducing the new genes to the old. Typically this is done by  particle bombardment  (;biolistics; or the ;gene gun;) or  polyethylene glycol  (PEG) treatment. In the latter, you remove the cell wall of a plant cell to create a protoplast and then subject it to a solution of DNA in PEG, whereas in the former you basically shoot the plant with DNA. Since particle bombardment is the more commonly used of the two, I;ll explain its mechanism.


First you need your gene of interest in a  plasmid  (a small circle of DNA that contains of a few genes and can be grown in and purified from bacteria). The plasmid will also contain a selectable marker (a gene that confers resistance to antibiotics like spectinomycin, streptomycin, or kanamycin) and a visual marker (green fluorescent protein or a derivative thereof). The GOI, selectable marker, and visual marker will be flanked by sequences taken from the plastid genome, carefully chosen so that the site of  homologous recombination  (see further reading) does not disrupt the function of normal plastid genes.


Next, the plasmids are expressed to high quantities in bacteria and purified, then adhered to small particles of tungsten or gold, often to less than a millionth of a meter in diameter. A small section of leaf tissue is placed into a low-pressure vacuum chamber and bombarded with a volley of DNA-coated particles, obliterating most of it.


A very small percentage of the remaining tissue will contain transformed plastids at this point. Worse yet, a surviving cell with a transformed plastid will still overwhelmingly contain untransformed plastids. The next steps are the lengthiest and most tedious part of the process, for now the bombarded tissue must be coaxed into regenerating into a wholly new plant while at the same time eliminating any untransformed plastids it may still harbor. Stringent antibiotic regimens are applied to emerging plantlets, and visual inspection of GFP expression reveals areas of transformed plastids. Those areas are then sliced away and grown on their own regenerative media. This process is repeated for about 20 cell divisions before a state of exclusively transformed plastids (  homoplasmy  ) is achieved. Once reached, the plantlets are allowed to grow in the absence of antibiotic selection and set seed at maturity. If the progeny are shown to be homoplasmic, then the line is considered stably transformed.


So you;ve created a transplastomic plant. Now what? Obviously that antibiotic resistance gene is no longer doing you any good, so you;ll have to find a way to get rid of it lest it sap precious metabolic resources and stunt your plant;s growth. And just how certain are we that plastid inheritance is uniparental? What if life, as renowned chaos theorist Ian Malcolm once gravely intoned, finds a way? Shouldn;t we run a few tests to determine the likelihood of plastid-transference via pollen? And what about those really important plants, the cereals? Why are their plastids so difficult to transform?


All important questions, yes, but we;ve already reached 1,200+ words in this primer, so you;ll have to wait for subsequent posts to quench your curiosity!


Further reading  :


Web


Plastid Transformation


Dead tree


Daniell, H., Khan, M.S., &amp; Allison, L. (2002).  Milestones in chloroplast genetic engineering: an environmentally friendly era in biotechnology  .  Trends in Plant Science  , 7(2), 84-91. PMID: 11832280


Maliga, P. (2004).  Plastid transformation in higher plants  .  Annual Review of Plant Biology  , 55, 289-313. PMID: 15377222


Cody Cobb is a first year Ph.D. student in plant biology &amp; pathology at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. He has lived his entire life previous to this point in Texas and is currently enjoying his first autumn. He feels he should mention that his earliest desktop PC was an Acer. So is his mustache.













Document Number: 1801 



 Polydnaviruses: Nature;s GMOs 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 17 February 2010 


The wasps in the video below are most likely from the family Braconidae. These wasps make their living as parasitoids, growing within other animals and eventually eating them from the inside out. Their life starts as an egg which is laid in the caterpillar by a female. This egg may divide into many, many larvae which feed on the caterpillar from the inside by either eating the caterpillars fat body, its muscles or by drinking its hemolymph (which functions as blood). After theyve completed their development, they simply exit the caterpillar by burrowing out of it and then pupate. A few weeks later, adult wasps emerge to fly away and look for other hosts.


So what makes Braconid (and Ichneumonid!) wasps so strange, and why am I writing about them on Biofortified?  Well, it turns out that Braconid and Ichneumonid wasps actually modify their hosts genetically by doing something which very much resembles gene therapy.


Most of the time we modify organisms because we want them to do something they currently dont do. To use the example of BT corn, the corn plant was a better host for the European corn borer than we liked, so we took a protein from a bacteria which was known to kill the larvae which bored into the stalks but also known to be harmless to mammals and made the corn produce the protein which harmed the caterpillar and thus made a relatively bug-proof crop as far as the major pest was concerned.


Well, the caterpillars also produce genes which are bad for the waspsthese genes are involved in the immune system. The immune systems role is to kill foreign invaders and if you fall under that category, youre going to need a way to flout the immune system. The wasps in the video above accomplish this through a very strange symbiosis: they inject viral particles into the caterpillar to knock its immune system out.


These viruses are very strange because they contain very few viral genes. Many of the genes they contain are actually very similar to the immune system of the wasp. They dont replicate, but they travel to certain points of the fat body and nervous system and begin producing proteins which have a great many functions, from increasing the amount of food the caterpillar consumes to producing proteins which interfere with immune functions.













Document Number: 3815 



 POPcorn 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 10 November 2010 


The maize genetics community needs your help!  POPcorn  a special resource being developed with the goal of putting all maize-related information in one easy-to-use place. To help make POPcorn the best possible resource, they need feedback on ease of use.


Not a maize geneticist or breeder? The resource might still be of use to you if you study another crop or if you are just interested in learning more about a particular plant gene and what it does.


Any feedback that you can provide would be a big help to the  POPcorn team  . POPcorn is funded by  NSF  .


Start at the POPcorn homepage:  http://popcorn.maizegdb.org/  and try out the suggested tasks below. Feel free to come up with your own tasks to try out, too. Are they easy to do? Are you able to find the desired information? The gene sequence for  waxy  is provided below, but feel free to try any nucleotide or amino acid sequence of interest to you.


Are there any genetic stocks containing insertions or deletions in your DNA sequence.  Are there any gene models associated with your sequence? Is there more than one?  Is there evidence that your gene is expressed?  Is your DNA sequence of interest possibly duplicated within the maize genome? (Try lowering your e-value)  Find your DNA sequence on the genome browsers. Is it possible to design PCR primers for your DNA sequence while you are within the browser. Try downloading your DNA sequence and its flanking sequence into a FASTA file.  Can you find the syntenic regions for your DNA sequence in rice and sorghum?


&gt;lcl|AF267643 Zea mays starch synthase GBSSI (mwx) mRNA, partial cds  GTGTCGACGCCCGTGAAGGCCAAGGCGCTGAACAAGGAGGCGCTGCAGGCGGAGGTCGGGCTCCCGGTGGACCGGAACATCCCGGCCTGGGTGGCGTTCATCGGCAGGCTGGAAGAGCAGAAGGGACCCGACGTCATGGCGGCCGCCATCCCGCAGCTCATGGAGATGGTGGAGGACGTGCAGATCGTTCTGCTGGGCACGGGCAAGAAGAAGTTCGAGCGCATGCTCATGAGCGCCGAGGAGAAGTTCCCAGGCAAGGTGCGCGCCGTGGTCAAGTTCAACGCGGCGCTGGCGCACCACATCATGGCCGGCGCCGACGTGCTCGCCGTCACCAGCCGCTTCGAGCCCTGCGGCCTCATCCAGCTGCAGGGGATGCGATACGGAACGCCCTGCGCCTGCGCGTCCACCGGTGGACTCGTCGACACCATCATCGAAGGCAAGACCGGGTTCCACATGGGCCGCCTCAGCGTCGACTGCAACGTCGTGGAGCCGGCGGACGTCAAGAAGGTGGCCACCACCTTGCAGCGCGCCATCAAGGTGGTCGGCACGCCGGCGTACGAGGAGATGGTGAGGAACTGC


You can post any comments you have on POPcorn here and I;ll pass them along, or you can send  Feedback  directly to the POPcorn team. They send their thanks in advance for your much needed feedback!


Want to get updates about maize genetics resources? Become a fan of  MaizeGDB  on













Document Number: 4495 



 Poster competition woes 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 14 October 2008 


One topic of this blog is the graduate student experience, with the aim of passing on a little advice to prospective graduate students. The lesson for today is: stand up for yourself.  Today was the  Seventh Annual Norman Borlaug Lectureship Poster Competition For Graduate and Undergraduate Students  . I was very excited about the competition this year, because my research is very important to world food issues. The poster is:  Characterizing seed storage proteins in teosinte and tripsicum  , with the objective statement ;To find unique seed storage proteins in relatives of maize that might be used to improve maize nutritional qualities.; I like to imagine that Norm Borlaug would approve. I purposefully chose a table at the opening of the room, just as I did last year, so I would be easily noticeable. I even brought samples of the seed so people could see for themselves how different teosinte and tripsicum are from maize, because everyone likes hand-on science. I thought I did all the right things to make a good showing, even if my poster wasn;t the best. Unfortunately, the judging was less than smooth.  Each poster was assigned two judges from a pool of about six judges. My first judge, who I;ve interacted with before, read my poster and joked with me for a bit. I was concerned that he didn;t ask many specific questions about my research. His last question was ;how would this affect food policy?; I talked about intellectual property, and how we should somehow compensate people who ;own; wild plants or at least not profit from the commons, but I;m not a lawyer, policy maker, or ethnobiologist. I did my best and felt fairly confident.  At some point, one of the judges came by to talk to me about my poster, but he specifically said that he wasn;t my judge. We talked a bit about protein identification (he;s a protein chemist) and he gave me some great tips on how I might be able to better separate my proteins with SDS-Page.  Then, I waited. For over an hour, I waited for a second judge to come by. Multiple times, I commented to the poster competition coordinator that I had only been judged once, and asked if she could tell me who my judges were. She sort of politely walked away, but never told me who my judges were. Finally, I noticed the judges sitting down together, presumably to compare results. I again reminded the coordinator that I was only judged once. She walked away.  At the end of the event, I asked the coordinator what I could do next year to ensure that I was judged by two people. She said that two people did judge me, she saw their score sheets. I asked if I could have their comments, so as to learn from them, and she said she didn;t think so because the judges left and took their score sheets.  My husband says that I wasn;t forceful enough, that I should have walked up to the judges; huddle to ask why I wasn;t judged twice. He says that I should talk to my major professor about this and ask him to intervene on my behalf, to ensure that this doesn;t happen to another student (or to me next year, if I decide to enter). I;m not sure what to do, or if I should do anything. Should I have been more forceful at the competition? Am I being a push-over? Advice on this would be appreciated.  Maybe my poster is terrible, maybe I;m just horrible at presenting myself and my research. Maybe I;m just not a winner. Ok, I can work on those things, if necessary. I;m not really concerned about that, though. What concerns me is that I was ignored, and what concerns me even more is that this isn;t the first time.  Last year;s poster was  Bioavailable iron in maize endosperm can be increased with overexpression of maize hemoglobin  . Here;s what I wrote in my LiveJournal on Oct 16th 2007 after the poster competition:


I presented my first poster tonight at the World Food Prize Lecture. Overall, it was nice. I got to explain this really awesome research to people, and they understood. They walked away having learned about something totally new, something that could really impact world health. My major professor thought it was good, and so did the project leader professor. The judges, however, not so much. We were supposed to be judged by two people. The first asked me to explain my poster. Unfortunately it was the first time I;d been through it, so I was a little awkward. I don;t think I was terrible, though. Then he asked how I thought the research would affect policies on GMOs. I really felt like he was baiting me, even though he has similar ideas about it all. I mean, how are my personal feelings on these issues relevant to the research? Anyway, I was trying to explain that RoundUp Ready is fundamentally different from our high iron maize because ours improves nutrition while RoundUp Ready encourages the use of additional pesticides. He told me that RoundUp is not a pesticide. I said a pesticide is any chemical that is used to kill pests, such as fungicide, algicide, etc. He said that I needed to go look up the definition of pesticide. Dude, I gotta tell you, I;ve been a DoD Certified Pest Controller for 8 years. I think I know what a pesticide is. I told him that I agree that technology such as BT actually has a huge environmental benefit but that I believe our research would be more palatable to laymen. He didn;t get it. The second judge listened to a few minutes of the pesticide conversation, then left without returning. I feel discriminated against. Most of the poster winners had posters about growing gardens in African villages. Horray for the villagers having eggplant (I still don;t understand why the eggplant, as it has no nutrients, according to Alton Brown, but whatever) but this is not research. Yes, you proved that people with food are better off than people without food. Good job. The project I;m working on will take time, yes. However, the results are really promising. Alleviating iron deficiency in the world would be massive. As far as I;m concerned, they were being short-sighted. Oh, and just to clarify, I;m not bothered by not winning, I;m bothered by having my intelligence insulted by one judge and by being ignored by the other. Whatever.













Document Number: 1745 



 Produce Pesticide Rankings Part 1 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 5 August 2010 


My post  Details on the Dirty Dozen  on EWG;s  Shoppers Guide to Pesticides   led me to dive into the  2008 USDA data  to see just how contaminated (or not) our produce really is. There;s so much information that it;s a little difficult to work with, but with perseverance and the right software (  JMP  is the best!*), I was able to re-do the EWG analysis but with the newest available data.


Below you can find my results with a through explanation of what I;ve done and why. The results are posted without all the commentary at  Produce Pesticide Rankings  which has all of the results and  Pesticide Produce Rankings Tables  which has comparisons of my results to the EWG results. You can download the original  USDA data  yourself or check out the  Latest PDP Findings of Interest to Consumers  .


See Produce Pesticide Rankings Part 2 for the real scoop on which produce is the most and least safe.


Concentration and LOD


My first step was to compare the detected Concentration to the  Limit of Detection  . The LOD seems to have been ignored by EWG. The LOD is the smallest concentration of the chemical you are looking for that will give a positive signal with the method used. Every method/chemical combination has a different LOD that can be found by comparing a blank (no chemical) to smaller and smaller concentrations of the chemical. If the detected concentration is at or below the limit of detection, it does not indicate the chemical is present ; which is not the same as saying the chemical is not present. The chemical could be there, but the amount is so small that it can not be detected with the method being used.


Let;s put some numbers on it. There were 1,780,365 tests conducted on 13,381 samples (including fruits, vegetables, fish, nuts, and water), with 33,426 of those tests having a concentration listed (1.88%). Of those, 273 were equal to the LOD leaving 33,153 positive concentrations (1.86%). Not a big difference, but still, it would be incorrect to include the concentrations that are below the LOD. In a lot of experiments a blank is subtracted from the results and I can;t think of a reason why that wouldn;t be appropriate here. So, I created a column of Concentration minus LOD and used these numbers for my calculations.


One drop of water is 2 ppm of a bathtub full of water. Image from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.


Units


Most of the tests have a unit of ppm (parts per million), but some are ppb (parts per billion) or ppt (parts per thousand). I converted ppb to ppm (ppb/1000=ppm) and ppt to ppm (ppt*1000=ppm) so all of the average residue values would be in the correct units.


It would be inappropriate to average values with different units. As illustrated by the  Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation  , ppm is drops per bathtub while ppb is drops per swimming pool!


Comparing the 2008 data with EWG


Because this investigation was inspired by EWG, let;s go through their  Spreadsheet  column by column to compare the top five values of each. You can find this information in  Pesticide Produce Rankings Tables  . The 3 types of water tested by USDA top most of the lists in the 2008 data, but since this discussion is on produce, they aren;t included here.


Percent of samples tested with detectable pesticides


This isn;t really a good metric because it doesn;t take into account which of the detected residues are above or below the EPA tolerance level and the EWG numbers don;t take the LOD into account (the numbers I report are all Concentration ; LOD), but nonetheless here;s how they stack up.


% of samples with 1 or more residues: 95.78 Peaches, 95.55 Celery, 95.24 Nectarines, 94.06 Strawberries, 92.75 Catfish.  % of samples with 2 or more residues: 89.74 Celery, 88.66 Strawberries, 86.04 Peaches, 80.65 Nectarines, 72.22 Blueberries.  EWG % of samples tested with detectable pesticides: 97.20 Plums, 96.20 Peaches, 95.10 Bell Peppers, 95.00 Celery, 93.60 Apples.  EWG % of samples with two or more pesticides: 85.70 Peaches, 84.70 Celery, 82.30 Blueberries, 80.60 Bell Peppers, 74.40 Apples.


As you can see, the percentages don;t vary much from the collection of data used by EWG to the 2008 only data. Some of the foods tested in previous years weren;t tested in 2008 (apples, bell peppers).


A lot of the samples for each commodity have 1 residue, fewer have 2, fewer have 3, and so on. For some perspective, consider the percentage of all tests done on all samples for each commodity that had one or more residue.


% of tests with 1 or more residues: 1.18 Nectarines, 0.92 Collard Greens, 0.90 Summer Squash, 0.83 Kale, 0.79 Almonds.


Average number of pesticides found on a single sample


This is a little more useful than the percent of samples with one or more residues, but not by much, since we;re still leaving out consideration of the EPA tolerance.


Mean residues detected per sample: 5.15 Celery, 4.94 Strawberries, 3.61 Blueberries, 3.50 Peaches, 2.46 Spinach.  EWG Average number of pesticides found on a single sample: 3.79 Celery, 3.08 Peaches, 3.00 Blueberries, 2.90 Strawberries, 2.75 Apples.


The USDA lets us know in their  Latest PDP Findings of Interest to Consumers  that the number of samples with pesticides and number of pesticides per sample doesn;t correlate to pesticides per serving size because the sample sizes were a lot more than a serving. ;Sample size ranges from 16 ounces to 5 pounds depending on food tested. For example, for peaches and celery, the sample size is 5 pounds; for strawberries and blueberries is 3 pounds and 1 pound respectively.;


In regards to number of pesticides per sample, the USDA states: ;There may be many more pesticides available for use by food producers, but 20 years of testing show that no food has ever been treated with all available pesticides.;


Average amount of pesticides found in ppm


This might be the worst metric of all because it averages pesticides that have very different toxicity levels. One ppm of one pesticide can be  very  different from one ppm of another pesticide! Still, here;s where we start to see some real differences!


Mean ppm residue by commodity: 0.8 Potatoes, 0.61 Spinach, 0.37 Rice, 0.35 Nectarines, 0.33 Sweet Potatoes.  EWG Average ppm of all pesticides found: 1.602 Potatoes, 1.373 Spinach, 1.200 Plums, 1.066 Peaches, 0.906 Red Raspberries.


The EWG shows average ppm of pesticides that are twice what I;ve got from the 2008 data! What;s happening here? One possibility is that EWG didn;t convert the ppt to ppm, but surely they;d notice the different units in the data, so it must be something else. We could have done the averages differently, but that;s unlikely too, it;s just averaging.


The only other thing I can think of is that there were high levels of residues in the past, high enough to skew the overall averages. If this is true, then we have something to celebrate ; there have been great reductions in pesticide residues over the years!


Still, this brings up a question: why would the EWG tell people that produce has such high amounts of pesticide residues when produce today actually has much less? If the goal is to tell people what are the safest foods to buy for their families today, why include old data?


The USDA states specifically in their  Latest PDP Findings of Interest to Consumers  that there have been significant changes over the years, with reduced number of samples with pesticides and reduced ppm of pesticides. Specifically, there have been reductions in the most harmful pesticides as safer alternatives have been approved for use.


Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample


Again, this metric does not take the EPA tolerances into consideration, and the results are about the same..


Maximum residues detected per sample: 14 each Strawberries and Celery, 12 Blueberries, 11 Catfish, 10 each Spinach, Collard Greens, and Peaches.  EWG Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample: 13 each Blueberries, Strawberries, and Celery, 11 Bell Peppers, and 10 Kale.


Considering the EPA tolerance levels


Now that we have those comparisons out of the way, let;s look at the pesticide residues that the USDA finds to be of concern: Pesticide Produce Rankings Part 2.


.


*Thanks to my husband for explaining that it makes a lot more sense to keep the test data and the sample data in two separate tables that you join when needed based on the sample number. Having all the data in one JMP file is about 8mB which doesn;t work all that well even on a good computer.













Document Number: 5404 



 Production-chain management is key issue in GM crop escapes 


 by  David Tribe  on 18 December 2010 


Sloppy seed-sorting main culprit in GM crop escapes  (Press release about a free access PLoS ONE article linked below)  Mara Elena Hurtado  17 December 2010  IMAGE: Honey bees transmit GM pollen to non-GM fields, but human error plays a bigger role in GM contamination


Careless handling of seeds may be the key reason for the unintended spread of genetically modified (GM) crops, a study has found.


The discovery challenges the widespread belief that the main source of GM contamination is the transfer of pollen by bees from GM crops to non-GM counterparts in neighbouring fields. Human error during seed production and handling is the more likely culprit, say the researchers.  Stands of non-GM crop plants are currently planted near or within fields of modified crops to provide refuges for pests. This technique helps prevent the pests developing resistance to the pesticides used on GM crops. But human error could undermine this widely used strategy, the paper says.


Shannon Heuberger, an entomologist at the University of Arizona, United States, and her colleagues measured the gene flow  the movement of genes between different populations that occurs when a plant from one population fertilises a plant from the other  in Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton, the widely planted GM crop, in 15 fields in Arizona.


They found that gene flow via the transmission of pollen by bees was rare. Fewer than one per cent of seeds produced by ordinary cotton plants contained genes from Bt cotton that had been transmitted in this way.


But poor seed-sorting resulted in some seed bags intended for planting in non-GM fields containing as much as 20 per cent GM seed. One non-GM field was found to have a large number of GM plants due to human error in planting.


;Our most important result is that growers can minimise gene flow by screening the seed before planting it in seed-production fields and by being more cautious in their planting process,; Heuberger told SciDev.Net.


;In comparison, designing strategies to minimise bee pollination between fields can be quite difficult because insect behaviour is hard to predict,; she added.


The study concludes that seed producers and decision makers should consider screening seeds to monitor the presence of GM seeds in the supply, and that they also need to communicate ;the importance of segregating seed types at planting to reduce human error;.


Mara Isabel Manzur, head of biodiversity at the Sustainable Societies Foundation (FSS), a Chilean environmental non-governmental organisation, said: ;This is a very interesting study because it helps elucidate at a greater depth how transgenic contamination takes place;.


;It corroborates once more that transgenic crops can contaminate surrounding crops, which is something that biotech companies frequently deny despite all the evidence to the contrary.;


The study was published in PLoS ONE last month (30 November).


Link to full paper in PLoS ONE


PLoS ONE doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014128 (2010)


Pollen- and Seed-Mediated Transgene Flow in Commercial Cotton Seed Production Fields


Characterizing the spatial patterns of gene flow from transgenic crops is challenging, making it difficult to design containment strategies for markets that regulate the adventitious presence of transgenes. Insecticidal Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton is planted on millions of hectares annually and is a potential source of transgene flow.


Here we monitored 15 non-Bt cotton (  Gossypium hirsutum  , L.) seed production fields (some transgenic for herbicide resistance, some not) for gene flow of the Bt cotton cry1Ac transgene. We investigated seed-mediated gene flow, which yields adventitious Bt cotton plants, and pollen-mediated gene flow, which generates outcrossed seeds. A spatially-explicit statistical analysis was used to quantify the effects of nearby Bt and non-Bt cotton fields at various spatial scales, along with the effects of pollinator abundance and adventitious Bt plants in fields, on pollen-mediated gene flow. Adventitious Bt cotton plants, resulting from seed bags and planting error, comprised over 15% of plants sampled from the edges of three seed production fields. In contrast, pollen-mediated gene flow affected less than 1% of the seed sampled from field edges. Variation in outcrossing was better explained by the area of Bt cotton fields within 750 m of the seed production fields than by the area of Bt cotton within larger or smaller spatial scales. Variation in outcrossing was also positively associated with the abundance of honey bees.


A comparison of statistical methods showed that our spatially-explicit analysis was more powerful for understanding the effects of surrounding fields than customary models based on distance. Given the low rates of pollen-mediated gene flow observed in this study, we conclude that careful planting and screening of seeds could be more important than field spacing for limiting gene flow.


Shannon Heuberger *, Christa Ellers-Kirk, Bruce E. Tabashnik, Yves Carrire


Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America   Abstract  Background


Characterizing the spatial patterns of gene flow from transgenic crops is challenging, making it difficult to design containment strategies for markets that regulate the adventitious presence of transgenes. Insecticidal  Bacillus thuringiensis  (Bt) cotton is planted on millions of hectares annually and is a potential source of transgene flow.


Methodology/Principal Findings


Here we monitored 15 non-Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum, L.) seed production fields (some transgenic for herbicide resistance, some not) for gene flow of the Bt cotton cry1Ac transgene. We investigated seed-mediated gene flow, which yields adventitious Bt cotton plants, and pollen-mediated gene flow, which generates outcrossed seeds. A spatially-explicit statistical analysis was used to quantify the effects of nearby Bt and non-Bt cotton fields at various spatial scales, along with the effects of pollinator abundance and adventitious Bt plants in fields, on pollen-mediated gene flow. Adventitious Bt cotton plants, resulting from seed bags and planting error, comprised over 15% of plants sampled from the edges of three seed production fields. In contrast, pollen-mediated gene flow affected less than 1% of the seed sampled from field edges. Variation in outcrossing was better explained by the area of Bt cotton fields within 750 m of the seed production fields than by the area of Bt cotton within larger or smaller spatial scales. Variation in outcrossing was also positively associated with the abundance of honey bees.  Conclusions/Significance


A comparison of statistical methods showed that our spatially-explicit analysis was more powerful for understanding the effects of surrounding fields than customary models based on distance. Given the low rates of pollen-mediated gene flow observed in this study, we conclude that careful planting and screening of seeds could be more important than field spacing for limiting gene flow.


Citation: Heuberger S, Ellers-Kirk C, Tabashnik BE, Carrire Y (2010) Pollen- and Seed-Mediated Transgene Flow in Commercial Cotton Seed Production Fields. PLoS ONE 5(11): e14128. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014128


Editor: Haibing Yang, Purdue University, United States of America


Received: June 18, 2010; Accepted: October 24, 2010; Published: November 30, 2010


Copyright:  2010 Heuberger et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.













Document Number: 7255 



 Proposed US law to mandate GMOs? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 22 April 2010 


Do you have professional experience with writing or interpreting legislation? Please speak up in the comments!


The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384 has a few clauses that have anti-biotech activists all worked up. What do the changes really mean? Is the US government really part of a Monsanto-led conspiracy to force the impoverished into a cycle of dependency on patented seed and pesticides?


The Pesticide Action Network of North America sums up their view of the situation in their  newsletter  :


After its introduction in the Senate a year ago, Bill Gates and Bill Clinton have been quietly pressing for this piece of legislation that aims to fight global hunger with one hand while orchestrating a giant taxpayer subsidy to pesticide and ag biotech companies with the other. The bill, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act ; for Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA) ; would refocus aid programs on agricultural development, with a caveat: public funding of genetically engineered (GE) seeds is what this bill means by agricultural development.


I don;t know if PANNA actually read the Act, because there;s a lot in there about agricultural development that has nothing to do with genetic engineering, as you;ll see in this post.


Genetic engineering  Corporations


One of the biggest arguments against improved seed, whether biotech or simply hybrid, is that it is developed by corporations. To be fair, this is often true in the United States. The US government decided decades ago to leave crop improvement to corporations. The USDA still does a little work in crop improvement, but this work doesn;t result in many released varieties.


It doesn;t have to be this way. In countries around the world, including Brazil, India, and China, much public funding goes into crop improvement. If you think that it;s dangerous to leave all seed improvement and production to a few companies, and if you want more public funding for crop improvement, then let your representatives know.


Ironically, the changes proposed in the Global Food Security Act of 2009 will lead to more public funding for crop improvement, genetically engineered and otherwise. It will also lead to funding of agricultural research in other countries, something that is very necessary if those countries are to ever stand on their own when it comes to food.


What the Act says


This is an amazing piece of legislation that has the potential to help a lot of people, so I hope you;ll take a moment to  read the whole thing  . I;m personally very excited about the funding for public agricultural research both in the US and in developing countries listed in Title III. I;m disappointed that it;s taking this long for the Act to be made into law.


In this post, I;ll just discuss Title II, where the controversial language appears. Titles I and III don;t mention biotechnology or any other specific farming or research methods, so they haven;t raised any controversy to my knowledge. Title II lists quite a few changes that most would argue are favorable for agriculture in developing nations.


Let;s actually look at the changes  and try to determine what they really mean. Am I the only one who has noticed that the petitions and blog posts in uproar over the Act don;t actually show the Act or even link to it? It;s not that hard to find on websites such as  Thomas  . At the end of this post, you can find the relevant section of the  Foreign Assistance Act of 1961  (pdf, pages 40-42) with the changes made in  red  , then the proposed changes as they appear in the  Global Food Security Act of 2009  (pdf).


The first set of edits in Title II of the Global Food Security Act of 2009 add three additional goals to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961:


1. Find ways for impoverished people who don;t have access to agriculture to improve their economic situation, while providing those persons health and nutrition assistance.  2. Fund development and implementation of sustainable agricultural techniques that work under the stresses of climate change, including drought.  3. Improve nutrition of the most vulnerable people, specifically ;children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women.;


Sounds good so far.


The second section allocates funds for all of the aid activities in the Foreign Assistance Act. In billions of US dollars: 0.75 for 2010, 1 for 2011, 1.5 for 2012, 2 for 2013, and 2.5 for 2014.


Sounds expensive, but it;s not much when put in the perspective of  military spending  (more than $650 billion, not including additional funds for current overseas activities).


On to the controversial part.


The current Act states that agricultural research under the Act will do the following:


1. Take needs of small farmers into account when determining research priorities.  2. Include research on factors affecting small farms including interplay between technological, institutional, economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors.  3. Use field tests to adapt research to local conditions ; in other words, don;t develop something that works in one country and expect it to work in another country!  4. Produce results that can be disseminated to small farms (both info and technology) and that can actually be used on small farms.


The proposed changes would add one additional clause, requiring research to include ;biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.; Frankly, I don;t know why the authors enumerated any specific technologies or methods. They could have left out that last clause, still considered biotechnology as an option, and everyone would have been happy. However, Senator Lugar has seen the potential that biotechnology has to help people and wants to move that forward.


There are already examples of public-private partnerships that have been making great progress toward developing crops specifically for farmers in developing countries. Two of them were  discussed  by Marianne Bnziger, Director for CIMMYT;s Global Maize Program, at the Maize Genetics Conference in March: WEMA (  water efficient maize for Africa  ) and IMAS (  improved maize for African soils  ). Publicly funded f  lood tolerant rice  is already out there helping farmers, with help from Biofortified editor Pam Ronald. What more could be accomplished with additional funds?


What the Act doesn;t say


The Act does not say ;include genetic engineering to the exclusion of anything else;. It doesn;t even say ;include biotechnology to the exclusion of anything else; (biotechnology includes  marker assisted selection  (pdf) as well as genetic engineering and other techniques). That means breeding remains a funded means of crop improvement, and leaves in the goal of improvement of farming methods as well. The Act specifically states that any biotech research will be appropriate to local environmental conditions, as well as taking needs of small farmers into account. That does leave out funding for any crop or method development that would be too expensive for small farmers to use, so royalty-free releases would presumably be required.


Looking at GM crops currently on the market, this excludes Roundup Ready crops because small farmers in impoverished countries often can;t afford Roundup and/or don;t have access to markets that carry pesticides. However, it includes Bt crops because they require no additional inputs and have been shown to be safe for people and safe for non-target organisms while reducing yield loss due to insect pests. It would also include traits that improve nutrition and environmental traits such as drought tolerance or salt tolerance. These are careful, thoughtful distinctions, ones that must be made before biotech is even considered, according to the Act.


While  conspiracy  theorists  are happy to put words in Senator Lugar;s mouth, no where does the Act claim that genetic engineering is a silver bullet to solve the food crisis (on the contrary, the Act emphasizes small, locally adapted solutions ; the opposite of a silver bullet). No where does the Act propose that seeds with biotech traits be forced on countries that do not want them (on the contrary, the Act aims to improve the economic situation of impoverished farmers, which obviously can;t be done by encouraging farmers to plant seed that they can;t sell). No where does the Act ask for short term technological fixes (on the contrary, the Act aims for long term self-sustainability for impoverished farmers and countries). ;you get the idea.


The language of the Act is clear


Farmers in developing countries need changes that will work for them and that will work long term. While most of us admire the great accomplishments of the Green Revolution, most of us know that those same strategies of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides can;t be used again. To truly help the farmers, we must work  with  them to develop appropriate farming improvements for their situation ; exactly what this bill says.


Don;t want to take my word for it?  Ask Senator Lugar  . He;s listed his goals for the legislation in full on his website:  Lugar Clarifies Food Security Bill for Colleagues  (or see  pdf  in case the post has moved). In the Senator;s own words: ;Hungry people are desperate people, and desperation often sows the seeds of conflict and extremism.; Not only do we have a moral imperative to help impoverished people, but it is in the interests of peace to help ensure that every person has the ability to feed themselves and their families.


He;s taken time to spell out why the biotech clause is in the Act:


The research would include work on the appropriate uses of GM technologies in different environments. While much research has already been done on the development of GM seeds, with profound benefits for agricultural productivity in developed countries, there is a dearth of research on its development and applicability in developing countries. Those countries may have environmental and other challenges that differ from those encountered in the United States. The bill advocates strengthening the local capacity of university and research institutions to find localized solutions to agricultural productivity and food security.  Without advances in technologies that are adaptive to local and regional environmental conditions, the worlds farmers will be hard pressed to meet projected demand of the nearly 9.2 billion people that will inhabit the planet by the year 2050. The development and dissemination of technology, whether it be traditional, biotechnological, or GM, is vital to raising both farm productivity and incomes of poor farmers. Further, without the gains in production per acre that can come from advanced technology, it is likely we will only be able to meet future food demand by greatly expanding the amount of land under cultivation, a development which would necessarily involve substantial forest destruction as well as environmental degradation. GM represents one important tool in this endeavor, and we must do the research to determine where and when it works best.  The bottom line is that a provision of the Lugar-Casey bill directs U.S. assistance in developing local technological solutions to advance agricultural productivity in countries suffering from chronic hunger. It does not require that these solutions be GM, but it does not preclude it, where appropriate.


Widespread support


Don;t believe me or the Senator? Take a look at the  groups supporting the Act  (pdf) - no less than 25 well-known NGOs that work with impoverished people and/or environmental issues, most of which have a global reach. ONE, a prominent organization that works against hunger and AIDS in Africa, is positively  enthusiastic  about this potentially historic Act. The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges has  endorsed  (pdf) the Act, likely due to it;s support for education and research.  CARE  (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.)  applauds  the Act;s support for women and girls. Oxfam  urges  people to tell their members of Congress to co-sponsor the Act. The Friends of the World Food Program call the Act an  essential  part of the Roadmap to End Global Hunger.  Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of   Population Action International  and Jim Harkness of the   Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy  argue that   it;s time to stand up  for people who are most in need, especially now that the health care debate is over.  (IATP supports the House version of this legislation in this editorial, not the Senate version.)


The Act has also done something that few pieces of legislation can anymore: inspire bi-partisan cooperation.The authors of the bill are a Republican and a Democrat, and they have the support of people from both parties in the House and in the Senate. For example, the House version of the Act was  introduced  by Representative Betty McCollum (D) along with Donald Payne (D) and Jo Ann Emerson (R).


Follow the money


Finally, let;s look closely at the authors of the bill. Are they being paid off by Monsanto to push this legislation?


In short, no. Looking at Senator Lugar;s campaign  contributors  at OpenSecrets.org, there;s a striking lack of any biotech company donors later than 2002, when Monsanto contributed $14,250. Senator Lugar does have some donors from agribusiness, such as Archer Daniels Midland which donated $8,000 in 2008 and $6,000 in 2010 ; hardly enough to buy special legislation for nefarious purposes, and completely unsurprising considering that he is a Senator for Indiana. Senator Casey doesn;t have any  contributions  from Monsanto or agribusiness. Any conspiracy theories regarding the authors of the bill fall flat as soon as you look at the data.


.


Let;s see this Act for what it really is ; an honest effort to make real changes in the way the US aids poor farmers in impoverished countries.  Contact your elected officials  to let them know what you think about the Act.


.


proposed changes to Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1)


2151a. Agricultural development in rural areas   (a)  Authorization to President to furnish assistance; appropriations   (1)  In recognition of the fact that the great majority of the people of developing countries live in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture and agricultural-related pursuits for their livelihood, the President is authorized to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, for agriculture, rural development, and nutrition   (A)  to alleviate starvation, hunger, and malnutrition;   (B)  to expand significantly the provision of basic services to rural poor people to enhance their capacity for self-help;   and   (C)  to help create productive farm and off-farm employment in rural areas to provide a more viable economic base and enhance opportunities for improved incomes, living standards, and contributions by rural poor people to the economic and social development of their countries  ; and    (D)  to expand the economic participation of people living in extreme poverty and those who lack access to agriculturally productive land, including through productive safety net programs and health and nutrition programs, and to integrate those living in extreme poverty into the economy;    (E)  to support conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages; and    (F)  to improve nutrition of vulnerable populations, such as children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women.   (2)  There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for purposes of this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, $760,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and $760,000,000 for fiscal year 1987. Of these amounts, the President may use such amounts as he deems appropriate to carry out the provisions of section 316 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980. Amounts appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.   Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the President to provide assistance under section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a) for the purpose of carrying out activities under this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purpose;   (1) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; (2) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; (3) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; (4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and (5) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.   *Note ; I;m not sure where the above belongs, but it seems to fit well here.*   (3)  Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraph (2) for the fiscal year 1987, not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only for the purpose of controlling and eradicating amblyomma variegatum (heartwater) in bovine animals in the Caribbean.   (b)  Use of assistance primarily in aid of rural poor; multilateral infrastructure projects; forestry projects   (1)  Assistance provided under this section shall be used primarily for activities which are specifically designed to increase the productivity and income of the rural poor, through such means as creation and strengthening of local institutions linked to the regional and national levels; organization of a system of financial institutions which provide both savings and credit services to the poor; stimulation of small, labor-intensive enterprises in rural towns; improvement of marketing facilities and systems; expansion of rural infrastructure and utilities such as farm-to-market roads, water management systems, land improvement, energy, and storage facilities; establishment of more equitable and more secure land tenure arrangements; and creation and strengthening of systems to provide other services and supplies needed by farmers, such as extension, research, training, fertilizer, water, forestry, soil conservation, and improved seed, in ways which assure access to them by small farmers.   (2)  In circumstances where development of major infrastructure is necessary to achieve the objectives set forth in this section, assistance for that purpose should be furnished under this part in association with significant contributions from other countries working together in a multilateral framework. Infrastructure proj ects so assisted should be complemented by other measures to ensure that the benefits of the infrastructure reach the poor.   (3)  The Congress recognizes that the accelerating loss of forests and tree cover in developing countries undermines and offsets efforts to improve agricultural production and nutrition and otherwise to meet the basic human needs of the poor. Deforestation results in increased flooding, reduction in water supply for agricultural capacity, loss of firewood and needed wood products, and loss of valuable plants and animals. In order to maintain and increase forest resources, the President is authorized to provide assistance under this section for forestry projects which are essential to fulfill the fundamental purposes of this section. Emphasis shall be given to community woodlots, agroforestry, reforestation, protection of watershed forests, and more effective forest management.   (c)  Increased agricultural production in least developed countries  The Congress finds that the greatest potential for significantly expanding availability of food for people in rural areas and augmenting world food production at relatively low cost lies in increasing the productivity of small farmers who constitute a majority of the agricultural producers in developing countries. Increasing the emphasis on rural development and expanded food production in the poorest nations of the developing world is a matter of social justice and a principal element contributing to broadly based economic growth, as well as an important factor in alleviating inflation in the industrialized countries. In the allocation of funds under this section, special attention shall be given to increasing agricultural production in countries which have been designated as least developed by the United Nations General Assembly.   (d)  Coordination with population planning and health programs   Assistance provided under this section shall also be used in coordination with programs carried out under section  2151b  of this title to help improve nutrition of the people of developing countries through encouragement of increased production of crops with greater nutritional value; improvement of planning, research, and education with respect to nutrition, particularly with reference to improvement and expanded use of indigenously produced foodstuffs; and the undertaking of pilot or demonstration programs explicitly addressing the problem of malnutrition of poor and vulnerable people. In particular, the President is encouraged   (1)  to devise and carry out in partnership with developing countries a strategy for programs of nutrition and health improvement for mothers and children, including breast feeding; and   (2)  to provide technical, financial, and material support to individuals or groups at the local level for such programs.   (e)  Use of local currency proceeds from sales of commodities   Local currency proceeds from sales of commodities provided under the Food for Peace Act [  7  U.S.C.  1691  et seq.] which are owned by foreign governments shall be used whenever practicable to carry out the provisions of this section.   (f)  National food security policies and programs; bilateral and multilateral assistance   The Congress finds that the efforts of developing countries to enhance their national food security deserves encouragement as a matter of United States development assistance policy. Measures complementary to assistance for expanding food production in developing countries are needed to help assure that food becomes increasingly available on a regular basis to the poor in such countries. Therefore, United States bilateral assistance under this chapter and the Food for Peace Act [  7  U.S.C.  1691  et seq.], and United States participation in multilateral institutions, shall emphasize policies and programs which assist developing countries to increase their national food security by improving their food policies and management and by strengthening national food reserves, with particular concern for the needs of the poor, through measures encouraging domestic production, building national food reserves, expanding available storage facilities, reducing postharvest food losses, and improving food distribution.   (g)  International Fund for Agricultural Development; participation and contributions; availability of appropriations   (1)  In order to carry out the purposes of this section, the President may continue United States participation in and may make contributions to the International Fund for Agricultural Development.   (2)  Of the aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated to carry out subchapter I of this chapter, up to $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and up to $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1987 may be made available, by appropriation or by transfer, for United States contributions to the second replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.  2151a1. Agricultural research  Agricultural research carried out under this chapter shall   (1)  take account of the special needs of small farmers in the determination of research priorities,   (2)  include research on the interrelationships among technology, institutions, and economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors affecting small-farm agriculture,   and   (3)  make extensive use of field testing to adapt basic research to local conditions. Special emphasis shall be placed on disseminating research results to the farms on which they can be put to use, and especially on institutional and other arrangements needed to assure that small farmers have effective access to both new and existing improved technology   .  , and    (4)  include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.


Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384


SEC. 201. AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND NUTRITION.  (a) Authority- Section 103(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a(a)(1)) is amended;  (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ; and and inserting a semicolon;  (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and  (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:  (D) to expand the economic participation of people living in extreme poverty and those who lack access to agriculturally productive land, including through productive safety net programs and health and nutrition programs, and to integrate those living in extreme poverty into the economy;  (E) to support conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages; and  (F) to improve nutrition of vulnerable populations, such as children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women..  (b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to the President to provide assistance under section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a) for the purpose of carrying out activities under this section, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purpose;  (1) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; (2) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; (3) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; (4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and (5) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.  Sec. 202. Agricultural Research.  Section 103A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1) is amended in the first sentence;  (1) by striking , and (3) make and inserting , (3) make; and  (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting , and (4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology..













Document Number: 2446 



 Public sector leadership key to tackling the human welfare problem 


 by  David Tribe  on 20 September 2010 


C   hallenges and Responsibilities for Public Sector Scientists


- Marc Van Montagu, New Biotechnology, August 2010 &nbsp;(Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries, Ghent University, Belgium). Full paper at Http://www.sciencedirect.com/


Current agriculture faces the challenge of doubling food production to meet the food needs of a population expected to reach 9 billion by mid-century whilst maintaining soil and water quality and conserving biodiversity. These challenges are more overwhelming for the rural poor, who are the custodians of environmental resources and at the same time particularly vulnerable to environmental degradation. Solutions have to come from concerted actions by different segments of society in which public sector science plays a fundamental role.


Public sector scientists are at the root of all the present generation of GM crop traits under cultivation and more will come with the new knowledge that is being generated by systems biology. To speed up innovation, molecular biologists must interact with scientists from the different fields as well as with stakeholders outside the academic world in order to create an environment capable of capturing value from public sector knowledge. I highlight here the measures that have to be taken urgently to guarantee that science and technology can tackle the problems of subsistence farmers.


Food insecurity, Hunger And Malnutrition: Necessary Policy and Technology Changes


- Joachim von Brauna, New Biotechnology, August 2010. Full paper at


Ending food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition is a pressing global ethical priority. Despite differences in food production systems, cultural values and economic conditions, hunger is not acceptable under any ethical principles. Yet, progress in combating hunger and malnutrition in developing countries has been discouraging, even as overall global prosperity has increased in past decades. A growing number of people are deprived of the fundamental right to food, which is essential for all other rights as well as for human existence itself. The food and nutrition crisis has deepened in recent years, as increased food price volatility and global recession affected the poor. In a strategic agenda, it will be necessary to promote pro-poor agricultural growth, reduce extreme market volatility and expand social protection and child nutrition action.













Document Number: 6947 



 Purdue Extension comments on recent glyphosate stories 


 by  David Tribe  on 25 February 2011 


(go to link for full details)  Glyphosate;s Impact on Field Crop Production and Disease Development


The U.S. Department of Agriculture;s recent decision to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa renewed a debate about the safety of genetically modified crops and the use of glyphosate in the environment.  This is not a new controversy, but many statements released in recent weeks by groups opposed to the use of genetically modified (GM) crops have claimed that glyphosate use and Roundup Ready technology will be disastrous and that glyphosate has damaged crop production by decreasing nutrient availability to plants, reducing nutrient content of food and livestock feed, and increasing plant susceptibility to disease (Zerbe, 2011). There also are claims that glyphosate is contributing to an increase in more than 40 plant diseases that may also affect human and animal health (Smith, 2011; Zerbe, 2011). However, evidence to support these claims has neither been presented to nor evaluated by the scientific community


As scientists, we are equally concerned about the health of the environment and the sustainability of agricultural production. We have previously addressed questions on the impact of glyphosate and manganese  (Mn) interactions on soybean (see  http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2010/GlyphosateMn.pdf  ).


&nbsp;In this article, we discussed the limited research available on the impact of glyphosate and glyphosate resistant crops on Mn nutrition of soybeans, and encouraged producers to avoid ;insurance; applications of Mn for the sole purpose of counteracting perceived plant health damage due to glyphosate use. However, the most recent press releases around this issue are focused on the impact of glyphosate on plant and human disease development. This article is intended to clarify the relationship between glyphosate and plant disease development.


The claim that herbicides, such as glyphosate, can make plants more susceptible to disease is not entirely without merit. Research has indicated that plants sprayed with glyphosate or other herbicides are more susceptible to many biological and physiological disorders (Babiker et al., 2011; Descalzo et al., 1996; Johal and Rahe, 1984; Larson et al., 2006; Means and Kremer, 2007; Sanogo et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1992). Our research with glyphosatesusceptible weeds has shown that some weeds die more rapidly after they have been sprayed with glyphosate when grown in soil that contains certain soil-borne fungi. This suggests that some soil fungi are more effective in infecting Harikrishnan and Yang, 2001; Sanogo et al., 2000). Based on observations from our research, we speculate that this happens when weeds are exposed to ACCase inhibitors as well.


Despite the potential for herbicides to increase disease levels in certain plants, plant pathologists have NOT observed a widespread increase in susceptibility to plant diseases in glyphosate-resistant corn and soybean;  .


;Although some research indicates there is an increase in disease severity on plants in the presence of glyphosate, it does NOT necessarily mean that there is an impact on yield. The most important point to make about the majority of research available on glyphosate-disease interactions is that the research does not always quantify the effect of glyphosate-influenced disease development on yield. Despite claims linking glyphosate use to increases in yield-limiting diseases such as Goss;s wilt of corn, or sudden death syndrome (SDS) of soybean, we are not aware of published research that fully examines the impact of glyphosate on disease development and yield under disease pressure. Previous research examining the effect of herbicides, including glyphosate, on disease development in soybean has been conducted in greenhouse or limited field trials, and has not examined the effect of these interactions on yield (Bradley et al., 2002; Sanogo et al., 2000). All plant diseases do not have an equal impact on yield. Plants have natural defense systems that are able to limit infection and prevent yield loss in some cases. Disease-causing organisms exist naturally in the environment, but only cause infection when a susceptible host and a favorable environment are present. Even when infection occurs, the disease must reach a level in the host where the plant is weakened enough to cause yield loss.


The claim that plant disease has ;skyrocketed; due to glyphosate usage is also unfounded;  ;The articles and websites state that fungi in the genus Fusarium cause not only plant diseases but also disease outbreaks in humans and animals. In fact, very few pathogens infect both plants and animals. Some fungi can produce toxic compounds called mycotoxins that can be harmful to animals and humans (Desjardins and Proctor, 2007). However, only certain species within the genus Fusarium have been shown to produce mycotoxins. The majority of Fusarium fungi that produce mycotoxins are pathogens of corn and wheat. Wheat and food-grade corn are non-GMO crops, meaning that mycotoxin development in these crops would not be directly linked to glyphosate usage or interactions. Plants and grain affected by the fungus that causes SDS, Fusarium virguliforme, have not been shown to be toxic to humans or livestock. Additionally, the United States Food and Drug Administration has set levels for the amount of mycotoxins that can be in animal feed, and in food for human consumption, and these markets are closely regulated to prevent introduction of mycotoxin-contaminated grain into the market.


Overall, the claims that glyphosate is having a widespread effect on plant health are largely unsubstantiated.  To date, there is limited scientific research data that suggest that plant diseases have increased in GM crops due to the use of glyphosate. Most importantly, the impact of these interactions on yield has not been demonstrated. Therefore, we maintain our recommendations of judicious glyphosate use for weed control. We encourage crop producers, agribusiness personnel, and the general public to speak with University Extension personnel before making changes in crop production practices that are based on sensationalist claims instead of facts.


References:  1. Anderson, J.A., and Kolmer, J.A. 2005. Rust control in glyphosate tolerant wheat following application of the herbicide glyphosate. Plant Dis. 89:1136-1142.  2. Babiker, E.M., Hulbert, S.H., Schroeder, K.L., and Paulitz, T.C. 2011. Optimum timing of preplant applications of glyphosate to manage Rhizoctonia root rot in barley. Plant Disease 95:304-310  3. Baley, G.J., Campbell, KG., Yenish, J., Kidwell, K.K., and Paulitz, T.C. 2009. Influence of glyphosate, crop volunteer and root pathogens on glyphosate4. Cotton, T.K., and Munkvold, G.P., 1998. Survival of Fusarium moniliforme, F. proliferatum, and F. subglutinans in maize stalk residue. Phytopathology 88:550555.  5. Descalzo, R.C., Punja, Z.K., Levesque, C.A., and Rahe, J.E. 1996. Identifiaction and role of Pythium species as glyphosate synergists on bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) grown in different soils. Mycological Research 100:971-978.  6. Desjardines, A.E., and Proctor, R.H. 2007. Molecular biology of Fusarium mycotoxins. International Journal of Food Microbiology 119:47-5o.  7. Feng, P.C.C., Baley, G.J., Clinton, W.P., Bunkers, G.J., Alibhai, M.F., Paulitz, T.C., and Kidwell, K.K. 2005. Glyphosate inhibits rust disease sin glyphosate-resistant wheat and soybean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 48:1729017295. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0508873102.  8. Flett, B.C., McLaren, N.W., and Wehner, F.C. 1998. Incidence of ear rot pathogens under alternating corn tillage practices. Plant Disease 82:781-784.  9. Harikrishnan, R., and Yang, X.B. 2001. Influence of herbicides on growth and sclerotia production in Rhizoctonia solani. Weed Science 49:241-247.  10. Johal, G.S., and Rhae, J.E. 1984. Effect of soilborne plant-pathogenic fungi on the herbicidal action of glyphosate on bean seedlings. Phytopathology 74:950-955.  ii. Kishore, G.M., and Shah, D.M. 1998 Amino acid biosynthesis inhibitors as herbicides. Annual Review of Biochemistry 57:627-663.  12. Larson, R.L., Hill, H.L., Fenwick, A., Kniss, A.R., Hanson, L.E., and Miller, S.D. 2006. Influence of glyphosate on Rhizoctonia and Fusarium root rot in sugar beet. Pest Management Science 62:1182-1192.  13. Means, N.E., and Kremer, R.J., 2007. Influence of soil moisture on root colonization of glyphosate-treated soybean by Fusarium species. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 38:1713-1720.  14. Njiti, V.N., Myers, 0., Schroeder, D., and Lightfoot, D.A. 2003. Roundup ready soybean: glyphosate effects on Fusarium solani root colonization and sudden death syndrome. Agronomy Journal 95:1140-1145.  15. Smiley, R.W., Ogg., A.G. Jr, and Cook, R.J. 1992. Influence of glyphosate on Rhizoctonia root rot, growth, and yield of barley. Plant Disease 76:937-942.  16. Smith, J. 2011. Monsanto;s Roundup triggers over 4o plant diseases and endangers human and animal health. Foodconsumer.org. http://www.foodconsumer.org/ newsite/Non-food/Environment/roundup_0118110818.html. Posted 1/19/2011, Accessed 2/8/11.  17. Workneh, F. Yang, X.B., and Tylka, G.L. 1998. Effect of tillage practices on vertical distribution of Phytophthora sojae. Plant Disease 82:1258-1263.  18. Zerbe, L. 2011. Roundup: What you need to know about the pesticide poised to ;push us all off of the cliff.; Rodale Press. http:/www.rodale.com/roundup. Posted 2/3/2011, Accessed 2/8/11.


Purdue Authors listed in alphabetical order  Jim Camberato, Extension Soil Fertility  Specialist, Purdue University  Shaun Casteel, Extension Soybean Agronomist, Purdue University  Peter Goldsbrough, Department Head, Botany and Plant Pathology Department,  Purdue University  Bill Johnson, Extension Weed Scientist, Purdue University  Kiersten Wise, Extension Field Crop Pathologist, Purdue University  Charles Woloshuk, Extension Corn/ Mycotoxin Pathologist,  Purdue University













Document Number: 1815 



 Purple tomatoes! 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 28 October 2008 


As I write this, I munch on organic blue corn chips and homemade pico de gallo, made with purple peppers from  Small Potatoes Farm  (along with heirloom tomatoes and flat leaf Italian parsley and with a glass of local wine from  Summerset Winery  , yum!). Why choose blue and purple? Anthocyanins, of course. These natural plant compounds are nice to look at, and there is a lot of evidence that they have protecting health qualities for those who eat them, protecting us from diseases like cancer, diabetes, and obesity. So, what do we do to make sure that people can get recommended amounts of anthocyanins?


Anthocyanin-rich berries are delicious but expensive and only available during certain times of year. Most people do not seek out red cabbage or brightly colored heirloom varieties of veggies like  carrots  and  cauliflower  . In the US, the most frequently eaten vegetables are potatoes, lettuce, and tomatoes. Purple tomatoes exist, but heirloom tomatoes have issues like splitting and little time till spoilage. This is fine if you buy them at the farmer;s market and eat them the next day, but is not suitable for things like pasta sauce production (cans and bottles are where most people get their RDA of tomatoes, but it turns out they are  healthier  that way!). Varieties like  Cherokee purple  , while awesome, don;t produce anthocyanins throughout the fruit.


One option would be to develop tomatoes with high concentrations of anthocyanins. The trait could be bred into varieties that have more of the characteristics needed for processing into pastes and such (although I;m personally looking forward to purple cherry tomatoes, as in the photo). A collaboration of researchers in Europe has done it.


Could this GMO be accepted by people looking for healthier foods? It;s possible, but likely depends on marketing. Some people are simply afraid of anything new, from purple cauliflower (a heirloom variety) to Grapples (infused with grape juice in a dissapointingly boring way). Ah well. For the rest of us, though, purple tomatoes could be an interesting addition to our diets.


As Cathie Martin, the lead researcher, said: this is ;certainly the first example of a GMO with a trait that really offers a potential benefit for all consumers.; The health benefits need to be verified in humans, but results look good so far. ;In a pilot test, the lifespan of cancer-susceptible mice was significantly extended when their diet was supplemented with the purple tomatoes compared to supplementation with normal red tomatoes (  SD  ).;


Will people be more willing to look into what GM really means when it has potential to benefit them directly? Will they even care how the tomatoes were made if benefits can be shown? This particular GMO transcends a lot of the issues associated with ones currently on the market.


Labeling isn;t as much of an issue when the trait is obvious, and these tomatoes will likely be proudly labeled due to their health benefits. Gene flow isn;t an issue because  pollen spread  in tomatoes doesn;t seem to be a problem, the trait can be eliminated from fields by sight, and will be of no advantage to wild relatives. The trait could be used with equal benefit in any farming strategy, organic or conventional, large or small, and will have no effect on natural ecosystems (except maybe preventing cancer in herbivores). The only issue left (please remind me if I;ve left any out!) is seed cost due to licensing. However, we must consider that all seed has a cost (simply Google purple tomato seeds to find prices ; up to $4 for 20 seeds!), especially for hybrids.


I have to admit to surprise that this research was done in Europe ; a collaboration of scientists from the UK, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands. I;m happy that the research was able to bear fruit before anyone burnt down their lab.


Ok, back to the science.


First, the  paper  was really easy to read. I think a layperson wouldn;t have too hard of a time reading most it, given a glossary of genetics jargon. Of course, I could be totally wrong on that. Let me know what you think!


The results were achieved by expressing two interacting transcription factors from snapdragons (one of my favorite flowers) that in turn affect expression levels of genes in the anthocyanin pathway. I have to wonder why they ended up using snapdragon genes. You;d think there would be similar transcription factors in tomatoes.


The authors did thoroughly document an entire list of unsuccessful attempts at improving anthocyanins in tomatoes, both by themselves and other labs, including altering expression levels of transcription factors in related pathways and traditional breeding with wild tomatoes, so it seems unlikely that they would overlook a traditional breeding or cisgenic approach in favor of genetic engineering, if the other methods would accomplish their goals.


Although, they did use a cauliflower mosaic virus terminator (stop signal ; has nothing to do with the so-called ;terminator gene;). They used a  fruit specific promoter  , so why not just use the terminator from that gene?


I am very glad that they chose a fruit specific promoter, though. There is no reason to tax the plant;s resources by producing anthocyanins in the leaves and other non-edible parts, unless there is some advantage to expressing them in these parts, such as pest deterrence.


I;m not convinced that they couldn;t do achieve this result with an entirely cisgenic gene construct, but I;m a particularly big fan of cisgenics. All in all, this seems like a beautiful use of genetic engineering to achieve a result that is important to consumers that could theoretically be achieved by decades of breeding (although it hasn;t yet!). I hope people are able to look past the scary GMO label.


Eugenio Butelli, Lucilla Titta, Marco Giorgio, Hans-Peter Mock, Andrea Matros, Silke Peterek, Elio G W M Schijlen, Robert D Hall, Arnaud G Bovy, Jie Luo, Cathie Martin (2008). Enrichment of tomato fruit with health-promoting anthocyanins by expression of select transcription factors  Nature Biotechnology  DOI:  10.1038/nbt.1506













Document Number: 2888 



 RARE: Portraits of America;s endangered species 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 27 July 2010 


Brilliant talk by photographer  Joel Sartore  here at the  Aspen Environment Forum  , sponsored by the National Geographic and the Aspen Institute.


;What can I do to get people to care about the environment? I want people to fall in love with these animals as much as I did so the world pays attention. I need to do a better job but what else can I do? Why should anyone care about mussels? Because they filter our water. We need these things to keep our planet healthy.


We need to take care of our pollinating species.  Without pollinators we have to use paint brushes to pollinate our orchards by hand. How bad does it have to get before we care?


Why not provide a fund to pay landowners for an easement to protect biodiversity?


We can save 95% of the endangered species if we want to. But we need to fund it. We invest the equivalent of one stretch of the LA freeway on protecting endangered species.


What is the true cost of gasoline? I am willing to pay $10/gallon as long as I can trust that it will be there and that I am not destroying the environment.


At a time when we face huge complicated challenges, we must think in more creative ways. The only thing that makes people change is discomfort. Otherwise they will stay distracted to the end (eg of his teenage daughter hooked up to an iPod) until there is nothing left to talk about.


At my house in Nebraska, any time in the fall, I hear screaming. 80,000 people screaming for the Huskers. If I could get people to care that much about something important, we could change the world.


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful people can change the world;













Document Number: 5282 



 Real berries, fake news! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 20 April 2010 


I;m back from my  trip to Thailand  safe and sound, a little prematurely tan on my neck (for Wisconsin), and big smile on my face. One of my favorite days of the year is the first of April, trickery in the name of brief entertainment spreads creativity and hilarity throughout the lands. On April Fools, you could play a trick on a friend and have a chuckle amongst a few people, or attempt to spread a joke across the intertubes to maximize the number of affected individuals. Last year on Biofortified we were subjected to  a hostile takeover by Greenpeace  , and this year I was hoping to do some sort of joke on the blog, but my trip across the world was befuddling my plotting and scheming. I couldn;t think of anything before I left, and was worried about being able to pull something off. Then the ;Pineberry; hit the news.


A white strawberry that tastes like pineapple ; sounded fantastic. While people on Wikipedia were debating whether these press releases on March 31st were real or not, to me it didn;t matter. Time to pile on. I pulled a story from the Guardian (that was about the Large Hadron Collider) and  rewrote the article  . Then I had to edit the features of the html page to make it seem real. (Why would a story on strawberries have physics articles in the related article section of the sidebar?) Interestingly enough, the Guardian also put out a  real  article about tasting the Pineberry ;  perfect to include  .


Finally, I had to upload it and promote it. It was late in the evening on April 1st in Thailand, but it was morning back in the states. I didn;t get to it until the next morning, hoping that some twitter posts would send the word around. The next morning, I tried to put together a post to promote it before the day was over, but the inconsistent wireless internet in my hotel wasn;t letting me get through. And I had a bus to catch!


Luckily, I managed to send a text message to Anastasia,  who finished up the post for me and put it online  ! What was great about that was that I had intended to mention the allergic reactions to Kiwi fruit in the post, and she also brought that up. (Thanks!)


The point of the article, besides having a little fun, was to point out how strange it is that introducing new foods into the human diet in the form of ;resurrected; wild berry varieties is nothing to fear, with countless uncharacterized substances in them. But if you introduce just   one  well-characterized gene and can predict what it will do and send it through a regulatory regime before commercial release ; then you;ve got an evil, suspect ;Frankenfood; on your hands. One that some people will devote their entire lives to eliminating.


Take a look at this line in the article. Despite the fiction of people having reactions to this Pineberry, and the fake quotes and tongue-in-cheek commentary, there is a very truthful message contained within it that is both true of genetic engineering and crossing plants with wild relatives (or even landraces that are not eaten):


Crossing wild plants with cultivated varieties can have unpredictable consequences and introduce foreign proteins that have no history of being consumed safely.


Everyone who discusses the issue of genetic engineering in agriculture must know that this is a true statement. It is also used as an argument against genetic engineering. Therefore, those who use this argument honestly should conclude the same thing about wide crosses and any other process used in modifying the genetics of our food. Every time a breeder crosses two plants together, the plants that result from that cross have never existed before. Even plants that reproduce by making identical copies of themselves, such as potatoes and strawberries (and fruit trees with grafting) still accumulate mutations (and epimutations) down the line and are not 100.000% identical. Every new combination carries a risk of unintended consequences ; the point is how big is the risk and how can we compare it to other risks that we take every day?


There is a danger with the anti-GE arguments being made that goes beyond preventing beneficial applications of the technology. Since GE is in many ways like breeding, and carries all the same categories of risk, the arguments used against GE also work (or don;t work) against breeding, and polyploidy. Don;t like moving one gene between species, try combining tens of thousands of genes from two or three species together! That;s called Wheat. Or Sugar Cane. Or Rutabaga. Or if you go back far enough; it;s called soybeans. Assuming that these kinds of processes aren;t already at work in our food, and then setting up a social and legal and political structure that assumes this can run the risk of harming breeding as well. There;s a  bill being crafted in New Hampshire  that defines GMOs in such a way that wide crosses count as being genetically engineered:


a. Genetically modified seed or organism means any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology including the application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that  overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers  and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. (emphasis added)


Notice how in this definition they do not limit the definition to only those things that use recombinant DNA techniques. The definition  includes  recombinant DNA and cell fusion, but the key phrase is that it overcomes natural reproductive barriers. Crossing plants with distant wild relatives falls under that definition. Maybe it is just a poorly worded phrase, but nevertheless the umbrella widens.


Now who;s up for some nasty tasting wild strawberries?! Who was fooled and who was playing along?  Some of the folks at Wikipedia  couldn;t decide one way or the other.













Document Number: 5779 



 Reason #1: Science 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 22 October 2009 


As of Wednesday afternoon, the entry period for the  Ashoka Changemakers contest  is over. Everyone has had a chance to enter the contest since  the deadline was extended  , so now it is down to a week;s worth of voting to decide the winner. Each day, I will post a reason why I think Biofortified deserves your vote. The reason for today is Science. We bring lots of it to the site, and we would like to bring more.


Understanding the issues involved in genetic engineering in agriculture means that you have to understand some of the science. You don;t have to have a Ph.D. to have an opinion on the topic (it sure helps), but like any important issue it pays to do research first. Would you buy a car without researching your options? Maybe you don;t need to know exactly how a four-stroke wankel engine works, but knowing the difference between a V6 and a V8 might be important if you want to make the right decision for your driving needs. Wouldn;t it make sense to treat the genetics of the food you eat (and the clothing you wear) with the same information-oriented approach?


That is one of the primary reasons why we started this blog almost one year ago:  To build a resource for people who want to learn more about plant genetics and genetic engineering, to be confident that they can contribute to the discussion of genetically engineered crops and make decisions for themselves. There is a huge body of relevant knowledge tied up in arcane language in peer-reviewed journals, which needs to be made accessible to everyone. Here are some of the posts that we have written in the last year that are intended to help readers understand some of the underlying science:


Cotton like Candy  , by Karl Haro von Mogel. Want to learn how RNAi works?   The sugar beet saga  , by Anastasia Bodnar. The biology and politics of beets.   Transposons, Browsers, and Annotation, oh my!  by Karl Haro von Mogel. Hooked on helitrons!   What does GMO really mean?  By Pam Ronald. What does it mean to genetically modify something?   GM Soybeans giving you a healthy heart and arteries and making you brainy  . By David Tribe. Says it all.   Tuesday at BIO  , by Karl Haro von Mogel. Lots of nifty discoveries!


Science is more than just information that we know ; what makes it different from other methods of knowing is that it involves a rigorous process of isolating variables, building theoretical frameworks, and testing ideas systematically against reality. When you forget that scientific knowledge is more than just opinions held by scientists ; that there is a methodology involved, you may undervalue its importance. We have written some on how science works and how it is done, here are two examples:


The Inadequacy of Anecdotes  , by Karl Haro von Mogel. How do you know what you think you know?   Maize Genetics  , by Anastasia Bodnar. How do maize geneticists do their stuff?


Next, there;s more than just understanding current scientific facts and issues, if we are to discuss the future of genetics in agriculture we need to keep an eye on things to come. For example, in the Cotton Like Candy post above, I discussed an ongoing development that could turn virtually inedible cottonseed into a protein source sufficient for half a billion people. In a post that I just finished,  Biofortified lettuce is no Bitter Pill  , I describe advancements in enhancing the nutritional quality of produce through genetic engineering. Many of the things that we try to bring to this site are about things that have yet to enter the wider debate over GE crops. Who else is making a dedicated effort to bring these new discoveries to you to learn about but us? We are trying to keep you aware of what is on the horizon in addition to what is beneath your feet. Almost no one is talking about it, least of all the orgnizations that are opposed to the technology.


It is as if someone is telling you not to buy a car because V6 and V8 engines in regular cars are too inefficient, and they;ve never heard of hybrid cars like Priuses.


Science is a basic building block for discussing genetic engineering in agriculture, but it is not the only one. Our values often determine the decisions we make, but we can only choose amongst options if we know about them in the first place, and can understand the implications of each decision. Through communicating science, Biofortified is making a positive contribution to the discussion of what foods we are to grow and eat. We would like to bring even more science to this site, which winning the Changemaker contest will help us do.


I hope you will consider taking a couple minutes of your time to support this effort by  registering  and  voting for our entry  in this contest. For a step-by-step guide to voting,  go here  .


Science is just one reason to vote for us, stick around for the next week and there will be more reasons on the way.  We are currently tied for the lead with 34 votes, but other entries are also gaining votes. Let;s keep them coming and thanks for your vote!













Document Number: 4431 



 Reason #2: Dialogue 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 26 October 2009 


The Ashoka Changemakers GMO Risk or Rescue contest is about halfway through its final voting week, a lot has happened in this time, which I will fill you in on, and today I present the second reason why I think Biofortified deserves your vote:  Dialogue.


One of the reasons why we started a group blog to talk about plant genetics and food is because of the many opportunities it allows for dialogue, of several kinds.


First, it allows scientists to start talking about their work and the work of others in a manner that people without a background in genetics can access. Most people in this country, and many around the world, have access to a computer that is internet-capable and can read about it. Scientific Journals are the primary go-to place for the latest science and the most complete summaries of knowledge and issues, but these are often behind a registration wall that limits its access to only a small part of the population. On a science blog such as Biofortified new research can be presented where almost anyone can access it, and in a language common to non-scientists.


But more importantly,  it allows those members of the public to be able to respond with comments, criticisms, and write their own blog posts linking back. Now the one-way flow of information can be two-way, which is how most people discuss issues they find important. This is the second type of dialogue that we hope to encourage.


Third, dialogue between scientists who agree on these topics can also occur in a place such as Biofortified. We currently have four bloggers who are scientists lending our time and energy to writing what we each independently think about the field. But now with an open forum to bounce ideas back and forth, it allows for new opportunities for us to discover things that we each hadn;t considered, and collaborate on turning those new ideas into reality.


Fourth, scientists who disagree can be a part of this dialogue. By email, I am currently interviewing a scientist who is critical of genetic engineering about a recent report they wrote. It is not yet finished, but there is ample opportunity for scientists who are supportive and critical of genetic engineering in agriculture to discuss issues on this blog. We often seek out guest posts from other people we can think of, but what many of you may not know is that anyone can write a guest post ; all you have to do is contact us about your idea, and send it along! Even those critical of genetic engineering can apply ; but so far there have been no takers.


I wish I could say that Biofortified is still in the lead in the Changemakers contest, but  we are not  . A last-minute  entry appeared  on Tuesday before the contest deadline: the  Non-GMO project  . This is an organization that was founded by non/anti-GE companies such as  Nature;s Path, Seeds of Change, Organic Valley, etc  . The purpose of the organization is to provide a means for producers to voluntarily label their products as not containing genetically engineered ingredients, and to have a certification system in place to guarrantee that to the people that really  really  don;t want to eat them. There are some good things to say about the Non-GMO project, which I will be certain to get to soon, as well as some questionable ones. But the function of this organization is not to raise the standard of dialogue about genetic engineering at all. If you ask them, it;s about democracy, but at the same time its very much about  marketing  . Whole Foods  recently  made a big announcement that they are using the non-GMO project;s standards to certify their products.


The executive director of the Non-GMO Project, Megan Westgate, has left a prolific number of comments on our entry page, raising various questions. I will talk about the most troublesome one in another post, but I would like to elevate part of this comment of hers about dialogue for everyone to see:


You say here that with your site ;Discussion is two-way,; but all the links you have up are pointing one way only: towards GE. (;) I think that a blog like yours could be a really useful complement to our labeling program IF it actually was a two-way discussion that gave just as much coverage to the cons as the pros. If your site did that, even I might vote for it!


The links she was talking about are the links in the sidebar. Although her comment was trying to clear up a misunderstanding of a different kind, in this comment she made a different misunderstanding ; linking to sites that play fast and loose with the facts to achieve a sort of ;link-balance; in the sidebar is  not  dialogue. Nor is inviting someone who doesn;t know what they are talking about to be a member of the blog ; I would like to point everyone to  my hilarous April-Fools prank  this year, where the blog was taken over by a fictitious mouthpiece for Greenpeace and wrote several posts promoting common fallacies and falsehoods. I even had the people at the Monsanto Blog fooled for a while!


There is a reason why you don;t see a link to, say, Jeffrey Smith;s site ; The Institute for Responsible Technology in the sidebar. When I set up the site initially, I realized that just sending people over to a site written by  someone who frequently makes statements that have no basis in fact  would be  irresponsible  ; without having some information on this site to warn readers about  this tendency  . There are indeed a great many anti-GE sites out there, as well as a bunch of pro-GE sites that have not been added, but before we add them to the normal sidebar we want to take the time to see how responsible the writing of those sites is.  This isn;t Crossfire  .


(Why not add some ;balance; to the Scientific Journal section, too, anyone want to offer up some anti-scientific journals?)


For the first year, we;ve just been trying to blog, with our tight schedules as they are, but in the background we are sifting through resources getting ready to build up the extensive information resource pages we have only just begun. There;s going to be a lot more here than mere links!


It is not to say that there aren;t pros and cons involved in genetic engineering, or that we are ignoring the cons, either. But there is a difference between the real cons and the made-up cons. For example,  Guest Blogger Raoul Adamchak wrote a post  for us about the restrictions on research that come with the patents on GE crops. Anastasia has also written about issues with  Genetic Use Restriction Technologies  , and  I have made critical  comments about some stuff at the BIO conference as well. There are real issues involved in genetic engineering, and one of the things we hope to do here is move the discussion to discussing those issues that are real and are being ignored due to other distractions. If we were going to talk about whether or not GE soy caused soy allergies to skyrocket in the UK, that would fall under a different category (and post) ;  Debunking  .


To close in talking about dialogue, I would like to point out that we have recently added a new way for people to talk about these and other issues ; the  Biofortified Forum  ! Anyone can register and start a discussion about whatever they want. This is something that you will not see on the non-GMO project website, nor Jeffrey Smith;s operation.


Case-in-point: NJ Jaeger, Smith;s PR person,  has a blog  , and when I posted a comment that demonstrated that what she was saying in her blog post was demonstrably false ; it was deleted. So I tried again, this time saving a screenshot. (Hover for the date.)


Days later, I checked back, and my comment was gone again.


Tell me, who is committed to dialogue here? I take it as a compliment that Megan Westgate is holding Biofortified to a higher standard than her own organization, or those it links to.


The current vote tally is as follows: Biofortified is at 66 votes, and the Non-GMO project is at 150 votes. The voting ends Wednesday at 6pm Eastern time, so there is still time to turn this around!  Go here to register  , and  here to vote for Biofortified  in the name of dialogue. For more details, see  Vote for Biofortified  .













Document Number: 3538 



 Reason #3: Honesty 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 26 October 2009 


In the last 12 hours, the Ashoka Changemakers contest has really taken a dramatic turn for the better for Biofortified. The vote tallies are constantly changing, but at the start of writing this post,  we have  rocketed forward to  632  votes, leaving behind our  leading opponent  the Non-GMO Project, at  260  votes. During the course of the day, we have gained about 570 votes to their 100. There are still two more days left to the contest, and you never know how much things may change down the road. So today I will present another reason why I think Biofortified deserves your vote: Honesty.


Last week, a day into the final voting week, we received a  comment  on our entry from Megan Westgate, the Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project. I will reproduce it in full:


Biofortified Pro GE?  Although you say here you are not pro GE, on your own homepage there is a link to ;Other Pro GE Blogs; implying that yours is one, too. And there is no link to anti GE blogs (which would be a requisite if you really were committed to balanced representation). You even have a link to ;Monsanto According to Monsanto; (the industry blog), but no link to the powerful documentary ;The World According to Monsanto.; Given these facts, how can you really say that you are offering both sides? Your entry here doesn;t seem honest.


Anastasia and I both pounced on the comment, pointing out that nowhere in our entry to we ;say we are not pro-GE,; and asked her to retract her statement and pledge not to engage in dirty politics. Making stuff up is totally not acceptable tactics (misreading isn;t very good either). Later that day, she did just that, which I applaud her for. Let the contest be about who can gather the most support over the internet, not who can misunderstand the other side the most.  Here is her response in full, which I selectively quoted yesterday (to address further misunderstandings without talking about the dishonesty claim).


I appreciate the responses to my comment and am grateful for the opportunity to discuss further. I apologize for my misunderstanding, but stand behind my sentiment that there is room for confusion based on the wording of your entry. You say here that with your site ;Discussion is two-way,; but all the links you have up are pointing one way only: towards GE. I am sorry for saying that you present yourselves as ;not pro GE,; because you;re right, you don;t say that anywhere. Based on your responses, it seems you agree with my comment that you are not about presenting both sides, and I appreciate that clarification. I think my confusion is understandable. Might I suggest that if you wanted your entry to be completely clear here, you could directly say that your site is pro GE. You;re absolutely right that I am the Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, and as such take a strong interest in what other organizations are doing to educate and inform the public. We believe that people have the right to avoid GMOs if they want to (and they also have the right to eat them if they want to as long as it doesn;t negatively impact others). I think that a blog like yours could be a really useful complement to our labeling program IF it actually was a two-way discussion that gave just as much coverage to the cons as the pros. If your site did that, even I might vote for it! I join you in your pledge to be civil and respectful, thank you.


This morning, Biofortified got a huge plug from PZ Myers at Pharyngula, with  Yum, genetically engineered plants!  At about 8-8:30 in the morning (US Central Time, -5 GMT), our votes started to crawl up. Then they started to climb. Then they started to fly. Within an hour, we surpassed the Non-GMO Project, and rocketed upward with no signs of stopping. We were very pleased to see such a huge upwelling of support for our blog in this contest, and we could only wonder what the anti-GE folks that populate the Changemakers site and other interested parties would think. The Non-GMO Project is based in California (two hours later), so they probably had a bit of a surprise when they woke up in the morning!


GM Watch  in the UK, however, was not pleased. It was simply  not possible  that we could get 100 votes in an hour without someone pulling the strings for us in an improper fashion. Only eighteen minutes, ahem:  Eighteen Minutes  after we took the lead, GM Watch  posted  these ;Tweets; to their Twitter account:


I didn;t notice them until an hour later, that GM Watch was accusing the ;Biotech Industry; of  ;fixing the competition!;  the only thing that could possibly explain our new votes was that Big Bad Biotech (cue B-movie scream) was somehow manipulating the contest from its sinister lair. Well, what was their evidence?


Biofortified ;   http://www.biofortified.org/  ; is a blog run by some well known GM promoters, like Aussie heavyweight GM lobbyist, David Tribe, for example. It;s a blog the GM industry smiles on. Look, for example, at the links to biotech blogs on this Monsanto website:   http://blog.monsantoblog.com/monsanto-according-to-monsanto/  and you;ll find not only Biofortified at the top of the list of ;Biotech Blogs; they recommend but links to several other pro-GM blogs by the people behind Biofortified (eg GMO Pundit).


Fallacy of guilt-by-association, check.


The Council for Biotechnology Information is a GM industry front group ; see its members such as Monsanto here:   http://www.whybiotech.com/about/members.asp   This group has been putting out the following messsage on Twitter: ;Vote for Biofortified in Ashoka Changemakers contest;.


Yes,  as Anastasia mentioned  , the CBI twittered a ;vote for Biofortified; message last week, long before we started to gain votes. I think I saw another one over the weekend, but that still doesn;t explain how this proves anything of the sort. They apparently didn;t notice that they endorsed us  over a month ago  on their blog, with no apparent humonguous effect. This still doesn;t seem to fit the facts.


A Monsanto PR operator has discreetly done the same and now the votes for Biofortified have suddenly exploded, more than doubling in a matter of hours in a completely unprecedented pattern.


It took us half a day to figure out what this ;discreet; PR operation was. Apparently, one of the folks in the Monsanto PR department  plugged us  in her Twitter account on  Friday  :


Interesting dialogue by science bloggers at Biofortified. Ag tweeps check it out &amp; show support 4 science-based disc.  http://bit.ly/3dl1EQ


Obviously, there must be a global conspiracy. As people have been pointing out, since when does posting a message to Twitter count as discreet?


The winner of the Chagemakers competition gets a cash prize of $1500 and a conversation with New York Times food writer, Michael Pollan, but above all cudos.  If you think the GM industry trying to fix this competition stinks, then please vote for one of the anti-GM candidates in the Changemakers contest.


Something sure stinks, and it;s coming from GM Watch. I immediately sent them a message asking them to retract their outrageous claims and pledge not to continue these gutter politics. And when I was done with that, I got on the phone and called out to California ; Surely the Non-GMO Project would join me in condemning GM Watch;s tactics?


Megan Westgate answered the phone, and we had a pleasant conversation for about 7-8 minutes about GM Watch;s claims, and about the contest. She sure seemed surprised about the recent voting, and said she could understand how they would suspect such a thing, and finally agreed with me to ask GM Watch not to make such baseless claims. I also explained that when my website stats update tonight that I can send her the data about hits to show how many people were coming from our supporters to remove all doubt about voting shenanigans. Although I have no evidence that Biotech companies were  not  fixing the vote, more importantly GM Watch has no evidence that they are.


While I was reading the part about Biofortified being run by well-known GM promoters, I joked, ;I;m not well-known!; Megan laughed and said, ;Now you are!;


When news of this sudden reaction reached PZ, he went and posted a  second  post cheekily  wondering where his check from Monsanto got to  , and re-emphasizing the ongoing contest. GM Watch;s shallow attempt to muster votes against us by making things up did not go unnoticed.


Although they did not directly accuse us or anyone else of ;cheating,; the  definition  of ;fixing; a contest is ;to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods.; So although it is not identical to an accusation of cheating, it is very very close, in that the only out is that the votes were obtained ;improperly,; whatever that means in this case. Just for the sake of argument, lets say every employee of Monsanto voted for us in the contest today, would that actually be improper or breaking the rules? And strangely focusing on David Tribe in the attempt to tie us all to the ;industry; does attack us indirectly. I;m not sure if they should apologize to us, to the ;industry,; or if I should instead thank them for giving us a timely example of how little fact-checking GM Watch is capable of? (See how  easily  Google finds PZ;s post)


What else have they written that has no basis in fact?


We do our best on this blog and on our own blogs to be as open and honest as we can be, to describe scientific issues to the best of our knowledge and to show you how we got that information with references. We are open to criticisms and will correct mistakes if they are pointed out. It is ironic that the day after I  wrote about various sources not checking their facts  that our vote surge would be hit by a similar fact-free claim from another such site. A vote for Biofortified is a vote for honesty and open debate, and a vote against cheesy gutter politics.


Thank you everyone who has linked to us and voted for us, we feel like a part of a large community of science bloggers and blog fans! It is not over yet, so if you haven;t yet voted please take a couple minutes to navigate through the Changemakers site and  vote for us  . At the time of posting, we are at  654  votes to their  267  . Let;s see if we can hit 1,000 by Wednesday!


I wonder, will GM Watch remain  linked  as a reliable source on the Non-GMO Project website?













Document Number: 1579 



 Reason #4: Michael Pollan 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 28 October 2009 


Today, Biofortified gained another 120 votes in the Ashoka Changemakers contest, coming in at 812 at the time of this writing. It would be great if in the last day of voting, if we could top 1,000. To help to that end, I will present the fourth reason why I think we deserve a little of your time: Michael Pollan.


When I first heard about the contest, the grand prize was a ;social media training; session and a conversation with Michael Pollan. As I noted on my personal blog, I have been waiting to do an interview with him for almost three years. Back in 2006, I participated in a panel discussion (  available here on UCTV  ) with him and others on Food, Farming, and Genetics, as part of the Community Book Project at UC Davis, which focused on The Omnivore;s Dilemma. Pam Ronald was also the moderator of the discussion. Our group conversation left more questions than answer in my head, so I asked him if I could interview him sometime on my radio show and he agreed. A combination of timidity, lack of radio show after moving to Madison for grad school, and the sheer amount of demand on Pollan;s time, it hasn;t yet happened.


In the interim, more questions have piled up. Not just about genetics, but even about the philosophy of science, the future of agriculture, and whether he thinks that health food stores like Whole Foods have the highest concentration of contradictory food philosophies or if he didn;t notice the food supplement aisles. I could write several pages of questions, always thinking that I will have to jettison most of them to make for a radio/podcast interview someday that will will have continuity and make sense. Over time, questions related to  The Omnivore;s Dilemma  slid away to be replaced by questions related to  In Defense of Food  . A few questions about plant genetics held steady in the heirarchy of importance.


I initially entered the contest so that I could win the conversation with him and see if he wouldn;t mind adding a microphone to it as a podcast interview. I assumed that it would be a conversation over the phone as well. The other part of the prize, the social media training, didn;t have much appeal considering I;ve been doing social media for years! You could pretty much say I entered us in the changemakers contest to talk to Pollan. But then after I entered, the contest deadline was extended and a $1,500 grant was added to the grand prize. This was going to change the dynamics of the contest dramatically, and it did.


We haven;t yet mentioned what happened in the background since the contest extension. Anastasia and I collaborated on perfecting  our entry  , given the amount of space allowed, and we also set to upgrading and improving the site, and mapping out a future for Biofortified. Frank  started twittering  (there were requests for it from readers, too), and I installed the  new forum  . Lists of resources are being put together, along with more information about the site. There are more improvements being planned that all of us are working on in the background to turn the idea of Biofortified into a reality.


Consequently, it was not my entry of this site I started anymore, it is  our  entry of the site  we;re building  . If we win this contest and thus the conversation with Pollan, it will be  our  conversation, and according to an email I got last week the winner gets to  meet  him, which implies a round-trip airplane ticket for someone. Without going into too many details, it is quite possible that several of us may be able to meet him in Berkeley later this year. And my guess is that collectively, the conversation would be about the topics we discuss on this site, about genetic engineering, food, sustainability, intellectual property, and journalism. A few people on PZ Myers; blog wondered why we would want to talk to Pollan about genetic engineering?


I can certainly speak for myself, for instance in 2001 he called Golden Rice, the humanitarian project about biofortifying rice with pro-vitamin A to combat malnutrition and blindness, ;  The world;s first purely rhetorical technology.  ; Only five years ago, he said in an interview that ;  I dont think in ten years well be talking about GMOs. I can easily see the industry withering away.  ;


That doesn;t sound like someone who doesn;t think much of genetic engineering.


But then, look at this:


That;s right, Michael Pollan is expressing his opinion that he would be open to ;Open-Source; genetic engineering. This is something that I have been meaning to bring to this blog but I have not yet been able to enlist the help of a particular proponent of open source genetics to be a guest author. But imagine Linux and Creative Commons applied to plant genetics. This is a dramatic turnaround from predicting that the industry will wither away. As you can see, there;s a lot more than meets the eye when it comes to Michael Pollan;s views on genetic engineering in agriculture, but he still has not said much in recent years. Perhaps we can get a good dialogue going.


Frank ;n; Pollan


But if you paid attention to the interview above, did you notice that he said that genetic engineering has not increased yields, that only plant breeding has? He may be referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists; report, Failure to Yield, which actually found that genetic engineering  has increased yields  , although the report de-emphasized it.


Moreover, Pollan said ;A lot of GE is being sold to us based on a future promise, that I don;t even think they;re working on it.; Is this another gut opinion that will it take its place alongside the ten year prediction?


The most important thing that he said in the above video is that he is  open to learning about it  . There are probably a great many things that we could talk about with Michael Pollan, places where we agree, disagree, and perhaps don;t yet know where we stand. A conversation with him would promise to be very interesting in the least, and we will ask him if we could tape our discussion and put it on the net. Naturally, we have to win the contest first!


How interesting of a conversation would the  Non-GMO Project  have about GE crops? Or how about any of the other anti-GE entries? Would you hear an exploration of ideas that you haven;t yet encountered, or a rehash of the usual topics in this debate? Perhaps this may be a worthy appeal to those who are not keen on genetic engineering ; if you vote for us, as a result you may get to see or hear an interesting, dynamic, and focused conversation with Michael Pollan on GMOs. We can;t promise it because a lot of it depends upon him (and the specific details of the prize that are not quite clear to us at this point), but this is what we would like to do. Can any other entrant say they;ve thought this far ahead?


Although the changemakers site had a countdown this evening that suggested the voting would be over at midnight, in a bizarre fashion it was counting down the minutes to  the last day  to vote. Weird. But this means that you still have a chance to pitch in and be a part of this voting effort. The polls close at 6 pm EST on Wednesday, so please  take a few minutes to pump up our numbers just a little more  . Let;s get to  1,000 votes  before this ends!


Thanks for your support, and keep an eye here in the next week as we watch the end of the final day of voting, and await the official announcement from changemakers!













Document Number: 8240 



 Reason #5: The Grant 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 28 October 2009 


Overnight,  Biofortified gained  a few more votes, strolling up to 824 votes so far. Our competitor, the  Non-GMO Project  has 346 votes, and has been gaining faster than we have in the last day. And I just discovered last night that a stealth competitor that no one noticed has rapidly gained votes. On Monday it was at 2 votes, last night when I saw it it was at 218 votes. Right now it has passed the Non-GMO Project and is sporting 368 total votes!


This entry is the Orwellian-named  Campaign for Healthier Eating in America  , an initiative started by dance instructor and author Jeffrey Smith. Orwellian? Oh yes, it isn;t about getting people to eat more vegetables and cut down on saturated fat ; it is about getting people to eat blue corn instead of yellow corn to avoid GE crops. In fact, on their website, Smith explains how  manufacturers can advertise  in his ;shopping guide,; for a nominal fee of course. What does the money go to?


Interestingly, Smith is on the  Communications Committee  of the Non-GMO Project.


Anyway, for my final reason why I think Biofortified deserves your vote, I will briefly discuss the grant that comes with the grand prize. When we entered, there was no such grant being awarded. Consequently after it was added, we have thought about what we would want to  do  with that money. Here are some of the ideas that we have come up with.


First, there is the constant cost of hosting the site and renewing the domain name. Currently, these costs are footed by myself, and this would relieve me of that pressure on my poor-grad-student finances. These aren;t very much, though so it leaves the vast majority of the grant money for other things.


Frank: &quot;And what about my wardrobe and travel budget?&quot;


Second, we would like to edit and upload some videos about the things we study, and issues we feel are important. A good video editing program would be a very nice thing to have to accomplish that. Windows movie maker just doesn;t cut it!


How about goodies to award to our readers? Periodic contests to win a book, DVD, T-shirt, sack of seeds or other creative prize might get the discussion going on this site. It would also be nice to give something to some of our guest contributors to thank them for their efforts.


And what about T-shirts? I have a T-shirt design in mind for a future fundraiser, and having some starting cash to buy the necessary supplies could make it possible to keep the wheels of Biofortified greased indefinitely.


Finally, we have the potential to significantly expand our capabilities to include more contributors to the blog. There is a plugin for WordPress, the program that runs this site, that can automatically grab posts from other feeds and repost them here. The problem is that the formatting of those posts will look very odd in our site. However, I have been in contact with the author of the plugin, and he is willing to specially tweak it to match our needs. It just might take a little money to do that.


So you can see, we have some ideas as to what we would do with the fortuitously-added $1,500 grant that comes with the grand prize. A  Vote for Biofortified  can be seen as a vote in favor of bringing these things to our site, to benefit our readers and the overall discussion. Let;s keep the pressure on and stay well ahead of the other entries. There are five hours left to vote ; do it for the grant! Be a part of this victory!


Thanks for your support.













Document Number: 7801 



 Reducing the environmental impact of farming 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 12 September 2008 


Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses are rising, but reducing them isn;t as simple as taking cars off the road. A significant part of the problem rests is agriculture. What is it about agriculture that is such a problem and how can we develop changes that will have the most benefit?


Agricultural Life Cycle Analysis is a useful tool in collecting information and making decisions. LCAs take every input and every output into consideration including difficult to consider ouputs like greenhouse gas emissions.


Nathan Pelletier  from Dalhouse Uni in Nova Scotia  presented  his work on ag LCAs at Iowa State recently. He explains that actually conducting LCAs can be difficult. First, we need to define the scope of the analysis. For example, if we consider milk production, we should likely include the cow herself, food, water, and waste. We probably should include all of the inputs and outputs associated with feed production and transportation. We might include the inputs and outputs of pasteurizing and transporting the milk. Also difficult is actually quantifying all of the inputs and outputs to air, soil, and water. Finally, it is difficult to complete a meaningful impact assessment including the identification of ;hotspots; or most negative impacts. Despite the difficulties, LCAs are worth the effort. Nathan reminds us that agriculture produces 1/3 of global warming emissions. The demand for food will will double by 2050, so we need to half the impact to continue a constant level of damage.  Nathan used LCAs to evaluate different cropping systems. He found that fuel and field emissions for a variety of crops was similar for organic and conventional (although he did not account for the vast variability in each category). It;s surprising that the field emissions were not different, but we have to consider that many conventional farms are no-till, instead treating for weeds with pesticides like Roundup. I imagine that the overall number of times a farmer drives over his field is similar, accounting for the similar fuel costs, even though the reasons might differ.


Even though overall farming methods don;t make that large of a difference with regard to greenhouse gasses and other negative outputs, nitrogen fertilizer source has a huge effect. Synthetic N, commonly used in conventional farming, is produced with natural gas, and CO2 is a coproduct of the process. Additionally, because of the type of N that is applied, not all of the applied N is taken up by plants, leaving the rest to evaporate as greenhouse gases or to be washed off the land into streams, rivers, and oceans.


The issue of replacing synthetic fertilizer is very complex, though, because we need to consider so many factors. For one, transporting and spreading organic N sources like manure is costly because a lot of weight is needed to provide enough N to see yield increases. Transporting and spreading all of this weight has its own greenhouse gas issues. If we use manure, the animals need food, water, and land, but some of this is offset because the animals themselves are a valuable output. Crop rotation is another option, but depending on the plants used, more land will be needed to produce the same amount of food. Nathan;s models considered out of season cover crops as non-synthetic N sources, but this method might not produce all of the N that is needed for various crop types and soil types.


It is possible that the complications of alternatives make synthetic nitrogen seem more attractive. However, a lot of these drawbacks might become non-issues when fuel costs cause  synthetic N, P, and K prices to skyrocket  . As you can see, deciding how to best fertilize your crops is far from easy.


One way to at least decrease the N problem is with genetic engineering. Newly developed ;nitrogen use efficient; or NUE crops are able to take up more of the nitrogen that is applied, leaving less to run off. This, in combination with  optomized nitrogen application techniques  , could significantly decrease the amount of N needed. I asked Nathan what he thought about NUE but he said he didn;t know much about it. I hope he looks into it, because NUE crops would be useful no matter what type of fertilizer is used.


Nathan;s work with LCAs included an analysis of various types of animal agriculture, which I;ll save for another post.













Document Number: 3690 



 Regulations killing biofuel innovation 


 by  David Tribe  on 1 October 2010 


Growth of biofuel industry hurt by GMO regulations: study  October 1, 2010&nbsp;Physorg.Com  Faster development of the promising field of cellulosic biofuels ; the renewable energy produced from grasses and trees ; is being significantly hampered by a ;deep and thorny regulatory thicket; that makes almost impossible the use of advanced gene modification methods, researchers say.  In a new study published today in the journal  BioScience  , scientists argue that major regulatory reforms and possibly new laws are needed to allow cellulosic bioenergy to reach its true potential as a form of renewable energy, and in some cases help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.  ;It;s extraordinary that gene modification technology, which has been adapted more rapidly than any other technology in the history of agriculture, and had some profound environmental and economic benefits, has been regulated virtually out of existence for perennial cellulosic biofuels crops,; said Steve Strauss, a distinguished professor of forest biotechnology at Oregon State University, and lead author of the paper.  In the report, the authors noted that exotic plant species pose a serious risk of spread and ecosystem impacts, but face much less stringent regulation or obstacles than genetically engineered crops, which are carefully designed to solve problems, not cause them.  A genetically modified plant in which one or a few genes have been changed is treated as more of a risk than an invasive species that has thousands of new genes, and as a result is often resistant to multiple pests and has novel adaptive traits such as drought and heat tolerance, they said.  Companies that have the technical expertise to conduct advanced research have been forced to stay away from gene modification methods, rather than adopt them to speed breeding progress and insert novel traits important to the growing biofuels industry.  Traits that could be improved with gene modification include enhanced stress tolerance, reduced costs of conversion to liquid fuels, reduced use of water and fertilizer in cultivation, avoiding dispersal into the environment, and synthesis of new, renewable products such as industrial enzymes.


But virtually none of that potential is now being developed, they said.  The current environment poses enormous legal risks that can and have cost some companies millions of dollars in civil lawsuits, the scientists said, sometimes for damages that were more of perception and market issues, than of safety or environmental impact.  ;Even research on traits expressly intended to reduce environmental impacts face the same legal risks and regulatory barriers as other traits,; Strauss said. ;Our own federally-funded research on means to promote ecological containment of gene-modified and exotic biofuel crops has been brought to a standstill by regulations.;  The scientists said that the end result of a gene modification project ; the trait produced, and whether it is safe and beneficial or not ; should be the primary consideration for regulation, not the process used to produce it. Low-level risk and high benefit projects should be identified and allowed to move forward with much less stringent regulation or none at all. They also made several other suggestions for reform to make the overall system less slow, costly and uncertain.  ;It is essential that we create an intelligent regulatory system that does not indiscriminately penalize the gene modification process and obstruct essential field research,; Strauss said. ;The one-size-fits-all style system of today treats the process of genetic modification as inherently dangerous, although many high-level science panels have concluded that the process is at least as safe as conventional breeding methods.;  In some cases, the stringent regulations make it virtually impossible to do the very research needed to adequately understand issues of value and safety, the researchers said.  ;The regulations in place, forthcoming, and those that have been imposed by legal actions result in the presumption that all forms of gene modified trees and grasses are ;plant pests; or ;noxious weeds; until extensive experimentation and associated documentation ;prove; otherwise,; the scientists wrote in their report.  Solving these problems will require new ways of thinking and strong scientific and political leadership to create a regulatory system that enables, rather than arbitrarily blocks, the use of gene modification as a tool to accelerate and diversify the breeding of perennial biofuel crops, the researchers concluded.  Provided by Oregon State University













Document Number: 665 



 The regulatory bottleneck for biotech specialty crops 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 20 October 2010 


Speciality crops. Image from Colorado State University.


We often hear that there are only two genetically engineered traits on the market ; Roundup Ready and Bt. And, for the most part, that;s correct. There are a few other commercialized traits, such as virus resistant papaya and squash, but why aren;t there more? We see all sorts of papers about awesome genetically engineered traits, from nemotode resistance to nutritional enhancement to really specialized traits like nicotine free tobacco and allergen free peanuts. There are so many traits that we even started a  list  at Biofortified in an attempt to keep track of them all.


These traits have been developed and tested for efficacy, often with public funding, but haven;t make it to the commercialization stage. All that;s needed is a little breeding to get these traits ready for market. Why don;t we see them in the grocery store? UC Davis researchers Kent Bradford and Jamie Miller have collected a huge amount of data on genetically engineered traits and presented it in their recent paper  The regulatory bottleneck for biotech specialty crops  . It;s a short but insightful piece. Don;t forget to check out the supplementary material that has lists of all the different traits they found described in the literature.


Here;s the first two paragraphs to whet your appetite:


Specialty crops, which include fruits, vegetables, nuts, turf and ornamental crops, are important components of human diets and provide environmental amenities. In 2007, such crops represented ~40% of the $140 billion in total agricultural receipts, despite being cultivated on just 4% of the total cropped area. Although tomato was the first genetically modified (GM) food crop to be commercialized in 1994, the only GM specialty crop traits currently marketed are virus-resistant papaya and squash, insect-resistant sweet corn and violet carnations. All of these received initial regulatory approval over 10 years ago. As a group, GM specialty crops have garnered limited market share (the exception is GM papaya resistant to papaya ringspot virus, which now produces 90% of Hawaiis crop). In contrast, GM field crops, such as soybean, maize, cotton and canola, have come to dominate the markets in countries where they have been released. What is responsible for this disparity in the commercialization of GM field crops versus specialty crops?  One possibility is that the dearth of GM specialty crops indicates a lack of current research or of beneficial traits for crop improvement through genetic engineering. Alternatively, research may have continued but progression through the regulatory process to the marketplace may have failed. Anticipated lack of market acceptance could have stopped either research or regulatory submissions. To find out why specialty crops with GM traits have fared so poorly, we have analyzed the research, regulatory and market pipeline to determine which steps in the process may be responsible for the limited range of commercially available products.


The researchers conclude that the primary barrier to genetically engineered specialty crops is steep regulatory costs. These costs can be met by companies producing traits for commodity seeds because there;s a lot of commodity seeds to be sold. This isn;t the case for speciality crops. Additionally, they argue that it doesn;t make sense to require regulation for traits that have been produced with genetic engineering that could be produced with other methods because there isn;t any evidence of harm coming from the genetic engineering process itself.


Miller JK, &amp; Bradford KJ (2010). The regulatory bottleneck for biotech specialty crops.  Nature biotechnology, 28  (10), 1012-4 PMID:  20944582













Document Number: 781 



 Release of sterilised moths avoids the need for refuges in cotton growing 


 by  David Tribe  on 17 November 2010 


&nbsp;Success in integrated pest management of pink boll worm in Arizona provides encouraging news for both the environment and for cotton growers. A two-pronged strategy involving insect protected cotton and biological control with wide scale release of sterile moths virtually eliminates resistance to the genetically inbuilt cotton insect protection system in pink boll worm pests.


Summary of the original scientific publication:  Suppressing resistance to Bt cotton with sterile insect releases


Bruce E Tabashnik, Mark S Sisterson , Peter C Ellsworth, Timothy J Dennehy, Larry Antilla, Leighton Liesner, Mike Whitlow, Robert T Staten, Jeffrey A Fabrick, Gopalan C Unnithan, Alex J Yelich, Christa Ellers-Kirk, Virginia S Harpold, Xianchun Li &amp; Yves Carrire


Abstract


Genetically engineered crops that produce insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are grown widely for pest control. However, insect adaptation can reduce the toxins; efficacy. The predominant strategy for delaying pest resistance to Bt crops requires refuges of non-Bt host plants to provide susceptible insects to mate with resistant insects. Variable farmer compliance is one of the limitations of this approach. Here we report the benefits of an alternative strategy where sterile insects are released to mate with resistant insects and refuges are scarce or absent. Computer simulations show that this approach works in principle against pests with recessive or dominant inheritance of resistance. During a large-scale, four-year field deployment of this strategy in Arizona, resistance of pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) to Bt cotton did not increase. A multitactic eradication program that included the release of sterile moths reduced pink bollworm abundance by &gt;99%, while eliminating insecticide sprays against this key invasive pest.


Nature Biotechnology  Published online: 7 November 2010 | doi:10.1038/nbt.1704













Document Number: 2958 



 Reuters report ; U.S. farmers urge sanctions against EU;s GM crop ban | Reuters 


 by  David Tribe  on 28 July 2010 


U.S. farmers urge sanctions against EU;s GM crop ban | Reuters   In this item Reuters reveal that the largest U.S. farm group has urged the Obama administration to begin steps towards imposing sanctions on the European Union in a longrunning dispute over the EU;s treatment of genetically modified crops.  It says that he American Farm Bureau Federation, in comments given to the administration on Monday, complained the EU still has not complied with a 2006 World Trade Organization ruling against its ;de facto; moratorium on approving new varieties of biotech crops for sale in the 27-nation bloc.  ;The inability of the EU to operate a timely and predictable regulatory process ended U.S. corn exports (to the EU) in 1998 and has reduced corn byproducts substantially,; the Farm Bureau said in its recommendations for President Barack Obama;s National Export Initiative.   ;If the EU does not immediately begin to make timely, science-based regulatory decisions on pending and future applications, soybean exports also are at serious risk,; the farm group said.  ;USTR should initiate a retaliation proceeding against the EU to force compliance with the WTO ruling on GMOs (genetically-modified organisms),; the group said.













Document Number: 8774 



 Rising rice prices not caused by biofuels 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 24 April 2008 


Many people have been fast to blame food shortages around the world on government acceptance of biofuels. There do seem to be some connections, but it;s not as simple as it sounds.  Rice, wheat, and corn/soy need completely different soils and climates. That;s why we see a lot of corn and soy grown in Iowa and Illinois, rice in California, and wheat in Kansas. The first generation (or seed based) biofuels have focused on corn, soy, and rapeseed in Europe. None of these grow where rice can grow. Therefore, the amount of rice planted and harvested has nothing to do with land prices or a move to biofuel crops.  Some people have said that the rising costs of corn have caused people to buy rice instead. I can imagine this happening in cultures where both starches are used (such as Mexico and South America) but corn has never been a staple food in south east Asia.  So, what is causing the rice shortage? Rising fuel costs have also increased the prices of agricultural inputs fertilizer and pesticide. Withholding these inputs can cause decreased yield. Floods have wiped out rice fields through force, and rice plants submerged for more than a few days will die. Increased demand without an increase of supply will of course cause a shortage as well.  I;m certainly not the first person to make the disconnection between the rice shortage and biofuels. Philip Bowring of the International Herald Tribune  writes  :


Some of the immediate causes of the price spike for rice are similar to that of other crops. The cost of fertilizer, closely related to energy, is the most obvious. Futures speculation by financial intermediaries may also have played a part ; though rice futures trading is small compared with other major crops.


But biofuels cannot be blamed because rice is not used for them. Nor has there been any major harvest setback among the top Asian producers. Instead, we are now seeing the impact of a series of longer term trends, some of which probably cannot be reversed. In no particular order these are:


Almost zero growth in land suitable for rice production. Soybeans, corn and wheat acreage can expand in South America or in North America and Europe. Rice ; which ideally requires flat land, lots of water and a warm climate ; has no equivalent.


Indeed, rice bowl areas of China, South Asia and Southeast Asia are losing land to urbanization and in some cases to salination caused by dams built for hydroelectric purposes and other reasons.


Bowring says that global rice prices were depressed by subsidy programs for rice farmers in the US, India, and some other countries artificially lowered the price of rice. Cheap rice has encouraged some cultures to abandon their traditional starch sources, increasing overall rice demand.  A beautifully written  article  by Mong Palatino at UPI Asia Online describes the historical origins of the rice shortage in the Philippines specifically. Mong says on his  blog  that the World Bank discouraged the government of the Philippines from providing subsidies for rice farmers, even though the country is the world;s biggest rice importer. Farmers there choose to plant the aptly named cash crops instead of rice. Mong says:


The global rice crisis is an opportunity to review the food security programs of Southeast Asian nations. What steps are being taken to mitigate hunger in the region? What are the reform measures which should be implemented to improve agricultural productivity?


Now is also the time to minimize or even abandon the planting of biofuels or agrofuels in Southeast Asia. Rice and food production should be prioritized.


I agree. Food should definitely come first, and all countries of the world should work to improve rice yields in Southeast Asia. Hopefully, they will use a  combination of genetic engineering and organic cultivation methods  . Changes in government policies are paramount to solving these food security problems. A unique aid program called the Millennium Challenge Corporation  has pledged $21 million to reduce corruption  in the Philippines. Once that is accomplished, the program will help the country develop a plan to improve agriculture and infrastructure. The  MCC  is also working to decrease corruption in  Indonesia  .  Bowring concludes his editorial by saying:


The current hand-wringing by international agencies and grandstanding by politicians is worthless without a better understanding of the factors behind the rice situation and the anti-market forces that have held back production and enhanced consumption.


It seems to me that the understanding is out there, in sources as diverse as an Asian correspondent for a major British newspaper and a youth activist blogger from the Philippines.  Note: I found Mong;s article through a Google news search for ;rice shortage cause;. And people say that bloggers can;t be journalists!  Beautiful image of rice by  mtyto  via Flickr.













Document Number: 3296 



 Risks of the gaps 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 1 April 2009 


Editor;s Note: The following post was part of an April Fools Joke.  Go here  for more details.


By William Harvey:


As I always say,  ;All we know is still infinitely less than all that remains unknown.; As a statement of fact, it is plainly obvious, but what is less obvious is that it also makes a splendid guiding principle for life.


I try as best I can to base my life in the best that science has to offer, but I know (more than most it seems) that often times, science does not have all the information we need to make decisions. In many areas of science, from global warming to evolutionary biology, there are gaps in our knowledge that make deciding on a course of action difficult. So I think we need to return to some of the fundamentals.


Some scientists say that we don;t know enough about global warming, that the gaps in our knowledge of climate science are too big to make policy decisions based upon it. We could just listen to the majority of climate scientists, but ;consensus; is not a reliable guide for truth ; it merely reflects the current state of knowledge, which in science, is always changing. But what is not changing is that large corporations continue to profit off of climate science denialism, and the risk of inaction outweighs the risk of action.


In evolution, creationists often point to ;gaps; in evolution, such as between one fossil and another, and are fond at pointing out when a new fossil turns up that the number of gaps have increased. I think they have a very valid point, and it got me thinking about food safety in the same terms.  We are currently grappling with huge gaps in our food safety net, with salmonella-contaminated peanuts and more, and people are calling for more regulations and more checks to fill in those gaps.


In the case of genetic engineering, I have come across studies that claim that GMOs are safe based upon a protein analysis here, or a microarray there. What these researchers are admitting by even doing this research is that there are huge safety risks involved in genetic modification, and they are hard at work filling those gaps in the GMO safety net after-the-fact.


Or post-mortem, I should say. A scientist and author, Jeffrey Smith, has chronicled a laundry list of food safety hazards created by genetic engineering, from dead sheep to increases in allergies. Merely from growing GMO soy in England in 1999, the harvest at the end of the season was enough to increase soy allergies by a whopping 50% earlier the same year. Genetic engineers are frantically trying to figure out what went wrong, while nations around the world (except for the totalitarian regimes of China, Brazil, Cuba, Australia, and the US) continue to reject GMOs.


How did these food risks slip through the thin safety net? Followup studies on the proteins introduced have found nothing, nor have studies that look at the changes in gene expression caused by introducing a foreign gene. Apparently, the changes caused by genetic engineering are less than those caused by traditional breeding.


But every time they close one gap, they open up two more. Sure, the gene expression is below the natural variation, but this just means that that is not the reason why GMOs are unsafe. That gap is filled, but it opens up even more gaps ; researchers now have to investigate every single gene that was affected! If those genes are not sufficient to explain what we think is going on, then they have to sink deeper into the mire of endless scientific experimentation.


You may call it ;moving the goalposts,; but as long as science continues to not find the danger that we are looking for in GMOs, the danger must still lurk somewhere in the gaps in our knowledge. Only by knowing the totality of everything there is to know about each GMO, from genomics, to transcriptomics, proteomics, and epi-genomics, phenomics, and nutrigenomics will we ever have enough information to state that a GMO is safe to eat.


This may make the pro-biotech folks balk ; how can they ever pay for all of this ; but that is the genius of the precautionary principle. By weighing down GMO approval with more exacting regulatory hurdles, it will not be worth it to try to use genetic engineering at all ; and the use of this corporate technology will dry up. As long as we can stay one step ahead of the science with regulatory policies, we can prevent this scourge from continuing to spread all over the planet.


William Harvey is the Director of Global GMO Policy at Greenpeace International. He makes his own Biodynamic Wine from the safety of Marin County, which is GE Free.













Document Number: 8998 



 Romania, GE, and Changing a Nation 


 by  Kevin Folta  on 14 September 2010 


The last talk of the IHC2010 session on transgenic plants and public policy was Dr. Carmen Popescu. Her first words hit me in the chest like a sledge hammer and I;ll save them for the conclusion of this entry. Dr. Popescu is a scientist in Romania, working at one of the country;s several crop testing laboratories. The information herein is paraphrased from her presentation.


First let;s talk about Romania. I;m no expert, but I;ve hosted Romanian scientists in my lab. It is a country and people trying to join the highly industrialized nations of the world. There is a desire to move from the historical challenges of being a former Eastern Bloc nation into a modern economic power. Right now a sagging economy is weighing heavily on the country and impairing their ascent.


Until recently, one of their strengths was agriculture, and one of their major crops was potato. In particular, they used Bt-producing transgenic potato to resist attack of the Colorado Beetle, a beetle clearly out of its jurisdiction in Romania. Switching to Bt potato saved $10 million USD a year for farmers, $4 million in insecticides and $6 million in their application. Here transgenic technology made the farmer more competitive and helped Romania grow as a food exporter.


Romania also grew herbicide resistant soybeans. Before 2007 they were net exporters of soy, forming the basis of a trade surplus for the growing nation. Romania went from producing 199,200 ha of soy in 2007 to 41,400 ha in 2009. They went from a net exporter of soy to importing it from the USA, Argentina and Brazil. Bt resistant potatoes were now off the table, returning to the high costs and environmental impact of conventional potato cultivation. Almost overnight the country went from positive trade balance to deficit, at least in part due to losing transgenic technology.


What happened in 2007 to change this? Drought? Flood? Vampires? Other disaster? No. Romania joined the European Union and had to abandon agriculture involving transgenic crops to comply with EU mandates. A country in the process of taking off the training wheels gets an anti-science stick in the spokes.


While these facts were sad, the most surprising comment was Dr. Popescu;s opening comment. She said, ;I work for a government lab, so I have to remain neutral on GMO;. If my doctor said that he had to stay neutral on vaccines, if my high school biology teacher had to stay neutral on evolution, if my history professor had to stay neutral on if the holocaust occurred, I;d be equally blown away.


As a scientist living in a world dominated by evidence, I was amazed that the person reporting the before-and-after impacts of growing GE crops reserved comment on the data she was about to present. It shows the power of the anti-science, anti-biotech forces, and how her synthesis could potential imperil her position as a scientist in her nation.


I certainly trust Dr. Popescu. It is amazing that a proven scientist in a nation that once benefited from transgenic technology has to watch her words to avoid causing trouble in the EU. It also is sad that in order to get into the EU clubhouse a nation must check it;s scientific soul at the door. Shouldn;t science, reason and evidence dictate political decisions?


Maybe someday.













Document Number: 4384 



 Romantic notions of farming on natural principles ignore the realities of food demand growing without extra land being available. 


 by  David Tribe  on 26 March 2011 


From  The Scientific Alliance  (UK) newsletter.  25th March 2011


Politicians should be unprincipled&nbsp;


Sticking to principles is, you may think, an admirable quality. Indeed, describing anyone as unprincipled can hardly be regarded as a compliment. But principles define our way of thinking and making decisions and can blind us to evidence which is inconsistent with our world view. Objectivity is something we should value in all walks of life and in policymaking it should certainly be the norm. However, politicians are all too often big on principles, despite the reality that the most successful governments are often of the pragmatic centre rather than based on doctrinaire politics of any particular shade.


A big principle which currently dominates transport policy is that private cars, road transport generally and short distance air travel are intrinsically bad and must be minimised. In the energy field, the mantra of renewables  uneconomic and unreliable wind and solar power  blinds policymakers to the need to maintain an affordable and reliable power supply while maintaining the fiction that current biofuels are of net benefit. And in agriculture, romantic notions of farming on natural principles ignore the realities of food demand growing without extra land being available;  &nbsp;(original edited)  ;  Transport, you might argue, is to some extent a luxury once the essentials of life have been taken care of (although I doubt that many voters would buy that one). A reliable energy supply is vital for the whole of modern society but, at a pinch, power rationing might be bearable on occasions. But food is absolutely vital. Society is arguably only three meals away from breakdown. What seems important now quickly slips down the priority list when food is scarce.


This point seems to have been taken by the scientific and political establishment, with the concept of sustainable intensification of agriculture being the new received wisdom. But, in parallel, the EU continues to encourage organic farming for its supposed environmental benefits. At the same time, effective crop protection products are under increasing pressure as part of a vain struggle to make the world risk free. Because the principles of environmental protection and safety run deep in the European psyche, we are in danger making our farmers less productive and competitive at a time when the global demand for food continues to rise steadily.


And not just the EU: if an article in the Farmers Guardian (Agroecology is the key to food security  UN) is anything to go by, the entire world is set on this course. Actually, for many developing countries where crop yields are often pitifully low, almost any cultivation method  including organic and similar approaches  will produce an improvement. But the author of the report, Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, rejects intensive farming for systems which mimic nature. By this view, subsistence farmers should be encouraged to have a better level of subsistence, but not to develop any further. Yet another fashionable principle is in play here: encouraging poorer countries not to develop as we in the prosperous North have.


It seems that some principles are shared by much of the political class, but not necessarily by those who elect them. In the fields of transport, energy supply and farming, governments appear to be intent on taking away current freedoms because they believe these principles trump them. When a mainstream party has the courage to break ranks and offer a more pragmatic approach, it will be interesting to see how many votes these principles are worth.


The Scientific Alliance  St John;s Innovation Centre  Cowley Road  Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB4 0WS













Document Number: 1809 



 Rotten corn 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 18 June 2009 


Aspergillus infected corn. Iowa State University Extension.


The  National Corn Growers Association  is an important trade group. Their mission is to advocate and lobby on behalf of corn growers, or as they say to create and increase opportunities for corn growers. At the Maize Genetics Conference, I got to listen to their Chair of the Research and Business Development Action Team, Pam Johnson (you can find my summary of her remarks in my post  Research and the Recession  ). She was a little overenthusiastic, but generally made sense, advocating for better cooperation between government and industry to produce more useful research. I hate to say it, but, was all that just for show?


Like any special interest group, NCGA puts out information that is biased toward their own agenda. This is nothing new, every special interest group from Greenpeace to AgBioWorld does it. I know it happens, and yet, I was still shocked yesterday when I read the report  Research Shines Light on Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone  (  full paper  ). The cause of the hypoxic zone has been thoroughly researched by multiple respected organizations including  NOAA  and  USGS  , but NCGA throws all that research aside in this report.


Lets not blame nitrogen fertilization of corn, they say. Instead, its increased population causing more sewage and the fertilization of lawns (really, they say that). Some of their points are valid, but taken as a whole, the report may as well be an April Fools Joke (unfortunately, its not April, and Im not laughing).


If I was expecting bias, then why does this matter? It matters because there is theoretically supposed to be collaboration between academia, government, NGOs, consumer groups, industry, and trade groups. All of these stakeholders must cooperate in order to conduct risk analysis, to decide research agendas, to form policy. Ultimately, they must all work together and compromise, finding ways that each stakeholder may benefit the most. When any one of those stakeholders goes off on their own and twists science for their own agenda, everyone loses. The twister loses status, becomes less respected. Everyone else loses because a viewpoint is effectively removed from the conversation. (Yes, I know this is an idealized view, but this is the way things are supposed to be, darn it!)


Because of bad science, or rather, bad use of science, many organizations have no credibility in my book (at least when it comes to certain issues). Every piece of information should be corroborated with several reliable sources but it gets much more difficult when sources become less reliable!


One example is  UCS  . They do great work on a variety of topics, but when it comes to genetic engineering, they let their agenda twist science too much. In their recent report,  Failure to Yield  , they apparently didnt bother to consult any experts on biotechnology or agriculture, or only talked to scientists who were too ideological to report reality.


Now, unfortunately, I have to add NCGA to the list of organizations from whom I must take reports with a whole bowl of salt, instead of just a pinch.


NCGA would have far better served their constituents and everyone else by admitting that N runoff is a big problem. Then, they could push for more research into  NUE  (nitrogen use efficient) crops, alternative fertilization schemes like injection instead of spreading, rotation schemes that aid in soil fertility, prevention of fertilizer runoff with buffer strips on waterways and cover crops there is a lot to be done! Now that NCGA has said there is no problem, who will push for research into these alternatives?


Update: I was thinking about this a bit more last night and wanted to add a few more comments about the report.


The report seems to make two claims: first, there is no Gulf dead zone, and second, if there is a dead zone, its not due to corn. Ill tackle the second claim first


Lawn fertilization  is  contributing to hypoxia, at least at the local level. As the NCGA report says, we actually harvest a good portion of the N applied to corn fields, while none of the N applied to lawns is harvested. In fact, there is currently a watershed protection/rehabilitation project going on right in my neighborhood. Our stream is so polluted with N and P runoff that its hypoxic. Combine that with tons of fecal coliform and more N from dog poop runoff and weve got a problem!


Valuable information on conservation buffers is still flowing from Bear Creek in Story County, Iowa. A riparian buffer first established in 1990 on the Ron Risdal farm has been studied extensively for ten years (USDA NRCS via Wikipedia)


A collaborative of community members, the City of Ames, Iowa State and USDA researchers are working to build buffer strips of trees and grasses along the stream, along with an educational campaign encouraging people to use less fertilizer and pick up after their pets. I hope this effort is being repeated across the country, especially for golf courses.


A bit of an aside: similar problems exist along streams in farmers fields, as they try to plant as much of their land as possible, instead of leaving riparian buffer strips to absorb fertilizer (chemical or manure) and pesticides. Work done by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Leopold Center of Iowa State has shown that  many benefits  can come of riparian buffer strips, which can (among other things): cut nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff as much as 80% and cut sediment in surface runoff as much as 90%.


In my Sustainable Ag Colloquium class, weve had speakers discuss using the buffer strip as an additional source of income, growing fruit trees and bushes as well as other crops that can be sold locally for relatively high prices. The area may also be used for recreation.


The report also mentions sewage as a source of N. I dont know what is happening specifically in the Midwest, but I know sewage is a huge problem in the Chesapeake. Marylands sewage and water treatment systems were made at a time when they didnt anticipate such population growth. Consequently, whenever it rains, the sewers overflow into the streets and right into the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Not just disgusting, its bad for the environment and human health. Id be surprised if other cities didnt have similar issues.


All of that said, while lawns and sewage are sources of N that need to be addressed, its preposterous to say that N runoff from corn fields isnt a factor. On a perfect field in a perfect year, little N would be lost, but we rarely get perfection. Instead, we get ill timed rains that wash away fertilizer and fields that drain right into watersheds.


As I said before the update, NCGA would be better off admitting a role in N runoff and working with other organizations to solve the problem. As for denying the existence of the dead zone, such talk completely contradicts decades of work by USGS and others. NCGA denies any correlation between hypoxic area and input of N from waterflow, but  this graph  by Louisiana U researchers is quite clear. I dont know what happened every year, but here are some examples. In 1993 there was a great flood that washed extra N into the Missippi River basin, which is correlated with an increase in hypoxic area. In 2000 there was a drought so very little N was washed into the basin, correlated with a steep decrease in hypoxic area. In 2008 there were terrible floods in Iowa, so Im surprised that year isnt higher, perhaps the floods were local?


I wonder if I could get a guest post from one of the grad students at LA U to help explain the correlations. As for the fish and shrimp catch data presented in the report, I just wanted to point out that the Gulf of Mexico is pretty big. I dont know how much the catch data for the whole Gulf reflects on the area that is said to be hypoxic. It would be a lot better to have research vessels do catch and release in the areas that are supposed to be hypoxic to determine a correlation between O2 levels in the water and various marine species, or at least collect information from fishermen in those areas. Maybe this has been done, but I must go do an experiment myself, no time to look this up.


This report, as is typical, shows that more studies need to be done and better models need to be made. It doesnt invalidate all that is known about hypoxia. I just wish that NCGA had tempered their tone rather than saying that all of the other researchers are wrong. If they are wrong, then prove it! Im not holding my breath, but perhaps the fish have to.













Document Number: 9007 



 Route of chemical delivery and amount delivered to site of action matters in deciding chemical toxicity 


 by  David Tribe  on 20 September 2010 


Route of chemical delivery and amount delivered to site of action matters in deciding the degree of toxicity of a chemical. We know that direct injection of either caffeine (or herbicides) into embryos can easily damage the embryo, but humans can&nbsp;safely&nbsp;drink caffeine in moderation.


Takashi Kobayashi, Atsuyuki Nishida, Akane Kurokawa, and Fumio Ariyuki  (1995)  Cardiovascular Malformations Induced by Caffeine and Phenobarbital in Chick Embryos  AATEX 3. 17-27


The usage of chick embryos for studying the mechanism of cardiovascular malformations caused by chemicals was studied. Caffeine, well known as a teratogen for the cardiovascular system of chick embryos, was administered at the dose of 3.0 mg per egg to chick embryos from two different breeds between incubation day 2 (ID2, Hamburger and Hamilton stage 14) and 5 (Hamburger and Hamilton stage 27). The eggs were incubated until ID12 to examine the cardiovascular malformation. Treatment at Hamburger and Hamilton stage 19 (ID3) was highly lethal and treatment at this stage and at stages 23-24 (ID4) induced a high degree of cardiovascular malformation in the embryos from both breeds. The embryotoxicity caused by caffeine in the two different breeds similarly varied with the developmental stage of treatment.


Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., Lpez, S.L., Carrasco, A.E. 2010.  Glyphosate-based herbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signalling  . Chem. Res. Toxicol., August 9.


The broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate is widely used in agriculture worldwide. There has been ongoing controversy regarding the possible adverse effects of glyphosate on the environment and on human health. Reports of neural defects and craniofacial malformations from regions where glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are used led us to undertake an embryological approach to explore the effects of low doses of glyphosate in development.  Xenopus laevis  embryos were incubated with 1/5000 dilutions of a commercial GBH. The treated embryos were highly abnormal with marked alterations in cephalic and neural crest development and shortening of the anteriorposterior (A-P) axis. Alterations on neural crest markers were later correlated with deformities in the cranial cartilages at tadpole stages. Embryos injected with pure glyphosate showed very similar phenotypes. Moreover, GBH produced similar effects in chicken embryos, showing a gradual loss of rhombomere domains, reduction of the optic vesicles, and microcephaly. This suggests that glyphosate itself was responsible for the phenotypes observed, rather than a surfactant or other component of the commercial formulation. A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in  Xenopus  embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development. The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH in agricultural fields.


( See a discussion of  Paganelli et al at Biofortified Forum  )













Document Number: 5844 



 Safety Assessment of Transgenic Plants 


 by  David Tribe  on 10 September 2010 


The Safety Assessment of Transgenic Plants in which&nbsp;Gene Expression Has Been Modified


Bruce M. Chassy


ISB News Report Sept 2010 (pdf)


Engineered crops have become a significant component of modern agriculture. Prior to release for commercial&nbsp;planting, a thorough pre-market&nbsp;regulatory review focuses on any potential agricultural and environmental&nbsp;impacts of genetically engineered crops, as well as any differences in food safety that may be associated with&nbsp;the introduction of novel genes and their products. The regulatory review process is a comparative one in which&nbsp;differences between a new transgenic crop variety and its conventional counterparts are assessed, followed by a&nbsp;determination if any changes that have occurred have introduced new risks or heightened existing risks. To date,&nbsp;the great majority of transgenic cultivars that have passed regulatory review contain genes that encode proteins&nbsp;that confer desired novel traits such as insect or herbicide resistance.


Alteration of endogenous gene expression can be an alternative&nbsp;&nbsp;method of producing useful phenotypes in&nbsp;plants. For example, RNA-associated mechanisms can be used to switch off genes, while up-regulation of specific&nbsp;transcription factors can be used to enhance expression and thereby modify a plants growth or response to stress.


Since neither of these two mechanisms&nbsp;necessarily depends on the expression of a new heterologous protein(s), it&nbsp;is reasonable to ask if the safety assessment paradigm developed for and applied to transgenic plants that express&nbsp;novel proteins is appropriate for genetically engineered plants in which gene expression has been altered.


This article briefly summarizes the conclusions of a recent paper1 that examines the suitability of the currently


used comparative safety paradigm to crops in which gene expression has been altered. Parrott et al. (2010) also


serves as an up-to-date review of the safety assessment process.













Document Number: 740 



 Risk assessment and mitigation of AquAdvantage salmon 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 16 October 2010 


Miso glazed Atlantic salmon by ulterior epicure via Flickr.


Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc. has recently applied for deregulation of AquAdvantage salmon  salmon that have been genetically engineered to grow faster than wild-type salmon. These salmon have the potential benefit of providing high-quality animal protein without putting additional pressure on declining wild fish stocks.


However, these salmon present some potential risks that warrant examination. First, effects on the health and welfare of the animals must be determined. Second, if genetically engineered salmon were to escape and become established in the wild, native salmon populations or other aspects of the ecosystem could be adversely affected. Third, this genetically engineered trait or some part of the development or rearing process might have health consequences for consumers. These risks must be fully addressed before deregulation can be considered.


The science behind the salmon


In 1989, the founder animal of the AquAdvantage salmon line was created by injecting an Atlantic salmon (  Salmo salar  ) egg with a gene construct (termed opAFP-GHc2;  figure 1a  ) that contained a promoter and termination region from the ocean pout (  Zoarces americanus  ) antifreeze gene and a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon (  Oncorhynchus tshawytscha  ). The ocean pout antifreeze promoter was previously shown to be constitutive, or continually expressing, in salmon (1), in contrast to the native growth hormone promoter in salmon, which only expresses in response to certain environmental cues such as day length and temperature (2).


The Chinook and Atlantic salmon growth hormone genes are very similar. A BLAST comparison of the mRNA for each (GenBank  S50867.1  and  X14305.1  , respectively) found 90% (1013/1126) of the nucleotides were identical and only 6% gaps (70/1126). A comparison of the protein sequences found 95% (198/210) of the amino acids were identical, 98% (205/210) of the amino acids were similar, and 0% gaps.


A single copy of the construct was integrated into the Atlantic salmon genome. The genomic sequence flanking the insert on both sides consisted of a 35 base pair repeat, and there was no evidence of mutational effects due to insertion (3). During transgene integration, a rearrangement of the construct took place (termed EO-1;  figure 1b  ), which resulted in the integration of a small fragment of the plasmid into the salmon genome. This fragment did not contain any coding sequences. The promoter was rearranged such that part of the promoter was integrated downstream of the termination region. There is evidence that the truncated promoter has reduced expression compared to the full promoter in salmon (4), but the truncated promoter remains functional. The founder animal was backcrossed to wild-type Atlantic salmon, and the EO-1 gene sequence was identical in the second and fourth generations, indicating that the insertion is stable (3).


Figure 1a. Gene construct, termed opAFP-GHc2, used to develop AquAdvantage salmon as integrated in the pUC18 plasmid. Figure 1b. Gene construct as integrated into the salmon genome, termed EO-1 (3). Not to scale.


Animal growth, health, and welfare


Figure 2. Wild type Coho salmon and salmon over expressing growth hormone that have been exposed to different environments (6).


Salmon have wide variability of phenotypes that allow them to adapt to a variety of environmental conditions. This phenotypic plasticity means that even genetically similar fish may have very different phenotypes when exposed to different environments. For example, Coho salmon (  Oncorhynchus kisutch  ) overexpressing growth hormone from sockeye salmon (  Oncorhynchus nerka  ) (5) showed different phenotypes depending on environment. Transgenic fish fed to satiation in hatchery conditions grew almost three times longer than controls while transgenic fish in a simulated natural environment grew to be only 20% longer than controls (6), as shown in  figure 2  . AquAdvantage salmon are significantly larger than wild-type siblings under hatchery conditions (p&lt;0.0001) (7), as shown in  figure 3  . It is not expected that AquAdvantage salmon would attain such large sizes in a non-hatchery environment.


Figure 3. Mean body size with standard deviation, maximum, and minimum body size in grams of four groups of salmon: diploid and triploid AquAdvantage salmon expressing transgenic growth hormone and diploid and triploid wild type salmon. N = 309, 369, 306, and 464 respectively (7).


.


.


.


.


Many studies have found that overexpression of growth hormone can result in changes in a variety of traits, including behavior, swimming ability, and body structure in salmon. Body malformations found in salmon and carp overexpressing growth hormone can mean the fish might not be able to swim as fast as wild type fish (8). However, these problems may not be due to the presence of the transgene. For example, vertebral malformation in wild type salmon may result from a variety of causes, including fast growth rate (9). Malformations may also be due to the triploid induction process as described below.


The first generations of AquAdvantage salmon had body malformations at a higher incidence than in wild type controls, but later generations had rates similar to control salmon (7). Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc. has submitted to the FDAs Center for Veterinary Medicine (7) ten years of data indicating no difference in animal health and welfare between AquAdvantage and wild type salmon, but that information is not publically available.


Preventing escape


On 25 August 2010, Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc. submitted an environmental assessment (7) for AquAdvantage salmon to the FDAs Center for Veterinary Medicine as part of their request for deregulation. The request is isolated to one specific egg production facility and one specific fish production facility, not for an unconditional deregulation. Aqua Bounty plans to use many redundant systems, including biological, physical, and environmental, at these facilities to prevent release of genetically engineered salmon into the environment.


Biological containment


One of the most effective measures that will be used to prevent AquAdvantage salmon from breeding with wild salmon is the use of triploid fish. Most wild type fish are diploids, having two copies of each chromosome, while triploids have three copies. Triploid fish do not produce gametes, so are sterile. Triploidy can be induced by treating fertilized fish eggs with pressure, temperature, or chemicals. The treatment itself can have a negative effect, as shown by experiments comparing triploid and diploid fish that had the same treatment to non-treated diploids and triplods that had been produced with other methods (10). Exact treatment parameters can be adjusted to reduce negative effects and increase the incidence of triploid induction for each fish species and variety.


Pressure treatment will be used to produce triploid AquAdvantage salmon. This treatment was successful at creating 98.9% or more triploids, with 1.1% or fewer eggs remaining diploid (11). Testing of each batch of eggs will be conducted, and any batch that contains 5% or more diploids will be destroyed (7,11). Any diploid individuals are capable of reproduction, so the possibility of their escape must be controlled with other measures.


Figure 4. 2006 record grass carp weighing 59 pounds, 12 ounces caught by Mark Kronyak of Middletown, New Jersey (12).


Triploid fish of many species have been used for at least ten years in countries around the world in commercial fisheries and recreational fishing areas to prevent farmed or stocked fish from breeding with wild fish. Trout, carp, and salmon are commonly stocked as triploids and can reach very large sizes, as in  Figure 4  (12). Larger body size and higher quality meat result because the animals do not undergo the stress of reproduction (10,13).


Triploids cells are larger than diploids because of the increase in the amount of DNA in the nuclei. This results in an increased cell size, although overall body size is not larger compared to pre-reproduction age diploids. Having a larger cell size means the cell surface area available for gas exchange is decreased relative to the volume of the cell, compared to wild type cells, resulting in increased oxygen demand of triploid fish compared to diploids (10).


Triploid and diploid fish in most species are indistinguishable from one another until after maturity, when diploids will divert energy to reproduction and triploids use that energy to grow in size. Triploid Chinook salmon are phenotypically indistinguishable from and have very similar gene expression as diploids except when under extreme stress conditions. Reduced immune function of triploids may be due to the pressure treatment or due to abnormal gene interactions arising from the third complement of genes (14). Triploid salmon overexpressing growth hormone have reduced size and growth rate relative to diploid salmon overexpressing growth hormone, but the growth rate of both is higher than that of wild type controls (5,7).


Triploid females have a complete loss of reproduction ability, but some triploid males retain the ability to produce sperm. To avoid the possibility of any male eggs being produced, all fish used to produce sperm for AquAdvantage salmon egg production are neomales. There is great flexibility of gender in many fish species, such that genetically male fish may develop into females and vice versa when in the presence of certain hormones. In the case of AquAdvantage salmon, genetic females that are homozygous for the EO-1 gene are induced into producing male gonads with 17-methyltestosterone, a fairly common procedure in modern aquaculture and in fish reproduction research. Sperm produced by these fish are used to fertilize wild type Atlantic salmon eggs, resulting in all female fish that each have one copy of the EO-1 gene (7,11). The possibility that a male fish will be produced with this method is zero, because no male sex chromosomes are involved.


Physical containment


Because a small percentage (1.1% or less) of AquAdvantage salmon could be diploids that are capable of reproduction, additional containment methods are necessary. Physical containment at the egg and fish production facilities will provide multiple layers of security. These include on-facility living quarters for security personnel, security cameras, and 8 chain link fencing around each property, among other measures. Numerous filters, nets, and other containment devices reduce likelihood of escape to less than 1%. At the egg production facility, chlorine is used in the drainage area to kill eggs that escape filters (7). Because all farmed salmon have reduced ability to survive in the wild, and 98% or more of AquAdvantage salmon are sterile, the likelihood of escaped animals interfering with the natural ecosystem, becoming established in the environment, or breeding with sexually compatible fish nearby is extremely small. Animals that do escape the redundant means of containment will be met with environmental conditions that make survival unlikely.


Environmental containment


The land based, fresh water egg production facility is located in Prince Edwards Island, Canada. Historically, Atlantic salmon inhabited the fresh bodies of water in this area, but no wild salmon populations remain in the area due to overexploitation, barriers to migration, and acid rain. In the winter, temperatures in bodies of water near the facility are too low for salmon, although spring and summer temperatures are hospitable to salmon (7). The barriers to migration would prevent escaped animals from moving out to sea during the summer. In addition, relatively high salinity in the nearby river would further reduce likelihood of survival for animals acclimatized to fresh water.


The land-based fish production facility is located at a high altitude in Panama near a river that drains to the Pacific ocean. Much of the river water (up to 100% in the 4  5 month dry season) is used for power generation, and the canals that control water flow to power generation facilities are not suitable for salmon. In addition, the dams provide a physical barrier to movement downstream. If animals were able to navigate the barriers, the river closest to the facility does have conditions that are favorable to salmon, but in the lower parts of the river, water temperatures are lethal to salmon (7). While the areas near the facility could sustain young salmon for a short time, escape to the Pacific ocean is very unlikely.


Human health


General concerns with AquAdvantage salmon, or any other genetically engineered organism intended for human consumption, include increased allergenicity and unintended changes in the composition of edible tissues. Wild type salmon is a known allergen, so AquAdvantage salmon is expected to cause allergic reactions in individuals that are allergic to salmon. The amino acid sequence of Chinook growth hormone is unlike the sequence of known protein allergens (11). Nonetheless, additional analysis of allergenicity would be useful. Allergenicity studies conducted by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc. were determined to be unsatisfactory by the Food and Drug Administrations Center for Veterinary Medicine, due to small sample size and inappropriate statistical analysis. A reanalysis of the data by FDA CVM found that the allergenic potency of triploid salmon expressing EO-1 was not significantly different from the control, although additional testing is needed to determine the allergenicity of diploid salmon expressing EO-1 (11). Diploid amago salmon (  Oncorhynchus rhodurus  , also known as  Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae  ) expressing growth hormone did not have increased allergenicity compared to control salmon (15).


The carbohydrate, ash, moisture, protein, total fat, vitamin, mineral, amino acid, and fatty acid composition of the edible tissue of AquAdvantage salmon was compared to control salmon by Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc. The only tested compound that exceeded the range of values found in the controls was vitamin B6 (0.77 and 0.72 mg per g tissue in AquAdvantage and control, respectively), but the amount of vitamin B6 is less than that found in tuna (0.81 mg/g), another commonly consumed finfish (11). Consumption of normal amounts of AquAdvantage salmon is unlikely to result in daily intake of vitamin B6 that exceeds the recommended maximum amount of 100 mg/day. Omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acids are found at similar amounts in AquAdvantage and control salmon (11).


Specific concerns with AquAdvantage salmon include increased hormone content in edible tissues. The growth hormone content in AquAdvantage salmon and non-genetically engineered control salmon were both below the lower limit of quantitation (10.40 ng/g of tissue), while amounts of estradiol, testosterone, 17- ketotestosterone, T3, and T4 were not significantly different in the two groups. The only statistically different concentration was for insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), with a mean of 7.34 ng/g in the control group and 10.26 ng/g in the test group (11).


The overall amount of IGF-1 present in AquAdvantage or wild type salmon is similar to or lower than the amount found in other animal products. For example, milk from cows treated with growth hormones, milk from cows not treated with growth hormones, and organic milk were found to have 3.12, 2.04, and 2.73 ng IGF-1 per mL of milk, respectively (16). Beef cattle were found to have greater than 275 ng IGF-1 per mL of blood (17) without application of growth hormone. For comparison, adult human males that consume 60.1 g of protein daily have 168 ng of IGF-1 per mL of blood and adult human males that consume 81.7 g of protein daily have 200 ng of IGF-1 per mL of blood (18). Consumption of normal amounts of AquAdvantage salmon would result in dietary amounts of IGF-1 that are no greater than a normal diet containing other animal foods.


The sequence and structure of IGF-1 varies by species such that fish IGF-1 is unlikely to react at a biologically significant level with mammalian IGF-1 receptors. The IGF-1 protein sequences for human (  NM_001111283.1  ) and Atlantic salmon (  EF432852.2  ) are quite dissimilar. A BLAST comparison of the protein sequences found 64% (90/141) of amino acids were identical and 76% (106/141) were similar. Contrast this with a BLAST comparison of human and bovine (  NM_001077828.1  ) IGF-1 protein sequences, which are 96% (129/135) identical and 96% (129/135) similar.


Comparison of binding activity of IGF-1 proteins from a variety of species to human IGF-1 receptors found that salmon IGF-1 was 2 to 3 times less effective at binding than mammalian or marsupial IGF-1; however, salmon IGF-1 was better able to bind to sheep IGF-2 receptors than human IGF-2 (19). Further testing is needed to determine the interspecies interactions of IGF-1 and IGF-2 proteins and receptors. It is worth noting that, while consumption of bovine IGF-1 does cause elevated IGF-1 levels in humans, the dietary IGF-1 is degraded, indicating that bovine IGF-1 does not directly contribute to increased human IGF-1 levels (20). Fish IGF-1 can be expected to have similar degradation. Human IGF-1 levels increase with increased dietary protein, whether that protein is from animal or vegetable sources (18).


Conclusions


The FDA considers the EO-1 gene sequence in AquAdvantage salmon as an animal drug rather than considering the salmon as a novel food (21). This approach has advantages and disadvantages, but all available evidence suggests that AquAdvantage salmon are within the normal range of wild type triploid fish for all characteristics except growth rate, with few exceptions. Similar increases in body weight can be achieved with injection, oral application, or controlled release of a variety of compounds, including growth hormone and IGF- 1 (5). A major disadvantage to considering the EO-1 gene sequence as an animal drug is that it has led to consumer distrust and confusion. Even triploidization itself has led to some consumer concern (10), indicating that efforts to educate consumers on the risks and benefits of technologies used in animal agriculture may be helpful. Another disadvantage of considering the EO-1 gene sequence as an animal drug is that it allows AquAdvantage to keep some experimental results confidential to protect their intellectual property. Even though the FDA has access to those results, the withholding of data from the public has only served to increase distrust of AquAdvantage salmon and of the FDA itself.


Widely circulated fears about risks of AquAdvantage salmon do not seem to be based on the available research. Based on the research, animal health and welfare is not different from that of other triploid, hatchery reared fish. Animal welfare issues as well as sustainability issues related to fish farming are important and should be considered, but these issues affect all fish farming and are not unique to AquAdvantage salmon. Human health risks are no greater than that posed by other meats and animal products. Additional tests could be conducted, such as larger scale allergenicity testing of AquAdvantage salmon, but the available research does not indicate that such tests are likely to find significant differences from wild type salmon. Further research of the potential effects of dietary IGF-1 from different species on human health would be useful, but this question is not unique to AquAdvantage salmon. Long or short term feeding studies of AquAdvantage salmon to test animals are not scientifically necessary because of the lack of evidence that the edible tissue is different from that of wild type salmon, but feeding studies comparing AquAdvantage salmon to commonly eaten salmon species may be needed to assuage consumer concerns.


The available research and the containment measures proposed by Aqua Bounty indicate that the environmental risks of AquAdvantage salmon are minimal. However, despite all containment efforts, less than 1% of AquAdvantage salmon could escape from the rearing facility and, on average, 1.1% of the salmon will be diploids. The possibility that one diploid AquAdvantage salmon would escape from the facility and survive climactic, physical, and ecological barriers is extremely unlikely, amounting to less than 0.01% of all fish reared or 1 fish in 10,000. Reproductive age for Atlantic salmon depends on latitude such that reproductive age is 50 weeks at the latitude of Prince Edwards Island (22). An escaped fertilized egg may meet a favorable environment for survival, but is unlikely to survive to 50 weeks. Breeding age of Atlantic salmon at the latitude of the hatchery facility in Panama is not known because Atlantic salmon are not known to survive at low latitudes where water temperature is so high. Still, if escape were to happen and the escapee reached reproductive age, what would the result be?


The salmon reproductive process requires complex mating and nesting behavior as well as fresh running water with a gravel bed. A sexually compatible male must be present at the time of spawning (22). In the waters near the egg and fish rearing facilities, neither sexually compatible males nor gravel beds are available (7). However, even though attempts to reintroduce salmon and other species to the rivers near the egg facility and rainbow trout in the rivers near the fish rearing facility have failed in the past (7), future attempts may be successful and river bed conditions may change. Hybridization between some trout and salmon species is possible, but generally produce sterile offspring (23). Research is needed to determine the survivability and fertility of Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout hybrids. The energy investment in reproduction is so high for female Atlantic salmon that there is a 60% or higher probability of death post-spawning (22).


All AquAvantage salmon carry only one copy of the EO-1 gene sequence, so if an escaped diploid AquAvantage salmon reached reproductive age and found a suitable mate, only one half of her offspring would carry the gene sequence. Those that carried the EO-1 gene sequence would, according to available research, be at a disadvantage to their siblings that did not. Salmon over expressing growth hormone under wild conditions are have decreased swimming speed which results in higher death rates due to the decreased ability to swim away from predators and decreased ability to catch prey (8). Any advantage that EO-1 carrying progeny might have over wild type fish in size and growth rate will likely be cancelled out by negative effects and the gene will either be eliminated from the wild population by natural selection or remain at a very low gene frequency. Studies in near natural environments on the survival rates of fish over expressing growth hormone compared to wild type fish as well as on dynamics of mixed populations are needed.


The final question about AquAdvantage salmon is how additional salmon on the market will affect the wild salmon fishing industry, the farmed salmon industry, and the tax revenues to the states that support those industries. These industries and their representatives have expressed concern that AquAdvantage salmon will lead to decline of wild caught salmon due to escape of farmed salmon and increased competition in the marketplace. Neither of these issues are specific to AquAdvantage salmon, but are concerns related to all fish farming. For example, domesticated fish have less genetic diversity than wild fish so there is concern that accidental releases of large numbers of domesticated fish could cause decreased ability to adapt in wild populations (24). Because of fewer controls against escape, fish farming as it exists today could be considered more risky for wild populations than AquAdvantage salmon will be. As for increased competition, voluntary labeling such as wild caught and not genetically engineered will allow for different products to prove themselves in the marketplace.


Devlin, R., Yesaki, T., Donaldson, E., Du, S., &amp; Hew, C. (1995). Production of germline transgenic Pacific salmonids with dramatically increased growth performance  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52  (7), 1376-1384 DOI:  10.1139/f95-133  Bjrnsson BT (1997). The biology of salmon growth hormone: from daylight to dominance. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry 17:9-24 .    Yaskowiak ES, Shears MA, Agarwal-Mawal A, &amp; Fletcher GL (2006). Characterization and multi-generational stability of the growth hormone transgene (EO-1alpha) responsible for enhanced growth rates in Atlantic Salmon.  Transgenic research, 15  (4), 465-80 PMID:  16906447    Butler TM, &amp; Fletcher GL (2009). Promoter analysis of a growth hormone transgene in Atlantic salmon.  Theriogenology, 72  (1), 62-71 PMID:  19324402    Devlin, R. (2004). Growth, viability and genetic characteristics of GH transgenic coho salmon strains  Aquaculture, 236  (1-4), 607-632 DOI:  10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.02.026    Sundstrm LF, Lhmus M, Tymchuk WE, &amp; Devlin RH (2007). Gene-environment interactions influence ecological consequences of transgenic animals.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104  (10), 3889-94 PMID:  17360448   Aqua Bounty Technologies, Inc (2010).  Environmental assessment for AquAdvantage salmon  .    Hu W, &amp; Zhu Z (2010). Integration mechanisms of transgenes and population fitness of GH transgenic fish.  Science China. Life sciences, 53  (4), 401-8 PMID:  20596905    Witten P, Gil-Martens L, Huysseune A, Takle H, &amp; Hjelde K (2009). Towards a classification and an understanding of developmental relationships of vertebral body malformations in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)  Aquaculture, 295  (1-2), 6-14 DOI:  10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.06.037   P   iferrer F, Beaumont A, Falguire J, Flajhans M, Haffray P, &amp; Colombo L (2009). Polyploid fish and shellfish: Production, biology and applications to aquaculture for performance improvement and genetic containment  Aquaculture, 293  (3-4), 125-156 DOI:  10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.04.036   Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (2010).  Briefing Packet for the Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee  .   New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (2006).  State record grass carp caught  .   Matthews J.  Why Santa Ana River Lakes and Corona have the biggest rainbow trout  . Outdoor News Service.   Ching B, Jamieson S, Heath JW, Heath DD, &amp; Hubberstey A (2010). Transcriptional differences between triploid and diploid Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) during live Vibrio anguillarum challenge.  Heredity, 104  (2), 224-34 PMID:  19707232   Nakamura R, Satoh R, Nakajima Y, Kawasaki N, Yamaguchi T, Sawada J, Nagoya H, &amp; Teshima R (2009). Comparative study of GH-transgenic and non-transgenic amago salmon (Oncorhynchus masou ishikawae) allergenicity and proteomic analysis of amago salmon allergens.  Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 55  (3), 300-8 PMID:  19679156   Vicini J, Etherton T, Kris-Etherton P, Ballam J, Denham S, Staub R, Goldstein D, Cady R, McGrath M, &amp; Lucy M (2008). Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices.  Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108  (7), 1198-203 PMID:  18589029   Juniper, D., Browne, E., Bryant, M., &amp; Beever, D. (2007). Digestion, rumen fermentation and circulating concentrations of insulin, growth hormone and IGF-1 in steers given maize silages harvested at three stages of maturity  Animal Science, 82  (01) DOI:  10.1079/ASC200513   Giovannucci E, Pollak M, Liu Y, Platz EA, Majeed N, Rimm EB, &amp; Willett WC (2003). Nutritional predictors of insulin-like growth factor I and their relationships to cancer in men.  Cancer epidemiology, 12  (2), 84-9 PMID:  12582016   Upton Z, Yandell CA, Degger BG, Chan SJ, Moriyama S, Francis GL, &amp; Ballard FJ (1998). Evolution of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) action: in vitro characterization of vertebrate IGF-I proteins.  Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part B, Biochemistry &amp; molecular biology, 121  (1), 35-41 PMID:  9972282   Mero A, Khknen J, Nyknen T, Parviainen T, Jokinen I, Takala T, Nikula T, Rasi S, &amp; Leppluoto J (2002). IGF-I, IgA, and IgG responses to bovine colostrum supplementation during training.  Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 93  (2), 732-9 PMID:  12133885   Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine.  Guidance for industry: Regulation of genetically engineered animals containing heritable recombinant DNA constructs  . (2009).   Fleming, I. (1996). Reproductive strategies of Atlantic salmon: ecology and evolution  Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6  (4), 379-416 DOI:  10.1007/BF00164323   Bartley DM, Rana K, Immink AJ (2001). The use of inter-specific hybrids in aquaculture and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:325-337.   Fraser DJ, Houde AL, Debes PV, O;Reilly P, Eddington JD, &amp; Hutchings JA (2010). Consequences of farmed-wild hybridization across divergent wild populations and multiple traits in salmon.  Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 20  (4), 935-53 PMID:  20597281


Editors note


On September 19 and 20, 2010, the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee of the US Food and Drug Administration convened two days of meetings intended to 1) orient participants on the scientific issues and regulatory constraints, and 2) consider issues regarding the safety and effectiveness of the new animal drug application concerning AquAdvantage salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. At the close of the meeting, the committee chairman reported that the majority of the expert panel concluded that the AquAdvantage salmon is safe; however, they recommended further research to add weight in areas where the data is relatively sparse. Consumer protection organizations called for more research on the allergy risk of the AquAdvantage salmon.


Author;s note


You may have found it strange that Biofortified hadn;t covered genetically engineered salmon while various news sites, bloggers, and NGOs were writing about it practically constantly for a while there. All the while, an article was being written but getting down to the facts took a lot longer than those superficial stories you might have read. This was also my first time writing an article with an editor, my first time writing a solicited article, and my first time to receive payment for an article.


The article appears in a  special edition of Information Systems for Biotechnology (ISB) News Report  . ISB is a USDA funded project administered by the  Agricultural Experiment Station at Virginia Tech  .


From their website: ;ISB provides information resources to support the environmentally responsible use of agricultural biotechnology products. Here you will find documents and searchable databases pertaining to the development, testing and regulatory review of genetically engineered (GE) plants, animals and microorganisms within the United States and abroad.;


It;s a great site, and the monthly newsletter contains some great articles. For example, check out September;s  Newsletter  for an article about cisgenics.


Many thanks to Ruth Irwin, Project Director of ISB, for her excellent editorial work which helped to produce a far better article than I would have done on my own. Ruth provided guidance without asking for any changes in content. This was a great learning experience.













Document Number: 4503 



 Saving the world, one GMO at a time 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 10 January 2008 


Arcadia Biosciences has developed rice that uses nitrogen more efficiently, so the plants need less fertilizer. As described in the Guardian  article  Biotech firm plans to fund GM rice crops with carbon credits  yesterday, Arcadia ;is working with the Chinese government to reward farmers in China that grow the firm;s genetically modified (GM) rice, with carbon credits that they can sell for cash.;


The rice will reduce fertilizer run off (responsible for oceanic dead zones) and decrease emissions of nitrogen oxide. How does it work? Arcadia;s  website  isn;t telling all, but I was able to find a paper in the Canadian Journal of Botany:  Engineering nitrogen use efficiency with alanine aminotransferase  . See the abstract below:


Nitrogen (N) is the most important factor limiting crop productivity worldwide. The ability of plants to acquire N from applied fertilizers is one of the critical steps limiting the efficient use of nitrogen. To improve N use efficiency, genetically modified plants that overexpress alanine aminotransferase (  AlaAT  ) were engineered by introducing a barley  AlaAT  cDNA driven by a canola root specific promoter (  btg26  ). Compared with wild-type canola, transgenic plants had increased biomass and seed yield both in the laboratory and field under low N conditions, whereas no differences were observed under high N.The transgenics also had increased nitrate influx. These changes resulted in a 40% decrease in the amount of applied nitrogen fertilizer required under field conditions to achieve yields equivalent to wild-type plants.


The first thing I like about their strategy is that they are using a root specific promoter. Plants only absorb nitrogen (N) from their roots, so don;t need N uptake enzymes in other tissues. Even better, the promoter is from the species being transformed so it will presumably work more effectively than a foreign promoter. The researchers chose a barley gene instead of simply using the corresponding rice gene, but there may be a reason that I don;t know about. The protein produced by the gene is one that is native to rice, however, so it is a little closer to cisgenic than transgenic (when compared to bacterial genes and such).  ;Alanine aminotransferase (AlaAT) catalyses the reversible transfer of an amino group from glutamate to pyruvate to form 2-oxoglutarate and alanine.; The enzyme is present in virtually all organisms. In plants, AlaAT causes the breakdown of alanine during times of hypoxia (oxygen shortage). ;Therefore, AlaAT appears to be crucial for the rapid conversion of alanine to pyruvate during recovery from low-oxygen stress.; [   Miyashita  et. al.  ]


So, it sounds like the engineered plants are able to absorb N at a higher rate, and that N goes on along normal pathways to create proteins ; resulting in increased yield despite low N concentrations in the soil.


I don;t think I have to go into all of the benefits of using less fertilizer here ; but there are many. In short, it will save farmers money while being a huge boon for the environment, and producing more food for growing human populations.


via  Grist  .


Good, A., Johnson, S., De Pauw, M., Carroll, R., Savidov, N., Vidmar, J., Lu, Z., Taylor, G., &amp; Stroeher, V. (2007). Engineering nitrogen use efficiency with alanine aminotransferase  Canadian Journal of Botany, 85  (3), 252-262 DOI:  10.1139/B07-019


Miyashita Y, Dolferus R, Ismond KP, &amp; Good AG (2007). Alanine aminotransferase catalyses the breakdown of alanine after hypoxia in Arabidopsis thaliana. The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology, 49 (6), 1108-21 PMID:  17319845













Document Number: 8115 



 Scaremongering on shoddy ABC TV program about &quot;GM trees&quot; is dissected at On-line opinion 


 by  David Tribe  on 7 July 2010 


Tasmania fumes over media misconduct ; On Line Opinion ; 7/7/2010    Scaremongering on shoddy ABC TV program  Australian Story  about supposedly ;GM trees; has been dissected at On-line opinion. A few snippets from Online Opinion are given below   Tasmania fumes over media misconduct  Mark Pointer   Some major ABC TV bloopers in falsely blaming ;GM  Eucalyptus nitens  ; :     Neglecting to mention that  Eucalyptus nitens  is naturally-occurring in Melbournes water supply catchments which supply more than 4 million people with what is widely acknowledged to be some of the worlds highest quality water.   Implying that genetic improvement of  Eucalyptus nitens  plantation trees is responsible for their toxicity to humans thereby allowing viewers to conclude that plantation trees have been genetically modified by grafting in genes from other organisms. In reality, desirable traits of  E. nitens  plantation trees have been improved over several generations by selective tree breeding which involves no alteration of genetic profiles.   Failing to include the views of an interviewed scientist who has found that the leaf toxicity of natural  Eucalyptus nitens  stands in Victoria is significantly higher than that of Tasmanias  E. nitens  plantations. This would also have prevented speculation that genetic improvement of plantation trees had increased their toxicity.  Intimating that plantation management may be a factor in the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) in contravention of research by the Menzies Institute and the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program which had already shown that DFTD is not caused or influenced by the use of pesticides in the management of forestry plantations  The Pundit has seen the program and was astonished at the lack of adequate journalistic research at the national broadcaster.













Document Number: 6598 



 Science and engineering continuously interact with moral notions 


 by  David Tribe  on 23 November 2010 


The role of ethics in science and engineering  Deborah G. Johnson  Department of Science, Technology, and Society, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904  It is generally thought that science and engineering should never cross certain ethical lines. The idea connects ethics to science and engineering, but it frames the relationship in a misleading way. Moral notions and practices inevitably influence and are influenced by science and engineering. The important question is how such interactions should take place. Anticipatory ethics is a new approach that integrates ethics into technological development.  Trends in Biotechnology, December 2010, Vol. 28, No. 12 589  QUOTE  Directing rather than interfering  What are we to make of the rhetoric of going where no humans should go? The above analysis suggests why the questions raised are so important and why the rhetoric is misleading. We should be asking whether science and engineering are taking us where we want to go; bringing morality into engagement with science and engineering ensures that human ends and values are served. However, the rhetoric of line-crossing and restricting is misleading because it suggests that science and engineering are endeavors that move independently of society, and, now and then, must be interfered with, restricted or diverted.  This blinds us from seeing science as a means to social ends and it deflects attention away from issues about how science and engineering are now being directed. Acknowledgment that science and engineering continuously interact with moral notions and practices opens the way to developing more effective ways to include ethics in steering science and engineering research.


References  1 Friedman, D. (2008) Future Imperfect, Cambridge University Press  2 Green, R. (2007) Babies by Design, Yale University Press  3 Bess, M. (2008) Icarus 2.0. Technology and Culture 49 (1), 114126  4 Gibson, D.G. et al. (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329 (5987), 5256  5 Callaway, E. Immaculate creation: birth of the first synthetic cell. New Scientist 17:55 20 May 2010 (  www.newscientist.com/article/dn18942-immaculate-creation-birth-of-the-first-synthetic-cell.html  )  6 Clark, A. (2003) Natural-born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence, Oxford University Press  7 Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (1st edn), Viking Adult  8 Savulescu, J. and Bostrom, N. (2009) Human Enhancement, Oxford University Press  9 Weizenbaum, J. (1976) Computer Power and Human Reason, W.H. Freeman and Company  10 Joy, B. (2000) Why the future doesnt need us. Wired 8 (4), 238262  11 Fisher, E. et al. (2008) The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society (Vol.1), Presenting Futures, Springer  12 Johnson, D. (forthcoming). Software agents, anticipatory ethics, and accountability. In The Growing&nbsp; GapBetween Emerging Technologies and LegalEthical Oversight. The Pacing Problem (Marchant, G. E. et. al., eds), Springer  13 Verbeek, P. (2010) Accompanying technology: philosophy of technology after the ethical turn. Techne 14 (1), 4954













Document Number: 1507 



 Science lives on in Peru: vindication of Ernesto Bustamante in Peru celebrated with the 2001st blog posting at GMO Pundit 


 by  David Tribe  on 7 January 2011 


Source: Wikipedia


Here at GMO Pundit we are taking the opportunity celebrate 2000 blog posts with the fantastic news that a legal victory has been obtained in Peru that is also a victory for those who value their own personal freedom to express scientific criticism.


The scientific method is dead if we do not give full licence for practitioners to offer untrammeled objective criticism to anyone who claims scientific credibility.


Senior respected Peruvian scientist Ernesto Bustamante had been subjected to criminal prosecution for defamation for merely stating that publically made scientific statements about genetically modified maize were spurious.


This defamation action is part of a very disturbing worldwide trend in which the legal process is abused to silence public comment by scientists who speak out about inaccurate statements that are made by activists. General background to the defamation case involving Ernesto Bustamante has been presented in previous GMO Pundit posts:


GM report adds twist to Peruvian defamation case   Peruvian national agency refutes basis for legal suit against Dr Ernesto Bustamante for expressing scientific comment on spurious claims.   Criminal defamation laws are being used to silence scientists


We are thus extremely pleased announce in the current post the good news about Ernesto Bustamante;s successful legal appeal to the Superior Court of Lima :


The Fifth Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Lima constituted by three magistrates- has resolved unanimously to revoke and declare NULL the condemnatory sentence that was emitted last April by the Sixth Criminal Court of Lima against Ernesto Bustamante.  The juridical debate was originally set for November 11th, but it did not happen on account of a strike by the workers of the Peruvian Judiciary. A new date was set for December 9th. On that opportunity the attorneys for the defendant and the plaintiff had their chance to present orally their arguments before the Tribunal.  We dont know yet the detailed text of the Resolution of the Superior Court of Lima, and therefore, we ignore what of the many arguments presented by Ernestos Defense were used by the Superior Court as juridical basis to declare null the condemnatory sentence of the lower Court.  But the fact of the matter is that currently the Guilty Verdict and Condemnatory Sentence received by Ernesto last year has been revoked and declared null. Consequently, the Superior Court of Lima has ordered the Sixth Criminal Court of Lima that a new sentence be emitted ; this time we expect that the new sentence be an Absolutory Sentence, thus acquitting Ernesto.  We are very happy with this result and continue supporting Ernesto and the freedom of scientific criticism  La Quinta Sala Penal de la Corte Superior de Lima constituida por tres magistrados- ha resuelto de manera unnime revocar y declarar NULA la sentencia condenatoria emitida en abril del ao pasado por el 6 Juzgado Penal de Lima en contra de Ernesto Bustamante.  La citacin para que los abogados presenten sus informes orales fue originalmente prevista para el 11 de noviembre, pero no pudo realizarse por la huelga que entonces llevaban a cabo los trabajadores del Poder Judicial. La nueva fecha se fij para el jueves 9 de diciembre a las 11 am. En esa oportunidad, los abogados de las dos partes sustentaron jurdicamente sus posiciones opuestas ante el Tribunal.  An no se conoce el texto detallado de la Resolucin de la Sala de la Corte Superior de Lima y por ello no conocemos especficamente en cules de los argumentos presentados por la Defensa de Ernesto para sustentar su Apelacin se bas la Sala de la Corte Superior de Lima para ordenar se declare nula la sentencia condenatoria.  Pero el hecho concreto es que en este momento la sentencia de culpabilidad que recibi Ernesto ha sido revocada al haber sido declarada nula y por ello la Corte Superior de Lima ha ordenado al 6 Juzgado Penal de Lima que emita una nueva sentencia; esta vez por los argumentos de la Corte Superior- se espera que la sentencia deba ser absolutoria.  Estamos muy contentos con este resultado y seguimos apoyando a Ernesto y a la causa de la libertad de crtica cientfica.  Saludos cordials/Best wishes   Professor  Marcel Gutierrez-Correa, Ph.D.  NAS-Peru Fellow   Director  Laboratory of Mycology and Biotechnology  Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina  Av. La Molina s/n, Lima 12













Document Number: 7304 



 Scientia Pro Publica 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 8 November 2010 


Scientia Pro Publica is a rotating compilation of the best blog writing targeted to the public about science, medicine, the environment and technology intended to build and encourage a thriving virtual community of science communicators.


The authors of Biofortified are honored to be this month;s host. The entries span a wide range of scientific topics that defies summarization. You;ll just have to see for yourself. In no particular order, I present to you this months Scientia Pro Publica.


.


Dirk Hanson presents  Anandamide Hits the Hedonic Hot Spot  at  Addiction Inbox  . This explanation of why marijuana causes the munchies includes discussion of the search for drugs to decrease appetite.


Captain Skellett presents  Thought controlled computers? Recent research says yes.  at  A Schooner of Science  . Here, the cutting edge of computing meets neuroscience.


DNLee presents  Heritability ? what you get from your folks  at  SouthernPlayalisticEvolutionMusic  . Defining heritabilty and contrasting it with inheritance, all explained via rap music ; in this case Juvenile;s Mama Got Ass (She Get it From Her Mama).


Alexander Peter presents  Foam Roller Stretches to Reduce the Risk of Iliotibial Band Syndrome  at  FoamRoller.org.uk  . This article provides some tips on how to prevent the risk of developing Iliotibial Band Syndrome by using a foam roller to relieve the stress from the IT band.


Michael Parsons presents  10 Psychological Reasons Why Most Diets Fail  at  Masters In Psychology  . Diets can be tough to keep up with, but maybe the problem isnt you. There are many psychological reasons why most diets fail.


Olivia V. Ambrogio presents  Where the Wild Things Were  at  Beasts in a Populous City  . Celebrating wondrous animals and remembering how our desire for all sorts of things affect their habitats.


SE Gould presents  Waking sleeping bacteria  at  Lab Rat  . Some bacteria go into a dormant state when resources are scarce. When they exit dormancy, they tell their fellow bacteria that conditions are good.


Andy Extance presents  Extracting urine in the name of climate research  at  Simple Climate  . Layers of animal dung may hold important data relevant to climate change.


Jennifer Lynch presents  20 Best Blogs for Primatology Students  at  Top Online Colleges  . The blogs rounded up here are among the best in the field, especially for students looking to get a better understanding of all primatology has to offer. Bonus: monkey pictures.


Sharon Neufeldt presents  Just Enough to be Dangerous  at  I Can Has Science?  . A super clear, very brief introduction to chemistry, from atoms to organic chemistry.


Ben Harack presents  How can we create power from nuclear fusion?  at  Vision Of Earth  . How nuclear fusion works and its feasibility for future power generation.


Thonoir presents  Endangered Species 2010: Reptiles  at  Ninjameys  . The ongoing Endangered Species 2010 series continues with a look at the reptiles.


Romeo Vitelli presents  The Great Coca Cola Trial (Part 1)  and  The Great Coca Cola Trial (Part 2)  at  Providentia  . A look back at the somewhat lurid history of the world;s favorite soda.


Finally, Karl Haro von Mogel of Biofortified announces  GENERA: the GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas  . GENERA is intended to be an atlas of research related to the risks of genetic engineering. We;re in need of volunteers to help summarize peer-reviewed articles and add them to the database. I hope you;ll consider joining the team.


Scientia Pro Publica is always looking for great posts.  Submit your posts  , and check out the  Scientia website  for more information. The carnival is in need of host blogs. If you run a science, medicine, environment, or tech oriented blog, please consider  signing up to host  .


Want to stay in the loop? Follow  @science4people  , the official Sciencia Pro Publica account, and  @SciNatBlogs  , which includes tweets about all relevant blog carnivals, on Twitter.













Document Number: 1236 



 Scientific Alliance ponders sustainability 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 July 2010 


Things may not be as simple as they seem


There is a strand of thought in modern, sophisticated societies which yearns for a simpler life. This is understandable; the complexities of living in the 21  st  &nbsp;century can be stressful. A quiet life in the country sounds idyllic to people balancing the demands of a job, urban living and paying for it all. But part of this philosophy extends beyond avoiding the stresses of everyday life and wants to turn the clock back to a time when everything, including farming, was simpler and somehow ;better;.


By this reckoning, it is important not just to lead a less hectic life, but also to consume in a more ;sustainable; way. The s-word has now become shorthand for all that is good and environmentally friendly; we may not know what it means, but it has warm, comforting connotations and is undeniably A Good Thing (to take the&nbsp;  1066 and all that  &nbsp;approach). But, like so many other common terms, few people can actually define sustainability, at least in any meaningful way.


The conventional Brundtland formulation, in full, says that:


;Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:


the concept of  &nbsp;   needs  , in particular the essential needs of the world;s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and   the idea of  &nbsp;   limitations  &nbsp;  imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment;s ability to meet present and future needs.;


In itself, this seems a worthy aspiration, but a little thought throws up some problems. Not least of these is the open-endedness. Just how far in the future should we be looking? Do we need to ration resources we judge to be finite on the basis of how much we expect future generations to use? How do we make meaningful judgements about how our grandchildren might be living in 2050?


Projecting population numbers is not too difficult, but can we have any realistic idea about how they might live their lives? After all, our current lives would have seemed almost inconceivable only a couple of generations ago. The all-pervasive nature of electronic communications has had a major impact on the way we live our lives and do business, but would have seemed like science fiction. Straight line projections would have been made from the situation pertaining at the time, and the great majority of these would have been not just wrong, but wildly wrong.


The promotion of the simple life is not a new phenomenon; Rousseau;s championing of the ;noble savage; in the 18  th  &nbsp;century has been very influential, but similar examples would be found in much earlier civilizations by those prepared to search. But in today;s world this longing for the simple life has raised questions about how our food is produced and distributed. There are many who question the present focus on intensification of farming and complex patterns of international trade and national transport. Eat local is the message we regularly hear; only consume food grown in the local area. Goodbye year-round strawberries and farewell bananas.


An interesting slant on this comes from Thanet Earth (  www.thanetearth.com  ) which, when complete, will be the UK;s largest greenhouse complex, growing salad vegetables (tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers) hydroponically. All very high tech and, by most reckoning, an environmentalist;s nightmare, being both very intensive and needing significant amounts of energy to light and heat. But the developers have made great efforts to minimise resource use by, for example, using gas-fired Combined Heat and Power units to heat and light greenhouses while providing additional power for the Grid (and also pumping some of the carbon dioxide from the CHP plants into the greenhouses to increase plant growth). Much of the water needed is stored runoff from the roofs.


This is undeniably a highly unnatural environment, but it is also a very efficient way to produce some crops and may be a significant part of farming in the temperate zone in years to come. Such intelligent intensification may not conform to many people;s idea of sustainable farming, but it cannot be ignored. But the ;eat local; approach suggests that there should be no need for such an operation, and that small-scale operations which provide food for the immediate area are the way forward.


One argument for this is that the complex web of international trade is vulnerable to disruption such as the fuel price protests in the UK a decade ago, where blockades reduced food stocks to a few days; supply. The counterargument is that committing to a sort of high-class subsistence farming system would be equally vulnerable (and wasteful in the case of over-production). Commonsense suggests that trading would take place, at least on a regional basis, and where might this stop?


The other factor which campaigners seem not to have realised is that the majority of consumers are simply not interested in moving away from the convenience of supermarket shopping. They would be happy to buy locally at times, but they are not going to change their whole lifestyle. The challenge for agriculture is to grow and supply food as efficiently as possible within whatever supply chain consumers are happy with.


Not that this stops the aspirations of politicians. The European Commission recently held a conference on the Common Agricultural Policy post-2013. According to a recent Euractiv report, there were many supporters of a shift from what is perceived as centralised, intensive production towards a ;more territorial approach which values local differences as well as the environment;. This is the sort of approach which many would consider ;sustainable;, but it is really difficult to see why this should be any more so than intensive, productive modern farming.


Despite claims to the contrary, there is nothing to suggest that intensive farming cannot produce high yields year after year; surely a key element of sustainability. It can also keep food more affordable, which covers one of the main parts of any social measure of sustainability. On the other hand, the thrust of the proposed CAP reform is that small-scale farmers should be subsidised to remain on the land.


While supporting the rural economy may be seen in many ways as A Good Thing, the other main aspect of sustainability is economic. If something cannot continue without subsidy, then sustainability goes out the window. A simple life may seem desirable to stressed city dwellers, but things are rarely as simple as they may appear.


The Scientific Alliance  St John;s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS  Tel: +44 1223 421242


Please pass this newsletter on to your own networks and encourage other people to subscribe. Simply send us an email request, and your name will be added to the list.













Document Number: 3378 



 Scientific background report on maize MON810 


 by  David Tribe  on 18 November 2010 


8/07/2010  Scientific background report MON810


In this  scientific background report, VIB brings together the most recent data about MON810  , one of the first biotech crops allowed for cultivation in the EU.


Despite the scientific consensus that it is safe for humans and the environment, several EU member states have since banned its cultivation. What are the political reasons behind this ban? And what is MON810 corn exactly? In this report, VIB seeks to answer those questions. It turns out that politics, not science, is the main driver behind the current bans.


Aside from the political aspects of the cultivation of the crop, the report also focuses on the molecular underpinnings of MON810 corn, its economical and environmental impact and its consequences for agriculture.


Download of report available at link.


Update:  From comments on this post syndicated at Biofortified  Bernada comment:  Trusting tests and studies is problematic according to Scientific American.


Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough, wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how friendly or hostile a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.


Responses:  bernarda, in past posts, you have seemed open to new information rather than dogmatic.


Did you know that since the publication you posted, the seed companies have changed their policy to the satisfaction of the complainers?  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research


So, can we have real peer-review?


QUOTE  www.monsanto.com. Monsanto Company comment on research arrangements on GM seeds:  Academic Research Agreements


Monsanto fully supports research by the public sector research community with commercial products and fully endorses comparisons with competitors commercial products.


In June 2009, corn entomologists from public universities and the U.S. government met with representatives of the countrys seed companies  including Monsanto  in Ames, Iowa. The topic of the meeting, coordinated by the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), was academic research; specifically, how to strike a balance between the seed companies desire for well-designed scientific studies and the public scientists desire to conduct hassle-free research on transgenic seed. The ensuing discussion led to the development of a set of principles that we hope will bring a better understanding of the companies commitment to and support of wide-ranging research with GM crops.


The issue of academic research first gained major media attention in February 2009. A comment was posted in the Federal Register from a group of 26 scientists who participate in NCR-46, a group of public sector researchers who study insect-protected GM crops. The comment was sent to the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) concerning their review of insect resistance management strategies. The scientists stated that Technology/Stewardship Agreements are a barrier to independent research. The statement reads as follows:


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.


Monsanto was, at the time, surprised by these 26 scientists complaint. Our surprise was based on our own experience working with academic researchers, as those experiences have been overwhelmingly positive over the years. Monsanto has agreements with universities that enable thousands of researchers to conduct research programs with our commercial products. These researchers have conducted well-designed, well-controlled studies and published their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals. On occasion, these researchers have come to conclusions with which we did not agree. Their conclusions have been published and we continue to work with and supply seed for their research.


Why does Monsanto continue to work with researchers with whose conclusions we do not agree? We do it because research conducted by third parties at all stages of a products life cycle provides important information for the developers, regulators, farmers, consumers and the public at large. Studies that raise new questions or validate prior findings are reviewed and assessed to determine what additional research and development may be needed and help inform decisions on future products.


One of the reasons weve enjoyed a positive relationship with public sector scientists, we believe, is because of our blanket agreements with universities. Years ago, each time a scientist or group of scientists from a university wanted to study Monsantos products, both parties would sign a contract specific to that study. The sheer number of such studies for which we provided our seed made that model of contract signing cumbersome for both parties.


As a result, Monsanto introduced the blanket agreement, which allows university scientists to work with Monsantos commercial seed products without contacting the company or signing a separate contract. This blanket agreement  the Academic Research License (ARL)  enables academic researchers to do research with commercialized products with as few constraints as possible. ARLs are in place with all major agriculturally-focused US universities  about 100 in total.


The February 2009 comment, and the June 2009 meeting, helped us realize that we can do more to communicate to university researchers the freedom they have to conduct wide-ranging research programs with commercialized Monsanto GM crops. Weve already begun an extensive outreach effort to share that message with the universities holding an ARL.


The principles developed by the seed industry include:   PRINCIPLES and OBJECTIVES:


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * To enable the public sector research community to independently conduct research studies on commercially available seed products in laboratory, greenhouse, and field settings for the purpose of understanding the technology, education, extension and the safe and effective use of these products.


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This research may include:


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o agronomic and yield comparisons;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o testing for compositional profile such as oil content;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o studies related to end-use such as animal feeding;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o comparative efficacy studies;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o studies on interactions of the trait with pest biology and pest management practices including interactions related to resistance management;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o studies on interactions of introduced traits with the environment  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This statement does not address:


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o breeding with plants produced from the seed;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o reverse engineering or characterizing the genetic composition of patent-protected traits in seed;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o development of methods for detecting the presence or absence of patent-protected traits in seed;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o use of non-commercial methods to detect the presence or absence of patent-protected traits in seed;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; o research on modifications or improvements to the patent-protected traits  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * To assure that the public sector research community is free to design robust, scientifically sound experimental protocols and methodologies, and to derive independent conclusions.


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * To encourage and assure that the public sector research community is free to publish findings in peer reviewed scientific or research journals, with reasonable notice to companies.


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * To assure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, respect for intellectual property, and the use of comprehensive stewardship programs that promote the responsible and safe management of commercially approved and available seed products.


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * To facilitate access among private sector and public institutions to commercial, licensed technologies for the research and testing purposes stated above.


&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * To assure a regular and ongoing dialogue between the seed industry and the public sector researchers and institutions.


Adopted:


American Seed Trade Associations Executive Committee, Sept. 17, 2009


Biotechnology Industry Organizations Food &amp; Agriculture Section Governing Board, Sept. 10, 2009


We realize that the process within companies and at universities has been a challenge despite well-intentioned efforts to enable research by public sector researchers. Hopefully, the increased attention and the collaborative efforts by the industry and research community will result in a greater awareness of the industry-supported research principles and stream-lined processes that are in place to support research with commercial products. Monsanto is committed to improve overall communications on research with commercial products internally and externally, and to continue to promote dialogue to resolve any questions or concerns in the future.


Finally, some researchers are skeptical that all seed companies will follow the principles set forth at the June meeting. The devil is in the details, they say  and theyre taking a wait-and-see approach. We understand their wariness. We cannot speak for any other seed company, but Monsanto is committed to the principles of increased access to seed for scientifically valid, robust studies  and the increased dialogue between the seed companies and public sector researchers that we hope comes with them.













Document Number: 6801 



 Seralini seeks to dilute biology education 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 31 January 2011 


Taking a page from the modern creationist movements that seek to weaken high school education in evolutionary biology, a French group is looking to do the same to biology classes ; but now it;s genetic engineering that is the target. Nature News reports in  Transgenic bacterium sparks row in French schools  , that CRIIGEN, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, is advocating that useful, direct education in fundamentals of genetic transformation should be kept from high school students.


I guess it was only a matter of time. The particular brand of extreme belief about the risks of genetic engineering espoused by Seralini, who is the president of the scientific board of The Committee for Research &amp; Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (  CRIIGEN  ), has now spilled over into the inevitable conclusion that anything and everything GMO-like should be in advanced low-air-pressure biosafety labs only. Because simple things done a million times over such as adding a plasmid to a tube of harmless bacteria to demonstrate how basic genetic engineering works is knowledge that French high school students should not have access to. Why? Because doing a safe, controlled experiment ;trivializes; a touchy subject.


[Seralini] warns against trivialization of a sensitive subject, contamination risks and possible violation of European directives on the manipulation of genetically modified organisms in confined spaces. ;I am also concerned that practical classes erode the time spent imparting knowledge of biology,; he adds.


We see these same arguments brought up against the  time spent  on evolution education. ;If only they would spend more time learning biology; and not learning this aspect of biology we have a problem with.;


As for contamination risks, the laboratory strains used for these kinds of experiments are weak non-virulent strains, and the trait being discussed is Ampicillin resistance, which occurs naturally in many bacteria. That;s where the resistance gene came from. They are worried about this gene getting out into wild bacteria; which already have it. The issue of antibiotic resistance is not about the  shockingly ever-present resistance genes floating around  ; it is about misuse and overuse of important antibiotics. As scientists  they should know this  .


With regard to the possible violation of European directives on handling GE organisms, I don;t think this is about following the letter of the law at all. If there was a legal issue somewhere then it would be cause to revisit the directives in question ; perhaps they weren;t nuanced enough for all the different ways that GE organisms would be used, such as in education. But note that they say ;possible; violation ; as in, not actual.


As for the argument that it should not be done because it is a ;sensitive; subject ; I am simply surprised that this argument was used at all. This is straight out of the creationist playbook and it is not only a worthless argument for determining whether or not a subject in science is proper to be taught, it is also very revealing about motivations. The impetus seems to be that in an effort to improve biology education, French education ministers wanted to make it possible for students to learn about it at a younger age than before. And this has them riled up. I think CRIIGEN is revealing in this statement that they may be worried that a population of French students that learns about genetic engineering at a young age will become more comfortable with the idea of it then if they learned about it through CRIIGEN press releases.


Luc Chatel neatly dices apart the argument that this is detracting from other learning activities:


Luc Chatel, France;s education minister, today unveiled a plan to encourage more students to opt for science and technology subjects at university by improving teaching in schools, but he told Nature that increasing the amount of compulsory practical work is not part of the scheme. Schools can choose how much time they devote to experiments, as long as students are prepared for the hands-on work that makes up 20% of marks in the scientific baccalaureate exam at 18.


The rest of the article does a good job pointing out the issues of safety, and the importance of these kinds of activities in basic biology education, everything from getting a hands-on understanding of the process, to basic lab protocols. Well framed.


The one thing they really left out is the inspirational effect that amazing science has in a high school classroom environment. My real interest in biology over other scientific subjects could be traced in part to creative and involved laboratory experiments that I had a rare privilege to have in a one-time offered AP Biology 2 class in my junior year of high school. One of the things we worked with was E. coli. We also made yogurt, measured the oxygen usage of germinating seeds, and beyond. It was a great experience, but we never got to do anything with DNA. In fact, even after two years of biology in high school, DNA seemed more theoretical than anything else. Yes, of course it existed and was real, but not doing anything with this molecule in class kept that real-because-you-can-see-or-touch-it experience from happening. I didn;t realize you could do so much with it until I studied genetics in college.


But before I got into college, there were exams that were testing my knowledge of biology. The AP biology exam that year had genetic engineering and recombinant DNA as one of the essay questions. I remember they asked me to describe and to draw how to get DNA from one organism into another. I also remember my answer very clearly ; even though I was not entirely sure about the process, I reasoned that since viruses could introduce their own DNA into a cell, what could keep us from using a virus to accomplish it? Not too far off, I did very well on that test, which doubtlessly helped me get where I am today. In a few short years after going to college in Davis, I heard about improvements in high school biology classes, such as doing PCR and electrophoresis gels which are the backbone of genetics research today. Students who wish to excel in biology will need these kinds of hands-on experiments, and denying them that opportunity will put them at a disadvantage compared to their peers.


Students in the US, France, India, China, and Ethiopia should have the opportunity to have the best education in biology (and other subjects) that they can get in their secondary education, which will help them decide what course to take and if they want to contribute to those fields with exciting careers. One of the strengths of science is how people from all over the world can be working and collaborating on and contributing to an advancing field on the same level. And it is not just the scientific career-bound that will benefit. We need a populace that is familiar enough with what genetic engineering is if we can ever hope to have a worthwhile discussion of this technology. Seralini and CRIIGEN are indicating that they do not believe that students in France should have this opportunity.


CRIIGEN ;will urge the education ministry to impose a moratorium until a full debate on the question is organized;, says Sralini. ;We believe such material should not be manipulated by students before they reach university.;


This puts CRIIGEN in a different light. It is looking more like they are becoming an organization akin to the Discovery Institute in the US that pressures teachers to avoid the ;sensitive; topic of evolution. I would go so far as to suggest that there may be a bit of a culture war at play in this issue ; and that it is not really about safety or regulations or classroom time ; but on preventing the spark of inspiration in French students that  hey, I could imagine doing this in the future at college or as a career.  Efforts to dilute science education to serve narrow political viewpoints must be resisted at every turn.


Sure, its just some rings of DNA and some little cells in the lab, why get passionate about this little experiment? Like it;s just some silly birds on a group of islands near South America. Not that  that  ever amounted to anything;













Document Number: 5897 



 Shock, horror;some organic farmers have been using synthetic fertiliser 


 by  David Tribe  on 11 March 2011 


One problem with idealistic proposals to expand world acreage devoted to organic farming is there is not enough manure in the world to satisfy the fertiliser needs of organic farmers if they were to attempt to feed more than a few percent of the total number of people.


We don;t have enough nitrogen to feed the world in the natural sources of fertiliser that organic farmers are allowed by the ;artificial; rules they have set for themselves. Attempts to expand acreage devoted to organic farming are severely restricted by the availability of essential nitrogen fertiliser components. We need extra synthetic fertiliser to do the job. We cannot rely on the organic approach for more than a modest fraction of the worlds food.


This fact of life has been well documented by Vaclav Smil &nbsp;in several books, including Enriching the Earth: Fritz Harber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production MIT Press 2001.


Is it then surprising that some members of the organic food industry cheat when it comes to fertiliser, by using synthetic nitrogen to supplement their ;organic; fertiliser manure?


This cheating has shown up in a recent report in the LA Times:


Organic fertilizer maker accused of using synthetic chemicals  Kenneth Noel Nelson Jr. is indicted on 28 counts of mail fraud in connection with an alleged years-long scheme to dupe farmers and agriculture product distributors.  By P.J. Huffstutter, Los Angeles Times  March 11, 2011


To organic farmers, Kenneth Noel Nelson Jr. was the man with the golden manure: It was rich with Mother Nature;s finest waste, robust for the soil and cheap in price.


But to federal prosecutors in California, Nelson;s organic fertilizer empire had developed a stench.


On Thursday a federal grand jury indicted Nelson on 28 counts of mail fraud in connection with an alleged years-long scheme to dupe farmers and agriculture product distributors. The indictment accused Nelson, 57, of selling premium-priced liquid fertilizer touted as made from all-natural products such as fish meal and bird guano that instead was spiked with far cheaper synthetic chemicals.


The scheme, according to the federal indictment, enabled Nelson to become the largest purveyor of organic fertilizer to farmers in the western half of the U.S. and pull in at least $9 million in sales from 2003 to 2009.


This is the second indictment of an organic fertilizer producer in California in the last five months. It also has fueled fears among some farmers about possible contamination of their pristine fields and has raised questions about whether consumers bought produce that was billed as organic but may not have met federal organic requirements. Many consumers who opt to pay a premium for organic goods do so because they don;t want pesticides and synthetic chemicals to be used in the production of their food. (more at link)













Document Number: 4329 



 Should the Gates Foundation sell its stock in Monsanto? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 6 October 2010 


The  Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation  (BMGF) has been very active in the plant improvement field in the last few years. While funding projects from the  Wheat Rust Ug99 project  (of  previous radio subject matter  ) to helping fund the  IRRI  , and  promoting  Pam Ronald;s book, Bill Gates et al are really trying to improve the agricultural conditions in more troubled nations while also raising awareness about the issue. Along with providing vaccines and working on eradicating diseases, they have a  lofty set  of millennium goals in agriculture. There are millions upon millions of hungry mouths to feed (and feed well), and they are hard at work making this possible through technology, infrastructure, and building a knowledge base within those countries so that they can continue to produce food under their own innovative powers.


However, not everyone views the Gates Foundation;s involvement in the developing world as a good thing. Eager to shape foreign agriculture in a less technological way, critics have objected often to any use of fertilizers, pesticides, genetically engineered traits, and even hybrid crops. Arguing that agricultural aid should be limited to organic techniques, anything that smells of technology (which is strange because organic is a specific set of technologies) is immediately associated with big business interests in developed countries like the US. For years, the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates foundation was associated with the likes of Monsanto, and criticized as just working for their interests. The premise is strange, though, that a 33 billion dollar charitable organization would feel it necessary to work for the business interests of  any  corporation over their own stated aid goals. The chatter in the social media up to this point was that Bill Gates wanted to rule the biological world with patented seeds after taking over the computer world. Or that Bill Gates was going to help Monsanto do it instead, well, because the conspiracy just seems to make sense to those who are so inclined to believe it.


Recently the discussion has taken a bit of a turn, as the Seattle Times reports that the Gates Foundation  purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock  , worth about $27.6 million. Immediately, several organizations and individuals from the Organic Consumer;s Association to  La Vie Campesina  , to  Jill Richardson  of La Vida Locavore denounced the purchase, while at the same time cheering that they now had an argument that the combined Gates-Monsanto Evil Empire was real. Several letter-writing campaigns were started to lobby the Gates Foundation to drop its new financial holding in Monsanto, arguing it is a conflict of interest. Is it, and in what way exactly? What exactly does this purchase mean in terms of this philanthropic org being able to achieve its goals? Should the Gates Foundation sell its stock in Monsanto?


Trust the numbers


First, the Gates Foundation as a rule does not discuss the specifics of its financial investments, so I don;t expect that we would hear much of a statement, if any, about this purchase. I imagined that they have countless investments all over the place and that the reasons for specific investments are made for financial reasons. Turns out,  according to the foundation;s website  , they hardly make decisions themselves on what to invest in:


In October 2006, our trustees created a two-entity structure. One entity, the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, distributes money to grantees. The other, the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation Asset Trust, manages the endowment assets. This structure enables us to separate our program work from the investment of our assets.  How the asset trust works  The asset trust holds the endowment, including the annual installments of Warren Buffetts gift, and funds the foundation. Bill and Melinda are the trustees for the asset trust, and the endowment continues to be managed, as it has been for more than 10 years, by a team of outside investment managers.


Already, this removes the decision to buy Monsanto stock from the part of the foundation that decides where the philanthropic money goes. Perhaps the ;team of outside investment managers; heard about the stuff that the philanthropic arm of the organization is doing related to biotechnology, and thought, hey, this sounds like this could make money, and bought a chunk of it. In the extreme version, perhaps those investors thought that the Gates Foundation;s efforts to expand and develop modern crop varieties would grow the market for companies like Monsanto, which could in turn make the foundation more money.


;Our biggest concern is that the foundation is invested in Monsanto so they;re looking for Monsanto to make a profit,; said Travis English, of AGRA Watch. ;What they;re doing is opening up new markets in Africa for Monsanto to monopolize the seed market.;


Glenn Beck educates us on the money behind the conspiracy


Let;s examine this extreme hypothesis by the numbers. The investment was worth $27.6 million, however, just one research project that the philanthropic arm invested in cost them $42 million. From the Seattle Times article:


The Gates Foundation gave a $42 million grant to the African Agricultural Technology Foundation to develop new varieties of drought-tolerant maize in a partnership with Monsanto. The new varieties are expected to be available in about seven years and will be royalty-free for small-scale farmers in Africa, the Gates Foundation spokeswoman said.


So the investment managers thought that by buying $27 million in stock, they could make money off of a $42 million grant for drought-tolerant corn that  might  benefit Monsanto if a lot of commercial-sized growers in Africa adopt the varieties they develop? (Note that small farmers will not owe royalties.) The Monsanto stock price would have to increase by 150% merely to recoup the ;losses; of that grant alone! It doesn;t sound like there;s much math to support this outlandish idea. (I assume that investment managers can do math, of course.) I seriously doubt that they would base their decision on such pennies-on-a-dollar considerations.


The price of Monsanto stock is another interesting thing. Every time there is a dip in the price, the anti-GE social media lights up in applause. Even the  Non-GMO Project  frequently  tweets about dips in prices, while others joke about now being a good time to buy into biotechnology. (I wonder if  any  of them have decided to buy any?) They seem to know a lot more about biotech stock prices than I do. Apparently,  MON  stock has been at a relative low, and while future prospects look good, the current outlook for revenue is not so good. It was probably a good time to buy.


While some will use this investment as an argument that the Gates Foundation will cow-tow to Monsanto;s interests, there is another aspect to stock ownership that is worth bringing up. Stockholders get to vote on board elections, and 500,000 shares brings 500,000 votes. Could it be that Bill Gates is trying to wrestle control of Big Biotech to bend it to philanthropic goals? It could be just as likely, or rather unlikely as the other case. Keep in mind that $27.6 million is less than one thousandth of the total foundation;s assets, and half as much of Monsanto;s total market value. You may see the dollar amount of the stock purchase in future campaigns against the Gates Foundation, just remember how few drops it is in the $33 billion bucket.


Glenn Beck educates us on the money behind the conspiracy


Competing interests


Does the Gates Foundation having a financial stake in Monsanto present a conflict of interest? In order to be a conflict of interest, the goals of one must be different from the goals of another. If, for example, a nonprofit organization stated as its goal to stop the hunting of whales, but invested in a Japanese whaling company ; you would have a clear difference of goals. In order to achieve the goal of the nonprofit, they would have to harm their own financial interests. In the case of the Gates Foundation, their  agricultural goals include  :


Working with a wide range of partners, we are seeking to enhance the complete agricultural value chainfrom planting the highest quality seeds and improving farm management practices to bringing crops to marketwhile protecting farmers natural environments.


They continue.


Science and technology:  We are exploring the development of a diverse range of crops that can thrive in different soil types and are resistant to drought, disease, and pests. We also support the creation of crops that have enhanced nutritional value to combat chronic vitamin deficiencies. Our partners employ a range of tools and techniques, from traditional breeding to the newest biotechnologies, in the search for solutions that will help small farmers.


Indeed, their third overall  guiding principle  states that ;Science and technology have great potential to improve lives around the world.; So as companies like Monsanto and others also use science and technology with breeding, genetic engineering, crop protection methods, etc, there is no inherent conflict of interest in this area. If they had as a stated goal that they would build the world;s agriculture without the use of these things, you bet that would be a conflict of interest! (The foundation also has an  up-front policy on CoE  if you want to take a look.)


From the perspective of anti-GE (and anti-industrial) groups, however, it would appear to be a conflict of interest. This is because they believe that the best way to help the agriculture in developing countries is to avoid such applications of science and technology. In their view, if Gates  really  wanted to help those farmers, it would not be with hybrids, GE crops, or anything else like that. But this assumes that those farmers will not benefit from such crops. Often cited are lawsuits against farmers saving seeds, and the argument goes that if biotech companies gain a foothold in Africa, that they will just sue the small farmers into oblivion, and that the BMGF is providing that foothold. But remember something important from the drought-tolerance project quoted above: Small farmers (below $10,000/year I believe) will owe no royalties to Monsanto or anyone else for growing, saving, and regrowing seeds that come out of that project. These projects are specifically designed with the interests of small subsistence farmers in mind. While I understand that many anti-GE groups believe that anything related to Monsanto is against the interests of small farmers in developing countries, I think they are wrong in their assumptions, and they continually overlook the actual details of the intellectual property situations involved. You would think they would be happy to hear about the royalty-free situation, unless the IP arguments aren;t really the reason why they dislike it, and that is really just about some other issue with genetic engineering (as is often the case).


From the Seattle Times article,


Elise Lufkin, senior program director of Giving Assets Inc., a group that advocates socially responsible investing, said conflicts of interest usually arise when the programs a foundation funds are at cross purposes with companies in which they;re invested  an environmental organization opposed to oil drilling whose endowment benefits from oil company stock, for example.  The Gates investment is not necessarily a conflict of interest if the foundation and Monsanto share the same goals.


You could argue that there could potentially be a conflict of interest in a very specific situation. Let;s say that a Gates Foundation-funded project, such as the drought tolerance one mentioned above, found that the genetically engineered drought tolerant corn did not do so well. Let;s assume that they found that a non-GE corn was the most drought-tolerant, and that by adding the transgene that did the same, it did not make it any better. It would therefore be in the project;s interest to help needy farmers to scrap the GE trait and just go with releasing the non-GE variety, as the GE trait would be encumbered by biosafety regulations. This interest might not be shared by their private-sector partners, who may want to release the GE trait in the variety (although they actually might not for the same reason in addition to bad PR from a useless transgene release that would cost money).


But in order to argue that the Gates-funded project would be conflicted in their loyalties, you would have to make  one more  assumption about the financial connections. In addition to the assumptions above about the cause-and-effect connections between the philanthropic and investment arms of the foundation, you would also have to assume that the people in the project believe that they will benefit through the twisted path of money from commercial growers to Monsanto stock price increases to the 0.1% of the investment arm, to the philanthropic arm, and finally, to the project itself. You are welcome to believe that this is the case, but once you layer on so many assumptions, Occam;s Razor suggests that this is not likely to happen.


I am not saying that there is no conflict of interest, in fact, the next thing I will talk about is the conflict of interest that the foundation  has  generated through this purchase.


Public Perception and Communication


It through how this may affect the public perception of the mission and goals of the BMGF, and how they communicate those intentions that purchasing Monsanto stock generates a conflict of interest. At the same time as funding the needed research, the BMGF is also spending considerable effort explaining why this research is necessary and will be beneficial. Genetic engineering is one of the tools that they are funding, which remains contentious in many parts of the world, especially Africa. Trade relations with Europe and past issues with food aid have shaped their local politics to be fairly resistant to genetic engineering, but not intractable. South Africa grows them, and several other countries announced this year that they are considering them. Field trials are underway for crops such as the biofortified  Super Cassava  .


Monsanto, as a for-profit corporation, is interesting in making money through its business. There;s nothing wrong with making money, however when a company argues in favor of something that it can profit off of, whether it is Monsanto and GE crops or Whole Foods and Non-GMO Project certified products, there is an inherent bias. Are they advocating it because it is right or because they can make a buck? If is is because it is right, it will be difficult for people to separate it from the possibility of making a buck. I believe it was Monsanto that proposed the royalty-free idea for small farmers, thereby enabling the poorest to have free access to the technology. Yet, it seems that it is very difficult for Monsanto to do any good deeds without being punished for trying. (  Remember  what happened with  Haiti  ?)


As the BMGF continues to be involved in world agriculture, they are figuring out what they believe is the right approach, and are promoting their reasons &amp; decisions to the rest of the world. Owning stock in Monsanto may harm this effort for the simple reason that this connection will lead people to suspect that their intentions are not what they say. Various groups that oppose a second Green Revolution for developing countries will use this information in order to sow doubt about the genuine nature of the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation;s goals and interests. In fact, those groups such as  AGRA Watch  and  La Vie Campesina  have already indicated how they intend to use this information. For example, they are trying to harm the image of wheat-related projects that the Foundation is funding at Cornell and Washington State University merely by associating it with the wheat interests of Monsanto.


Keep in mind that before the news of this development, AGRA Watch uttered  Monsanto  and  Gates  in the same breath. In fact, they were bending over backwards to go all Glenn-Beck-style linking Gates to Rockefeller to Monsanto. Check out this handy graphic that they  published back in June (document file)  :


Kathleen Talbot educates us on the money behind the conspiracy


So they were not letting the lack of financial links get in the way of making the claim in the first place! The only arrow going from Monsanto to the BMGF is a single person.


So it is clear that when groups come out to oppose projects that the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation s involved with, they will shift the discussion away from what the foundation is trying to accomplish and toward a discussion of the financial interests of Monsanto. Their argument, while tenuous before, is made to seem stronger by this proportionately small stock purchase. They will quote the dollar value and the number of shares, rather than the fraction of the BMGF holdings that it represents. Time will tell whether this argument will change any minds. But if the argument does make a difference, there is the risk that successful developments coming out of the BMGF;s scientific philanthropy could be curtailed in the political realm, and that should be avoided. A lot of this rests on how the BMGF communicates its goals effectively.


So should the Gates Foundation sell its stock in Monsanto? It all rests on what the eventual outcome will be. If this has no measurable effect on the public perception of the BMGF and its mission and the outcome of the mission itself, it won;t matter and they shouldn;t worry about it. But if this puts the future of the foundation;s ability to reach the neediest and most vulnerable people in jeopardy, maybe it would be a good idea to do so. What do you think?


Hilarious Glenn Beck chalkboard images generated at  skinnymojo  .













Document Number: 9997 



 Shtweet! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 10 May 2010 


Hi everyone, Frank N. Foode here. I may not have managed to tweet during the BIO convention last week, but I;ve sure been having a ball of a time on twitter lately.


A month ago, I talked someone down from freaking out about sugar cane because she learned it was a cross between two species. As an allopolyploid, it contains all the genes from two species combined. I likened it to a GMO, which has 1 or more new genes inserted into it. But what;s one or two genes compared to tens of thousands??? I think the only sugar she;s avoiding now is high fructose corn syrup. Success..?


As an after-effect of chatting with me, one tweep ended up joining GMO Pundit  David Tribe  for a Skype conversation. I think I;m getting a hang of these 140 characters.  Anastasia  and  Pam  are experts, but I hear Karl refuses to do it. It must be nice to have all those fingers to type long posts with, but this is perfect for the ends of my husks to handle. This is the kind of social media I like!


So far, I think I;m the only plant in the Twitterverse, but people are starting to accept me for who I am.  People used to think I was working for The Man, but I;ve got such an independent streak that I don;t think I ever could. Frank N. Foode is a free plant!


And another Frank, last name  Plughoff  , is talking a lot about me on twitter. He goes by ;  Earthnik  ;, and calls himself a ;STAUNCH GMO OPPONENT!; Whoa, back off on the caps, man. I didn;t take much notice until I heard that he publishes  The Earthnik Gazette  , and the  latest issue is out today  , and has a feature about me! Yippie!


Whoops, looks like he misspelled my name, but the jokes are still good as they can be. I laughed at the thought of Biofortified;s thoughtful, bookish authors being ;spinmeisters.; I;ve seen them dance, it;s mostly jumping. You know who really knows how to spin?  Jeffrey Smith  .  Literally, too  !


And the part at the end is a fantastic use of hyperbole! The Earthnik Gazette is the best thing in parody since Sarah Palin. She;s a joke, right?


But one thing did hurt my feelings. (Yes, even plants can get stressed out.) I wanted to ;follow; Earthnik on Twitter so I could read more of his excellent parodical periodicals, but when I did that, I was met with this:


;This user has blocked you from following them.;


What?


The dirty underhanded bugger! That;s some anti-social media there.


And he even  took a potshot  at my friend Michael Pollan:


Frank N. Foodie (Even Michael Pollan is sucked in)


I thought about reaching down from my perch on the mantle to tap Michael and the shoulder and ask him what he thought. But I bet this kinda stuff is water off a waxy leaf for him. I should harden up, too.


Well, hey, so it;s not all popcorn and bubblegum in the Web 2.0 World ; but at least I can look forward to some new scents ; why did no one tell me I had two options!?













Document Number: 6825 



 Silicon Food 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 28 February 2010 


Do  you  know the consequences of calling some food organic and others not organic?  Comic from  Cowbirds in Love  by  Sanjay Kulkarni  . h/t Nathaniel Ginder













Document Number: 1379 



 Sins of omission still cause real lives to be lost. 


 by  David Tribe  on 21 September 2010 


THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REVIEW &amp; OUTLOOK EUROPE  SEPTEMBER 21, 2010  The FDA Versus Africa  Henry Miller


Hysteria over genetically modified crops hampers solutions to diarrhea mortality.


Since May, cholera has killed nearly 800 people in Nigeria and Cameroon alone, and the World Health Organization has recorded nearly 4,000 cases in the Lake Chad Basin. Inadequate access to clean water means that waterborne diseases like cholera spread rapidly, causing extreme diarrhea and deadly dehydration if left untreated. The U.N. estimates that diarrheal diseases kill 1.8 million people every year.


So you might take it as good news that American company Ventria Bioscience says it has hit on an improvement to existing rehydration therapies, which could mean another tool in the fight against diarrhea deaths. Ventria;s product consists of a genetically modified rice strain from which it cheaply extracts two proteins also found in human breast milk. After a panel of food, medicine, immunology, child nutrition and health experts had declared its product safe, Ventria in 2004 submitted it as a food supplement to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


The company waited, and heard nothing. Ventria re-submitted the product with still more data on its safety and efficacy, and then waited some more. Ventria CEO Scott Deeter tells us that in March this year, ;when it became clear that the final approval letter was not forthcoming,; the company withdrew its submission.


Technically, Ventria doesn;t need the FDA;s approval to market its product as a food supplement. In the real world, however, it does. ;The first question we get from potential partners and customers in the U.S. and around the world is ;has the FDA responded to your product;s submission with a ;no further questions; letter?;; Mr. Deeter explains. Without that letter, the financial risks of producing and marketing the product become prohibitive. Nor has the FDA been of much further assistance. ;The FDA never gave us any kind of roadmap,; Mr. Deeter adds, saying his company is now ;trying to determine the best approach.;


Reported here in full in the public Interest













Document Number: 6398 



 Something tastes bad 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 1 February 2009 


When I first read reports of mercury in corn syrup, I was first shocked, then concerned, then skeptical. Janet (qualifications unknown) at  Ethicurean  described the source of the mercury (in fact, she was picked up by  Huffington Post  ):


How did the heavy metal get in there? In making HFCS  that natural sweetener, as the Corn Refiners Associaton [sic] likes to call it  caustic soda is one ingredient used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. Apparently most caustic soda for years has been produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants, where it can be contaminated with mercury that it passes on to the HFCS, and then to consumers.


First of all, Im no particular fan of corn syrup; it tastes nasty and I avoid it. However, I also avoid added sugar or rice syrup or any other sweetener because I eat enough calories without them. Various types of foodie have been railing against HFCS for a long time, but I havent actually be able to figure out why. Instead of saying HFCS is bad we should be saying processed food is bad. Any special link between obesity and HFCS was broken in December with a comprehensive review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (see press release in  Newswise  ). The other argument against HFCS is that we are growing too much corn, but this is a sidestep at best. If people really cared about the amount of acres taken up by corn, theyd be saying eat less meat instead of eat less corn syrup (see the ISU Extension  fact sheet  about corn syrup for the uses of corn ; ironically, you cant get both ethanol and HFSC from a given bushel). Seriously, if you dont like the stuff, then dont eat it ; but its helping no one to spread falsehoods and exaggerations.


Ok, back to mercury. While Ill be the last person to say that the FDA is doing the best job in keeping us all safe, or that food processing conglomerates arent out to get a profit no matter what, American capitalism does have some protective effects. Id wager that the Corn Refiners Association knew about the possible contamination source long ago and has done their best to remove or reduce it (which is exactly right, according to the CRA  press release  ) simply to avoid future boycotts and lawsuits. Some commenters on Janets post were also skeptical, along with Marion Nestle on her  Food Politics  blog.


Marion points out that the study used no controls, and I heartily agree. The researchers should have obtained multiple brands of approximately equivalent foods (vanilla flavored yogurt for example), tested for mercury, and looked for any statistically significant differences between those that contain and those that do not contain HFCS. Without this comparison, the result that nearly one in three of the products contained detectable amounts of mercury is meaningless. Some amount of mercury is in everything we eat, processed or not, perhaps the result of decades of coal burning. Of course, theres many more details to consider


Some of their conclusions are good, like better food oversight and cleaning up chlorine plants, but, overall, the report  Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup  from the IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy) is propaganda. Its full of inflammatory language like:


Just published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Environmental Health, is the bombshell that commercial HFCS appears to be routinely contaminated with mercury. It turns out the contamination isnt so much accidental as newly recognized, given the fact that much HFCS has been made and continues to be made using mercury-grade caustic soda.


The full text of the peer-reviewed study  Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar  is available from Environmental Health, but it only contains the study on HFCS itself (not of processed foods). The writing style is too conversational for a scientific paper, but it is better than the IATP report. According to the abstract:


The [HFCS] samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States.


Perhaps that consumption estimate is a little low. Lets use the estimates reported in Not So Sweet: American 19- to 30-year-olds consume about 60 grams of HFCS per day. For 12- to 18-year olds, HFCS consumption is about 70 grams. Worst case scenario, a heavy user may consume 39.9 ug (0.0399 mg) per day (if all 70 g of HFCS were produced with mercury cells), according to this data.


Before we panic (or write condescending blog posts), we should know: how much mercury is in HFCS today, what form of mercury is it, how much mercury is in various foods, and how much of the mercury in food products is from HFCS compared to other ingredients?


The data in the Env. Health paper is from 2005. Why is it just now being published? The CRA says HFCS production methods have changed since this data was collected, so it would be irresponsible to make policy based on it. The authors said they were unable to secure HFCS from the sources as they did in 2005 ; but couldnt they get the samples from the food processors that buy the syrup? It feels like they just gave up (or that they knew a newer data set might prove their conclusions wrong).


The form of mercury matters because the different forms are absorbed into the body differently. According to the DoE Risk Assessment Information Systems  page on mercury  :


Gastrointestinal absorption of inorganic salts of mercury from food is &lt;15% for mice and about 7% for humans (Goyer 1991). Organic mercury compounds (methyl- and phenylmercury) have been shown to be readily absorbed (&gt;80%) by humans and animals following oral exposure (ATSDR 1989, Goyer 1991).


In other words, measuring the total mercury isnt as useful as it seems. If the mercury in HFCS is the type that accumulates in fish, then we have cause to worry. If it is inorganic mercury, (as we would expect from the mercury cell process) then the danger is minimized to a worst case scenario 0.0028 mg effective dose of mercury per day.


In Not So Sweet, the question of how much mercury ends up in food products that contain HFCS is answered (sort of). Their results are discussed by ChemRisk, a leading scientific consulting firm in a  report  they made at the behest of the CRA, along with a comparison of these values with other foods:


More than two-thirds of the samples analyzed by IATP had no detectable level of mercury at all. In the remaining sample, most of these were at or near the limit of detection. The average concentration for the 17 samples with detectable levels was only 128 parts per trillion (ppt). EPA sets limits for mercury in drinking water at two parts per billion.


It is well known that small amounts of mercury are broadly present in our environment. For example, Health Canada reported in 2003 that the concentrations of total mercury in steak ranged from 420 to 1,800 parts per trillion (ppt); fresh pork contained 1,100 to 1,500 ppt; organ meats (liver and kidney) contained over 2,100 ppt; and lamb contained 290 to 2,300 ppt of total mercury. (Dabeka et al, 2003) For the sake of reference, one part per trillion is equal to one drop of water spread out into 26 Olympic-size swimming pools. (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 2009)


That same study by Health Canada looked at mercury in seafood, finding amounts that ranged from 40,000 ppt in fresh or frozen marine fish to 148,000 ppt in canned fish. Other foods, such as canned mushrooms, had 5,100 to 16,000 ppt total mercury, grapes had 180 to 590 ppt, blueberries 210 to 640 ppt, rice 570 to 1,800 ppt, raisins upwards of 700 ppt, and shelled seeds up to 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt).


Unfortunately,  Dabeka, et al.  isnt available for free. The numbers reported by ChemRisk do match numbers I found elsewhere when researching this post.


Without controls in a properly designed experiment, we do not know if the mercury found in the items they tested is due to HFCS or if it is due to other ingredients. There are many ingredients that are common to a variety of processed foods. The ChemRisk report states:


IATP assumes that the total mercury they detected in a questionably small sampling of consumer foods is primarily the result of high fructose corn syrup; an assumption that has not been properly tested or validated. In fact, the authors do not attempt to characterize whether there may be mercury in any other ingredients contained within the consumer products tested, even while the recipes for the items studied may have had multiple sources of potential contamination.


Normally my suggestion for health and safety is simple: eat as little processed food and as few animal products as possible. Even that general message of moderation wont work when it comes to mercury. Unfortunately, mercury is all around us. It would be nice to get kids to cut back on sweets, and it would be nice if the mercury cell HFCS refining process was changed, but the real problem is elsewhere. I have to question the ethics of any organization the leads us on a wild goose chase.


Coal fired power plants are the single largest emitter of mercury into the atmosphere. If you really care about children ingesting mercury in their food, write letters to your congressmen demanding that they act to reduce mercury emissions from existing plants (the technology exists) and to prevent new coal fired plants from being built. Encouraging China to do the same is another matter entirely.


One upcoming source of mercury in the environment is CFC light bulbs. They wont be anywhere near the level of pollution from coal fired plants, but we should be conscious of the mercury in the bulbs. According to  EcoGeek  , some places are now offering recycling. Contact your city leaders and ask for CFC recycling in your area.


Renee Dufault, Blaise LeBlanc, Roseanne Schnoll, Charles Cornett, Laura Schweitzer, Lyn Patrick, Jane Hightower, David Wallinga, Walter Lukiw (2009). Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar  Environmental Health, 8  (1) DOI:  10.1186/1476-069X-8-2













Document Number: 6076 



 Does the source matter? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 30 November 2009 


If you;re unsure about something, there is probably a non-profit organization (aka special interest group, aka non-governmental organization) just waiting to tell you what the ;facts; are. These organizations all claim to present the most accurate information in their non-peer-reviewed reports, but can we trust them?


Let;s take  Research Shines Light on Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone  (  full paper  ) as an example. This report by the National Corn Growers association was, to be blunt, biased to the point of falsehood. I explain how in  Rotten Corn  . The organization has an agenda to put corn farming practices in the best possible light, which means every report we see from them will have some degree of spin. We should expect some degree of spin from any of these groups, but sometimes they overstep the line.


Spin  can be frustrating, particularly when we have specific evidence that contradicts what the special interest group said. What happens when the bias isn;t as obvious as in the NCG;s hypoxia report? Sometimes these reports seem 100% legitimate, especially when we agree with the agenda of the group, and especially when we don;t have the prerequisite knowledge to judge them. Even worse, there are many situations where two groups will put out directly opposing reports. Each group claims to have the ;real; information, sometimes even calling out opposing reports.


The most recent example of this is the Organic Center;s  Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years  . It directly contradicts the year old  GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2006  (pdf) by  PG Economics  . I covered some of the specific differences in  Does using GMOs really increase pesticide use?  a few days ago. In researching for the post, I made the decision to include the PG Economics report as an opposing viewpoint because the sources of the data are solid and the conclusions they make in the paper are well supported by peer-reviewed research. The Organic Center;s report leaves out a lot of data that is readily available, and doesn;t explain why ; which is enough to make me question the conclusions in the report (along with glaring problems like lumping all biotech traits as ;GMOs; with only a passing mention of how Bt and glyphosate resistant crops are different).


I mention these two opposing reports on GMOs and pesticide use to show that it is possible to evaluate ;spun; reports when we consider them with a critical eye and a reasonable familiarity with peer-reviewed research on the subject. Why peer-reviewed? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, ;Peer review is the worst form of quality control for scientific research except for all those others that have been tried.; Mistakes do, famously, get through, but don;t matter as they are either ignored (not cited by other scientists) or directly contradicted by new research.


These reports, scientifically sound or not, bypass the peer-review process. They aren;t screened by other scientists before they are published, and sometimes they are written by people who aren;t even in the field they are writing about. They can be good sources of information, but only if we take it to the next level and seek out the peer-reviewed research behind the reports as well as opposing viewpoints to help us get the big picture.


52 card pickup by mikep, via flickr.


When I say peer-reviewed research, I;m not just talking about one paper. Instead, I mean multiple papers, preferably by different authors from different institutions, and different funding agencies. The papers should use different data sets and different experimental designs that ask similar questions.


Imagine that the entire body of peer-reviewed research for a subject area is a deck of cards that we;ve placed on the table, 52 card pickup style. Each card is a paper that is related to some of the other papers. Some papers cover very similar areas, totally overlapping. Others are only slightly related, with just a tip overlapping. Any one of those cards won;t tell us that much about what;s really happening, but when we look at the whole pile, particularly the overlapping areas, we can start to understand what;s really happening.


For more on the benefits and downfalls of peer review, see  Nature;s peer review debate  (accessible without login!).













Document Number: 6701 



 Soybean Association and 54 other organisations withdraw from biased Sustainable Standard Development Process 


 by  David Tribe  on 20 October 2010 


ASA Withdraws From Leonardo Academy;s Sustainable Ag Standard Development Process


Press Release ; ST. LOUIS, MO ; October 19, 2010 ; The American Soybean Association (ASA) today announced that it is withdrawing from the Leonardo Academys initiative to develop a sustainable agriculture standard for American National Standards Institute. While ASA supports the goal of a sustainable agriculture standard, it has become clear that that the Leonardo Academy process is biased against a balanced and open analysis of modern agriculture. Fifty-four other commodity and farm organizations representing U.S. production agriculture interests joined ASA in withdrawing from the Leonardo Academys process.


;This decision was not made easily,; said ASA Board member Ron Moore, a soybean producer from Roseville, Ill., ;for it means walking away from nearly two years of investment in active Leonardo Academy Committee membership in an effort to produce an on-farm standard. However, it is clear based on actions this past summer that any continued effort cannot and will not overcome the serious systemic limitations and chronic biases that are inherent in the structure the Leonardo Academy has set up for this initiative.; After being elected Vice-Chair of the Standards Committee at its inception, Moore has served as Acting Chairman since June 2010.


Despite the Leonardo Academys claim that the Committee is made up of members from ;across all areas of agriculture,; in reality the Committee is dominated by environmental groups, certification consultants, agro-ecology and organic farming proponents. These groups have neither the vision nor desire to speak for the farmers of mainstream agriculture who produce more than 95 percent of the food consumed in or exported by the United States.


;U.S. farmers are very much dedicated to the long-term sustainability of their farms and their farming practices,; Moore said. ;For this reason, farmers will embrace an achievable roadmap for the environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability, but only if they are part of its development. We are committed to working toward such goals in the hope that widespread adoption will contribute to real sustainability of American agriculture. This cannot occur within the Leonardo Academy process.;


Over 900 million people worldwide suffer from malnutrition today, so having a sustainable food supply is of primary importance worldwide. In the next 20 to 30 years, agricultural output must double in order to feed the projected population growth.


Voting delegates at ASAs 2010 annual policy-setting meeting signaled their support for sustainable agriculture, voting that ;ASA supports developing a progressive definition of agriculture sustainability that encompasses profitable, intensive production and encourages consumer acceptance of biotechnology enhanced products and satisfies food, feed, fiber and biofuel needs.; The voting delegates also re-affirmed their support for the statutory definition of sustainable agriculture included in the 1990 Farm Bill.


ASA represents all U.S. soybean farmers on domestic and international issues of importance to the soybean industry. ASAs advocacy efforts are made possible through the voluntary membership in ASA by over 22,500 farmers in 31 states where soybeans are grown.


Contact:  Ron Moore, ASA Board member  (309) 734-5083  rmoore@dtnspeed.net


Cassandra Langley, Communications Coordinator  (314) 576-1770  clangley@soy.org













Document Number: 311 



 Soybeans are sustainable farming in the US. 


 by  David Tribe  on 6 August 2010 


Life Cycle Study Shows Soy Continues to Grow More Sustainable


By John Cooper, United Soybean Board director  Soybean farmer, Wynne, Ark.


Today, probably one of the most overused, misunderstood and most difficult to accurately measure business practices proves to be the concept of sustainability as it relates to the environmental impact of many industries. U.S. soybean farmers have long been good environmental stewards. &nbsp;Soybeans represent one of the most popular legumes  plants that naturally restore valuable nitrogen to soil. Precisely for that reason, soybeans represent one of the most common oilseeds as part of a crop rotation. The soybean checkoff has demonstrated, in several ways, the sustainability of U.S. soybeans and soybean production.  The United Soybean Board (USB) and the soybean checkoff collaborate with U.S. agriculture industry leaders, as well as with the industrys customer base, to measure and establish a baseline for sustainable U.S. soybean production. The checkoffs definition of sustainability reads: Sustainable soybean agriculture will meet the needs of the present while improving the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by adoption of technology and best practices that increase productivity to meet future needs while being stewards of the environment, improving human health through access to safe, nutritious food and enhancing the social and economic well-being of agriculture and its communities.


The United Soybean Board (USB), the farmer-driven research and promotion checkoff organization for U.S. soybeans, recognizes the need to support the poultry and livestock industries. For years, animal agriculture and its customers have been subject to increasing concerns over environmental and animal welfare issues. Soybean checkoff-funded research shows that urban and suburban populations mistakenly view animal agriculture as a problem and overlook its critical contributions to our nation and world.


A recent checkoff-funded study reviewed the life cycle profile of U.S. soybean production and showed the multiple energy and environmental benefits of U.S. soybean farming and processing. A few key findings from the study include:


The 3.36 billion bushels of soybeans grown in the United States last year removed the carbon equivalent of taking 21 million cars off the road.  On average, soybean yield increased 12 percent from 2004-2007 to 42.3 bushels over data collected from 1998 to 2000.  The calculated release of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas, is 85 percent less than previous calculations.  The updated data shows approximately 20 percent less direct energy used in soybean farming due to reduced diesel and gasoline usage.  &nbsp;Soybean processing facilities have cut energy consumption by 45 percent in the last 10 years.  One part of the study looked at a life cycle impact assessment for four soy-derived products used to make such things as soy biodiesel and plastics  methyl soyate, soy lubricant base stock, soy polyol and soy resin  using the updated life cycle inventory. This information shows these soy-based industrial products each significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions compared to similar petroleum-based products. All four of these soy-based products also cut the use of petroleum, some of which is imported from countries hostile to the United States.


The study represents the first comprehensive life cycle study covering U.S. soybean production and four major soy biobased products. U.S. soy already delivers environmental and energy benefits, and its exciting to see the trends point to even more benefits in the future.


And that study shows just one example of U.S. soybean production sustainability. &nbsp;The independent, nonprofit Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture created a report that helps track sustainability performance in U.S. agriculture. &nbsp;Early analysis shows that soybean production proves to be more efficient today than it was 20 years ago. Soybean farmers have reduced energy and irrigated water use as well as reduced carbon emissions per acre, all of which contribute to more sustainably produced U.S. soy products.


Another example of USBs commitment to sustainability came when USB requested the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) compile a report that evaluates the current and projected future status of soybean production in the United States. The comprehensive review of soybean research findings leads to the conclusion that common soybean production systems are environmentally sustainable and can be managed for profit when proper practices and technologies are used.


In addition, USB placed a link to a Fieldprint Calculator on its Web site, www.unitedsoybean.org. The free, confidential tool can be used by soybean, corn, wheat and cotton farmers who want to monitor the sustainability performance of their operations.


The soybean checkoff remains committed to help improve the environmental footprint of the entire U.S. soybean industry. U.S. soybean farmers proved to be strides ahead of the growing sustainability movement, and many have already made changes on their farms that will help make the entire U.S. soybean industry more sustainable. As a soybean farmer, Im proud of the work we have done to become more sustainable and to demonstrate the sustainability of me and my fellow soybean farmers. As a checkoff farmer-leader I will continue to help promote sustainability within the U.S. soy industry and to our existing and new customers. Theyre our soybeans. We can be proud to put them to work for us, our country and world in many different, sustainable ways.


###


914 Spruce St.  St. Louis, MO 63102  888-235-4332  Fax 314-726-6350  www.unitedsoybean.org













Document Number: 2412 



 Stem Rust Never Sleeps 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 29 April 2008 


Norm Borlaug warns of another impending crisis relating to food ; one that few have thought about. I hope that people will take notice of his editorial in the NY Times, and that the US and other governments will be willing to fund solutions. Distinguished Professor John Pesak sent the editorial to some ISU students and faculty, saying: ;He makes some excellent points with which there cannot be too much disagreement.; Indeed, who can say that developing crops that can handle new challenges is a bad thing?  I;ve posted the full article below for your convenience. A quick summary of  Stem Rust Never Sleeps  : Stem rust is a fungus that can decimate wheat fields. In the 1950s, Dr. Borlaug and others developed resistant wheat lines, but these lines are no help against a new strain of the fungus. We, as a planet (and especially in the US), must fund research to prevent the loss of millions of tons of wheat. Unfortunately, the US is doing exactly the opposite, cutting funding for agricultural research.  Specifically,  stem rust research  at the  Cereal Disease Laborotory  in St. Paul Minnesota is poised to loose funding, according to Dr. Borlaug, despite the importance of the research.  Say what you will about the Green Revolution ; but Dr. Borlaug knows how to feed people. If anyone is equipped to notice an upcoming crisis, it;s him. We all need to contact our congresspeople and representatives, email the Secretary of Agriculture at AgSec @ usda.gov, and do whatever we can to ensure that the US helps to prevent further famine.


April 26, 2008


Op-Ed Contributor


Stem Rust Never Sleeps


By NORMAN E. BORLAUG


WITH food prices soaring throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America, and shortages threatening hunger and political chaos, the time could not be worse for an epidemic of stem rust in the worlds wheat crops. Yet millions of wheat farmers, small and large, face this spreading and deadly crop infection.  The looming catastrophe can be avoided if the worlds wheat scientists pull together to develop a new generation of stem-rust-resistant varieties of wheat. But scientists must quickly turn their attention to replacing almost all of the commercial wheat grown in the world today. This will require a commitment from many nations, especially the United States, which has lately neglected its role as a leader in agricultural science.  Stem rust, the most feared of all wheat diseases, can turn a healthy crop of wheat into a tangled mass of stems that produce little or no grain. The fungus spores travel in the wind, causing the infection to spread quickly. It has caused major famines since the beginning of history. In North America, huge grain losses occurred in 1903 and 1905 and from 1950 to 54.  During the 1950s, I and other scientists, first in North America and later throughout the world, developed high-yielding wheat varieties that were resistant to stem rust and other diseases. These improved seeds not only enabled farmers around the world to hold stem rust at bay for more than 50 years but also allowed for greater and more dependable yields. Indeed, with this work, global food supplies rapidly increased and prices dropped.  From 1965 to 1985, the heyday of the Green Revolution, world production of cereal grains  wheat, rice, corn, barley and sorghum  nearly doubled, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion metric tons, and cereal prices dropped by 40 percent.  Today, wheat provides about 20 percent of the food calories for the worlds people. The world wheat harvest now stands at about 600 million metric tons.  In the last decade, global wheat production has not kept pace with rising population, or the increasing per capita demand for wheat products in newly industrializing countries. At the same time, international support for wheat research has declined significantly. And as a consequence, in 2007-08, world wheat stocks (as a percentage of demand) dropped to their lowest level since 1947-48. And prices have steadily climbed to the highest level in 25 years.  The new strains of stem rust, called Ug99 because they were discovered in Uganda in 1999, are much more dangerous than those that, 50 years ago, destroyed as much as 20 percent of the American wheat crop. Todays lush, high-yielding wheat fields on vast irrigated tracts are ideal environments for the fungus to multiply, so the potential for crop loss is greater than ever.  If publicly financed international researchers move together aggressively and systematically, high-yielding replacement wheat varieties can be developed and made available to farmers before stem rust disease becomes a global epidemic.  The Bush administration was initially quick to grasp Ug99s threat to American wheat production. In 2005, Mike Johanns, then secretary of agriculture, instructed the federal agriculture research service to take the lead in developing an international strategy to deal with stem rust. In 2006, the Agency for International Development mobilized emergency financing to help African and Asian countries accelerate needed wheat research.  But more recently, the administration has begun reversing direction. The State Department is recommending ending American support for the international agricultural research centers that helped start the Green Revolution, including all money for wheat research. And significant financial cuts have been proposed for important research centers, including the Department of Agricultures essential rust research laboratory in St. Paul.  This shocking short-sightedness goes against the interests not only of American wheat farmers and consumers but of all humanity. It is tantamount to the United States abandoning its pledge to help halve world hunger by 2015.  If millions of small-scale farmers see their wheat crops wiped out for want of new disease-resistant varieties, the problem will not be confined to any one country. Rust spores move long distances in the jet streams and know no political boundaries. Widespread failures in global wheat production will push the prices of all foods higher, causing new misery for the worlds poor.  Ug99 could reduce world wheat production by 60 million tons. But a global crop failure of this magnitude can be avoided. Before it is too late, America must rebuild, not destroy, the collaborative systems of international agricultural research that were so effective in starting the Green Revolution.


Norman E. Borlaug, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, is a professor of international agriculture at Texas A&amp;M University.













Document Number: 7893 



 Stossel comments on E coli denial by natural foods activist 


 by  David Tribe  on 19 November 2010 


November 19, 2010  10:45 AM UTC  by John Stossel  Natural Foods Activist Gets It Wrong    On my  show  last night,  Food &amp; Water Watch  executive director Wenonah Hauter debated  Competitive Enterprise Institute  s Greg Conko over whether genetically-modified foods tamper with mother nature.&nbsp; Wenonah says yes, Greg says no.    At one point in the debate, Wenonah Hauter insisted that the big 2006  spinach recall  was of conventionally-grown spinach  NOT organic.&nbsp; However, we checked.&nbsp; Turns out the FDAs  own study  reveals that the ready-to-eat produce from this leased acreage was sold as conventional produce but organic growing practices were used.  Facts like that are inconvenient for natural foods activists. &nbsp;The truth is that conventional farmers do a lot of good.&nbsp; They;ve used chemicals and genetically-engineered crops to grow more food on less land.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet their reputation has been trashed by natural, organic farmers and their boosters who claim, without evidence, that they are better.&nbsp; They simply are not.    Read more:  http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/11/19/%E2%80%98natural%E2%80%99-foods-activist-gets-it-wrong/#ixzz15n3W4vIF   &nbsp;    Also earlier posts here at Pundit on the spinach outbreak under scrutiny , e.g.  here  , which can be found via the search function.













Document Number: 1189 



 Stress tolerant maize for the developing world  Challenges and prospects 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 20 March 2010 


The 2010 Maize Genetics Conference started with a call for maize geneticists to take on one of the greatest challenges of human history ; feeding the world.  Marianne Bnziger  of CIMMYT presented the first plenary talk, titled Stress tolerant maize for the developing world ; Challenges and prospects. Find the abstract of her talk at the end of this post.


Of all of the staple grains, maize is the most drought susceptible. Wheat is fairly drought tolerant, and rice is irrigated. Maize is sensitive to variation in rainfall, and since it is typically not irrigated, any year to year variation in rainfall will be seen as year to year variation of yield, with low rainfall years yielding less than high rainfall years. There are some drought tolerant varieties that don;t have such variation with rainfall, but they are consistently low yielding, even in high rainfall years. In order to provide enough food for growing populations, maize must be developed that can maintain reasonably high yields even in drought years.


A second major problem with maize is nitrogen. Maize reacts well to fertilizer application, providing (to a point) higher yields with higher amounts of nitrogen. However, less than 50% of applied fertilizer is used by the plant, leaving much of the nitrogen unused This unused fertilizer can be carried via surface waters to places like the Gulf of Mexico where it can contribute to hypoxic zones. Additionally, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer can be expensive to produce because it requires natural gas. Both synthetic nitrogen and non-synthetic fertilizers take fuel to distribute through fields. Maize that can use applied nitrogen more efficiently without laving so much behind must be developed both in order to provide enough food and to ensure that we are using both renewable and nonrenewable resources efficiently while protecting the environment.


CIMMYT aims to solve problems of drought and nitrogen by breeding under stress conditions. Their fields look more like a field in Africa than a field in Iowa. They simply select for stress tolerant plants that grow successfully under low water and low nitrogen conditions. They;ve found that genetic markers in typical yield selected lines and in stress selected lines are very different. CIMMYT is also looking at breeding under low phosphorus and low potassium.


While CIMMYT is primarily focused on breeding, they believe the key to meeting future food needs lies in matching breeding and transgenics. In particular, CIMMYT has partnered with seed companies to develop transgenics that will enhance productivity. The current traits on the market are protective: Bt protects the crop plants from insect damage which can reduce yield, Roundup Ready protects the crop plants from having to compete with weeds for resources, and virus resistance protects papaya from reduced yield due to virus infection. Productivity traits would directly increase yield instead of protecting it. Castigiloni showed in the 2008 paper  Bacterial RNA chaperones confer abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved grain yield in maize under water-limited conditions  that yield could be significantly improved with a transgene.


Finding appropriate transgenes that will improve yield isn;t the end of the story. Each transgene needs to be investigated for genotype x environment interactions to see if the productivity transgenes behave differently under different environmental conditions. In addition, the transgenes may behave differently in different varieties, so each individual variety would need to be tested for yield changes with the productivity transgene. More layers of complication are added when multiple genes of similar and different traits are stacked. The combinations of transgenes may behave differently than each gene alone, and the combinations may have different interactions with each variety and environment.


CIMMYT has partnerships with Monsanto to work on  water efficient maize for Africa  (WEMA) and with Pioneer to work on  improved maize for African soils  (IMAS) which is also known as nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). These partnerships have many benefits. They can combine CIMMYT germplasm which is adapted for the farming conditions of low-income farms with the elite germplasm held by the corporations. They can ensure that the poor can aces the seed at no cost or at costs they can afford. They can also depend on the companies to provide funding to develop and deregulate the traits.


Developing and using transgenics is not without barriers, of course. In short, transgenics are expensive. Developing a transgenic trait costs $25 to $100 million dollars or more. Costs include finding a gene that does what you want it to, testing efficacy of the gene in many different varieties and environments, safety testing to ensure that the transgenic plants are substantially equivalent to their non-transgenic sister plants, and so on. For the forseeable future, the cost of transgenic traits will remain high. For the price of one commercial transgenic cultivar, CIMMYT believes they can characterize the entire genetic heritage of the two principal cereal crops, wheat and maize.


During her talk, Marianne announced the new CIMMYT program Seeds of Discovery for the first time. This exciting program will examine ancestral varieties of maize and wheat to enable breeding programs globally to use crop biodiversity in developing new lines. They aim to discover the extent of allelic variation in these varieties. They also hope to better understand how the different varieties are related in core sets. Right now, varieties are organized by geographic origin or phenotype but grouping by genotype will allow for better explanation of genetic similarities and differences. When more is known about the allelic diversity in ancestral varieties, marker assisted breeding can be used to bring those rare useful alleles into breeding programs.


In addition to ancestral varieties, CIMMYT looks at farmers; varieties. They have partners in 14 countries that are both looking for potential lines for breeding that have traits like drought tolerance and looking into how new traits will work with the varieties farmers are currently using. They are also looking into other traits that are important to farmers in the developing world, including taste and appearance.


Greater than 80% of the required yield grain has to come from breeding. No other method, including fertilizer and transgenic traits, will be able to come close to breeding. Making these increases requires scientists from the developed world and from the developing world to both form partnerships and to work on their own areas of expertise. Marianne called upon the maize genetics community to help characterize the genes and alleles that CIMMYT finds in their Seeds of Discovery program. They plan to provide seed to scientists so they can begin to investigate the traits.


Talk Abstract:


Increasing demands for the main food staples, climate change, and increasing water, nutrient and land costs give a new urgency to developing and making available stress tolerant crops. This urgency is the greatest in the developing world where investments in research, capacity building and infrastructure development still lag far behind the developed world. The presentation gives an overview of CIMMYTs investment in the development of stress tolerant maize which has recently gained significant leverage through stronger research collaboration with public and private partners, and now extends from native and transgenic trait discovery to large scale application of marker assisted selection approaches tailored to the improvement of highly quantitative traits such as yield under drought and low soil fertility. Many years of CIMMYT research indicate that these traits are highly polygenic, which has implications for the use of transgenics, identification of effects within association mapping studies, and the choice of appropriate marker based breeding strategies. In addition to assessing front line transgenics originating from the private sector for use in particular in Africa, current efforts focus on marker assisted recurrent selection (MARS), which is being implemented in over 40 biparental populations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Current MARS populations are selected on an index of 200 to 300 anonymous SNP markers, a density chosen because it is affordable with current genotyping technology. In 2010, pilot projects on the implementation of genomic selection (GS) using much higher marker densities will be initiated on new platforms based on next generation sequencing technologies, and it is expected that by 2011 genotyping costs will have dropped enough to permit their routine application across the CIMMYT maize breeding program and facilitate innovative native gene discovery and allele mining approaches. With that, CIMMYT is among the first public sector breeding programs that integrate cutting edge transgenic and molecular techniques on a large scale for germplasm development and dissemination to the tangible benefit of resource poor farmers.


Castiglioni P, Warner D, Bensen RJ, Anstrom DC, Harrison J, Stoecker M, Abad M, Kumar G, Salvador S, D;Ordine R, Navarro S, Back S, Fernandes M, Targolli J, Dasgupta S, Bonin C, Luethy MH, &amp; Heard JE (2008). Bacterial RNA chaperones confer abiotic stress tolerance in plants and improved grain yield in maize under water-limited conditions.  Plant physiology, 147  (2), 446-55 PMID:  18524876













Document Number: 8649 



 Strong support for organic farming at TV forum. The difficulty is, organic means many different things. 


 by  David Tribe  on 13 October 2010 


Organic or Not   Tuesday, 12 Oct 10 SBS TV, Insight current affairs


Transcript


Organic food is one of the fastest growing industries in Australia, and it is raking in the dollars for some enterprising businesses. Some people are prepared to pay up to triple for organic food in the interests of their health and the environment, but is it worth it? How does organic food stack up? That is what we are talking about tonight and you can too via Twitter and Facebook.


JENNY BROCKIE: Welcome everyone, good to have you here tonight. I am interested to find out from some of the people here what you think organic means. What do you think organic food actually is, Fiona?


FIONA: Well, I guess organic food is food that is supposed to be like healthy, should be healthy.


JENNY BROCKIE: &nbsp;Healthy, how is it healthy though? If you see organic in a shop what do you think it means?


FIONA: &nbsp;It shouldn;t have any insecticides on it or it should be grown naturally.


JENNY BROCKIE: &nbsp;Okay Lyn, what about you, what do you think organic means?


LYN: Non exploitative, so anything that has been done humanely, so that takes it quite broadly.


JENNY BROCKIE: &nbsp;Lorraine, what do you think organic means if you see an organic label on food or you see a sign that says organic food, what do you think that means?


LORRAINE: &nbsp;I would say chemical free, pesticide free and, you know, grown without any other ; naturally grown or;


JENNY BROCKIE: &nbsp;Bill, you grow oranges. What do you think organic means?


BILL GENNIMATAS, ORGANIC ORANGE FARMER: Organic is representing nature and nature is a wonderful thing that we live in. Continues at link.













Document Number: 8365 



 Substantial equivalence 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 October 2010 


One important concept that is used in most countries to regulate products of genetic engineering is  substantial equivalence  . The way to determine substantial equivalence is  comparative assessment  . What do substantial equivalence and comparative assessment mean? Depending on the source we use, we might find different definitions and different opinions of how useful they are in determining the safety of products of genetic engineering. The USDA provides information on  Food Safety Assessment and Considerations  as part of their  Focus on Food Biotechnology  page at the  Food Safety Research Information Office  .


What substantial equivalence can do is give us a starting point.


We know that there is variation in amounts and types of proteins and metabolites, gene expression, and other parameters from variety to variety, from environment to environment, and from plant to plant. For example, if I use a  microarray  to find similarly and differently expressed genes in two genetically identical plants grown in slightly different environments, such as different temperatures, I will find some genes that have significantly different expression. Similarly, plants of different varieties grown in the same environment will have different gene expression profiles and even two identical plants in the same environment will have some differences.


The first step in a comparative assessment is to test and compare the genetically engineered variety to a genetically similar variety that doesn;t have the trans- or cis-gene. Tests can include gene expression, metabolic profiles, feeding studies, and more. If differences aren;t found in a reasonably wide panel of tests, then the genetically engineered variety can be called substantially equivalent to the genetically similar variety.


If differences are found, two questions need to be asked. First, does the change fall within the natural variation found among different varieties of the same species? For example, some varieties of corn with the Bt gene have been found to contain more lignin than genetically similar varieties without the Bt gene, but the amount of lignin falls within the normal range of lignin content for corn plants. Second, is there a scientific explanation for each change? For example, a transgene that causes higher calcium uptake from the soil is expected to result in higher amounts of calcium.


If there is a change that doesn;t fall within the natural variation for that species, especially if there isn;t an obvious scientific explanation for the change, then more testing needs to be done to determine safety with regard to environment and human health.


What substantial equivalence does not do is give license to make assumptions. The process of genetic engineering does have the potential to cause unintended changes in the resulting organism. That;s why a comparative assessment needs to be conducted before a plant, animal or microbe that has been genetically engineered can be deemed substantially equivalent to a non-genetically engineered but genetically similar organism.


One major problem with determining substantial equivalence is that it is hard to know which tests are appropriate. This problem has improved greatly as ;omics; type tests have become more widely used. Tests for macronutrient content could be expected to miss small but significant changes but wide screens for changes in the  transcriptome  ,  proteome  , or  metabolome  could be expected to find those small changes.


The metabolome seems to hold the most promise because it effectively tests the end product of gene expression and enzyme activity. Owen Hoekenga presented metabolomics in an excellent 2008 paper as a method that could be used to help determine substantial equivalence.


Hoekenga OA (2008). Using metabolomics to estimate unintended effects in transgenic crop plants: problems, promises, and opportunities.  Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT, 19  (3), 159-66 PMID:  19137102  .  Abstract: Transgenic crops are widespread in some countries and sectors of the agro-economy, but are also highly contentious. Proponents of transgenic crop improvement often cite the substantial equivalence of transgenic crops to the their nontransgenic parents and sibling varieties. Opponents of transgenic crop improvement dismiss the substantial equivalence standard as being without statistical basis and emphasize the possible unintended effects to food quality and composition due to genetic transformation. Systems biology approaches should help consumers, regulators, and other stakeholders make better decisions regarding transgenic crop improvement by characterizing the composition of conventional and transgenically improved crop species and products. In particular, metabolomic profiling via mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance can make broad and deep assessments of food quality and content. The metabolome observed in a transgenic variety can then be assessed relative to the consumer and regulator accepted phenotypic range observed among conventional varieties. I briefly discuss both targeted (closed architecture) and nontargeted (open architecture) metabolomics with respect to the transgenic crop debate and highlight several challenges to the field. While most experimental examples come from tomato (Solanum lycoperiscum), analytical methods from all of systems biology are discussed.


;Omics; studies that have been conducted on the substantial equivalence of genetically engineered plants to their non-genetically engineered counterparts have found that there are differences but those differences fall within the range of differences found within different varieties of the same species. Below are some such studies.


Kogel KH, Voll LM, Schfer P, Jansen C, Wu Y, Langen G, Imani J, Hofmann J, Schmiedl A, Sonnewald S, von Wettstein D, Cook RJ, &amp; Sonnewald U (2010). Transcriptome and metabolome profiling of field-grown transgenic barley lack induced differences but show cultivar-specific variances.  PNAS, 107  (14), 6198-203 PMID:  20308540    Baker JM, Hawkins ND, Ward JL, Lovegrove A, Napier JA, Shewry PR, &amp; Beale MH (2006). A metabolomic study of substantial equivalence of field-grown genetically modified wheat.  Plant biotechnology journal, 4  (4), 381-92 PMID:  17177804    Coll A, Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Messeguer J, Mel E, Palaudelms M, &amp; Pla M (2009). Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines.  Transgenic research, 18  (5), 801-8 PMID:  19396622   Lehesranta SJ, Davies HV, Shepherd LV, Nunan N, McNicol JW, Auriola S, Koistinen KM, Suomalainen S, Kokko HI, &amp; Krenlampi SO (2005). Comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties, landraces, and genetically modified lines.  Plant physiology, 138  (3), 1690-9 PMID:  15951487    Gregersen PL, Brinch-Pedersen H, &amp; Holm PB (2005). A microarray-based comparative analysis of gene expression profiles during grain development in transgenic and wild type wheat.  Transgenic research, 14  (6), 887-905 PMID:  16315094


Another problem with comparative assessments is that each genetically engineered trait may require different types of testing, depending on what the trait is. For example, a drought tolerant crop may need to be tested under wet and dry conditions while a nutritional trait may not need to be tested under different environmental conditions.


An alternative view to substantial equivalence and comparative assessment is the  precautionary principle  . Instead of starting by looking for differences between a genetically engineered organism and a non-genetically engineered but genetically similar organism as we find in a comparative assessment, the precautionary principle requires us to start with the assumption that there are differences and enough studies must be conducted to determine that something is completely safe before release. The precautionary principle is an important enough idea that it deserves its own post, but I will say here that it has some problems, the biggest of which is that the amount of testing that is deemed to be ;enough; is rarely defined, so the amount of tests that ;need; to be conducted can always be made larger, which may actually be the point.













Document Number: 8572 



 Sugar beet biology 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 25 August 2010 


Roundup Ready sugar beets have been back in the news due to the  decision by Judge White to revoke approval  . As I understand it, the USDA conduced an Environmental Assessment for Roundup Ready sugar beets but did not conduct an Environmental Impact Statement. According to regulation, an EA is sufficient if potential harm is found to be minimal, but an EIS is needed for anything that is less well understood, such as a new trait (and this is hardly a new trait). After reading the EA, I agree with the USDA that the potential environmental harm is minimal, and I think the potential economic harm is minimal as well, due to some very specific characteristics of beet biology, which I;ll explain in this post, followed by a discussion of mitigation strategies that might be used to control gene flow in beets (sorry, folks, this is going to be another long one).


Beet flowers and seeds, originally from Koehlers Medicinal-Plants circa 1887, via Wikipedia.


Beet biology


Sugar beets are biennial, which means they need two years before they reach maturity. During the 1st year, the plants produce a large root that, when dried, is 15-20% sugar. During the 2nd year, the plant uses those stored sugars to produce flowers and then seeds. Sugar beets harvested for sugar, therefore, dont produce flowers or pollen or seeds.


Sometimes a few plants will bolt or flower when they arent supposed to, such as when there are unusual temperatures. This happens in both GM* and non-GM beets. Modern beet varieties have been bred to not bolt. In Europe, weed beets can pollenate beets grown for seed, resulting in weed x cultivated beet hybrids that might bolt, but in the US weed beets are not a problem. There is a very low percentage of bolters in any beet field ; fewer than 1 per 1000 square meters of field. Some discussion on bolter control can be found in the University of California Cooperative Extension  Sugarbeet Notes  , but keep in mind that some aspects of beet production in California differ from beet production in other states.


Another source of pollen could be beets or pieces of beets that are can be missed during harvest. These can flower during the following year as volunteers, but only in climates that have warm enough winters, specifically, the Imperial Valley in California, near the border with Mexico. In Oregon and the other beet producing states, cold winter weather kills any beet pieces left in the field so they can not flower the following year.


When they do flower, such as when beets are grown for seed, sugar beet pollen is fairly mobile, according to the Jan 2009  Pollen dispersal in sugar beet production fields  . It is carried by the wind and possibly by insects as well. They found that pollen carried up to 1200 meters (thats about 0.75 miles). These results are fairly consistent among papers testing dispersal of beet pollen. Even though pollen can move from field to field, most of it stays put. In the 1967  Cross-pollination between fields of sugar beet  , the amount of pollen falling from one 20 acre beet field onto another that is 1000 meters away is estimated to be 0.004 compared to the amount of pollen coming from the field itself. Beet pollen can remain viable for a while when stored cold and dry in a lab refrigerator, but in the field it;s only viable for about 24 hours after it is shed by the flower.


Even though theres all of this pollen flying around, most of it falls close to the parent plants. This is a good thing for any farmer trying to grow seed, or it would be impossible to produce seed with the genetics that they want.


Sugar beet by Mary Claire Garrison, via North Carolina State University.


Pollen potential


There are 4 situations I can imagine for combinations of GM and non-GM sugar beet fields. Only one is a problem because the seeds of sugar beets grown for sugar are irrelevant. You can not both harvest the root for sugar this year and harvest the seed next year. Even if a flower from a plant was pollinated with pollen that contains a transgene, the beet from that plant will not. So, there is no risk of contamination of non-GM beets with GM beet pollen ; except in the case of seed production.


Two fields growing beets next to each other, one GM and one not GM. In this case, the only pollen around will be from bolters. Even if flowers are produced and are pollinated with pollen that has a GM gene, the root is still not GM.  A field growing non-GM beet seed next to a field growing GM beets. The only GM pollen around will be from bolters. It is possible that pollen from GM bolters could fertilize the non-GM beet flowers at a very low rate. Appropriate distances must be maintained by the farmer growing the seed to ensure he will produce seed with the genetics he wants.  A field growing GM beet seed next to a field growing non-GM beets. As in case 1, the roots in the non-GM field will not be affected. Just like in case 2, the farmer growing seed needs to maintain appropriate distances to protect her flowers from bolters to ensure her seed will have the genetics she wants.   Two fields growing beet seed next to each other, one GM and one not GM. This is where things get a little more complicated, just because there;s more pollen around. Since most beet seed is grown in  Willamette Valley  in Oregon, the potential for cross pollination is fairly high, if plants of different genotypes are grown close together. This problem isn;t unique to GM, though, so plants that need to be kept separate genetically are kept separate physically.


Table beets via Wikipedia.


Sugar beets, table beets, and chard are all grown for seed in Willamette Valley, and they are all capable of cross pollination. Seed producers of any of these must keep their fields separated by distance from any other seed producers or the resulting seed could be worthless.


For example, if red table beet seeds were grown too close to sugar beet seeds, the sugar beet seed grower could end up with red sugar beet seed. Whoever bought and planted that seed would end up with a worthless crop, since all that red pigment would complicate sugar processing. Even if only a small percentage of the field had genes from table beets, the farmer would be paid less for his crop since the sugar processor would have to find a way to remove the red sugar beets. Table beets growing from the contaminated seed would likely have issues as well.


You gotta keep ;em separated


Producing pure seed isn;t an easy job. Without GM even entering the discussion, there;s a lot to do to make sure that the seed a farmer buys is going to produce the right plants. In the case of beets, the plants are often weeded by hand to remove any plants that don;t look like the rest. The American Crystal Sugar Company has an excellent webpage that talks about  sugar beet seed production  , with pictures. For a non-beet centric view of how complicated it can be to produce good seed, the Seeds of Change seed company has a great article:  Redefining Seed Quality  . The article is about organic seed but applies equally to all seed types (there is one error in this article, see the next section of this post for details).


How do seed producers in Willamette Valley and elsewhere keep pollen from sexually compatible crops from pollinating their flowers and contaminating their seed? It all comes down to distance. The  Oregon Seed Certification Service  recommends different distances for stock seed and for certified seed (see the  Oregon Seed Certification Service Handbook  for more details on types of seed). Oregon;s  sugar beet certification standards sheet  (pdf) lists the following distances for stock and certified seed production:


From sugar beet pollen source of different or unknown ploidy: 5000 ft, 3200 ft  From sugar beet pollen source of similar ploidy or between fields where male sterility is not used: 3200 ft, 2600 ft  From other pollinator or genus Beta that is not a sugar beet (including fodder beet, red beet, swiss chard): 10,200 ft, 8000 ft


Remember, 5,280 ft is a mile, so this standards sheet is saying that seed production fields need to be 1 to 2 miles apart (the American Crystal Sugar Company site says the distance needed might be ;several miles;). If this distance works well enough to keep all the different varieites of sugar beets, table beets, and chard genetically pure, then it will work to keep GM genes out of non-GM crops. Pollen from a GM plant is no different than pollen from a non-GM plant. While I could understand if someone advocated for tests with GM pollen to determine the exact distance, I don;t think that;s necessary since we already have a lot of information on how far apart fields need to be to prevent gene flow ; as stated earlier, research has found that 1000 meters separating two fields results in 0.004 of all pollen coming from the distant field compared to the amount of pollen coming from the field itself.


Don;t panic, it;s organic


The  Redefining Seed Quality  article has one little mistake. It says ;By law organic seed can not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).; This is a common misconception. The law actually says that GM can not be used in organic seed, not that it can;t contain GM seed. The organic standards are processed based, not content based. As long as an organic farmer sources seed that isn;t GM and makes a reasonable effort to prevent GM materials from being in his products, organic certification will not be affected, even if the product is tested and found to have a GM gene in it. How can this be? Those reasonable efforts work the majority of the time because they are based on sound science.


The regulation isn;t completely clear on how all this works, so we can;t really blame Seeds of Change for assuming that the law says seed can;t contain GMOs. Back in 2004, USDA official Bill Hawks  responded to questions about organic certification and GM  by Gus Douglas of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. The excellent questions were met with excellent responses and really clears up what the policies are. The letter isn;t long, I recommend reading it in full.


This point of GM content is very important in the case we;re discussing here. If an organic beet or beet relative seed farmer (or any organic seed farmer) takes reasonable precautions, such as the appropriate distances as discussed above, it is still possible for cross pollination to occur at some low level. What level is acceptable? The regulation doesn;t say, because content isn;t the issue.


Of course, even though content isn;t the issue for organic certification, some people want to add extra levels of testing and certification beyond organic standards. The  Non-GMO Project  is a private labeling program that has established its own guidelines for what level of GM content is too high to allow use of their proprietary label.  The Non-GMO Project Working Standard  sets the following levels as the maximum allowable GM content: 0.1% for seed and other plant propagation materials, 0.5% for ingredients of human food, supplements, or hygiene products, and 0.9% for animal feed and supplements. These levels may or may not be met by the precautions required for organic certification, so farmers looking for a Non-GMO or similar label may need to take additional precautions.


Distance as mitigation strategy


As labels like Non-GMO become more widely used, more farmers will be testing their crops, so there is potential for economic harm due to even low levels of cross pollination. Still, none of this justifies a nationwide ban on GM sugar beet seed production. There are other options. Some would put the onus on the sugar industry and farmers who want to grow GM beet seeds, others put the onus on farmers who want more strict pollen control. Unfortunately, all options will make things difficult to varying degrees for one or the other, which I suppose is why the issue ended up in court instead of peacefully decided.


Judge White may not have known about distance as a mitigation strategy. If he had, perhaps he could have ruled that GM seed production could only take place a certain distance away from the fields of farmers who don;t want even the potential of GM pollen. I;d imagine there could be a legal argument that farmers using existing methods have certain rights when faced with a new method that could potentially affect their livelihoods. Setting such a distance may well effectively ban the growing of GM sugar beet seed in Willamette Valley.


Another option that was available to Judge White was to just prohibit GM beet seeds from being grown in Willamette Valley. There;s already a ban in all of Oregon against growing any canola (GM or not) because of concerns that the canola will pollinate other brassica crops grown for seed, like broccoli, although that concern might not be warranted, according to farmer Dean Freeborn in  Farmer pushes for relaxation on canola rules  . This could be used as precedent to justify a ban on GM sugar beet seed production in Willamette Valley, or even in all of Oregon.


Since Willamette Valley is apparently the best place to grow beet seed, a true ban or effective ban would likely harm the sugar industry and even farmers who don;t currently supply niche markets if the GM beet seed has to be grown elsewhere. I;m not sure what the law says about preferring one industry over another, but I think an argument can be made here.


Aside from the negative effects on the non-specialty seed market, there is another problem with distance. It requires, in any way I can think of it, that exact locations of fields be made public, at least to other seed farmers. From there I bet it wouldn;t be too hard for destructive activists to start pulling up plants or setting fields on fire. It;s an unfortunate reality that has to be dealt with.


Other mitigation strategies


If not distance, seed producers always have the option to use mobile, temporary tents over the plants while they are receptive to pollen. According to Seeds of Change,  tents or field covers  have a lot of advantages, including protecting the plants from insects and other pests. Here in Ames, Iowa researchers from USDA APHIS use tents made of fine mesh so the wind and sun can pass through while isolating the plants from undesired pollen. Of course, this would be a hassle for growers that don;t currently need to use them.


Another option is to use varieties that aren;t sexually compatible with your neighbor;s crops. Without going too much into detail, some varieties of beets have genes that only allow pollination with pollen that has a compatible gene. All the pollen in the world could be flying around, but only sexually compatible pollen would successfully fertilize flowers.


Another solution was suggested, briefly, by the (former?) Board President of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association Frank Morton in a post titled  GMOs at the Door  :


Some [mitigation strategies] are so obvious that it seems negligent to have not employed them, like using male-sterile maternal lines to carry the RR-genes (so no RR-pollen is created) in the hybrid seed production process (all GM-sugar beets are F1 hybrids).


This idea isn;t new, and works for many more crops than just beets. As described in  The use of cytoplasmic male sterility for seed production  (paraphrased from pdf, page 630):


CMS is used to produce hybrids of both table and sugar beets. Sugar beets are almost exclusively hybrids in the US and Europe, with some open-pollinated cultivars grown in regions of the world with lower inputs such as Morocco and Egypt. Approximately 50% of table-beet cultivars are hybrid; OP cultivars are still produced with the advantage of cheaper seed. CMS and its potential to be used to create hybrids was described in 1945.


Since hybrids are already used, it wouldn;t take much more effort to develop male sterile lines that carry the transgene, or to at least breed the transgene into the female side of the hybrid, which is exactly what beet seed breeders have done. According to Luther Markwart, Executive Vice President of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association, about 75% of all Roundup Ready beet seed grown in Willamette Valley has the Roundup Ready gene on the female side, so no pollen produced by these Roundup Ready beet seed production fields contains the Roundup Ready gene (personal communication).


This strategy is a win-win. Farmers of non-GM seed avoid any additional problems with cross pollination, all seed farmers keep using distances for isolation just as they always have, the sugar industry and sugar beet farmers get all the GM sugar beet seed they want; Once this economic cross pollination issue for seed production is resolved, there;s no reason to stop the deregulation of GM sugar beets. The sugar beet growers just need to edge that 75% up to 100%.


Sea spinach by Squirmelia aka Jodi via Flickr.


A history of beets


Sugar beets don;t appear in nature, nor table beets. Ancestors of beets were domesticated from a seashore living species that distributed its seeds in corky fruits that floated in the water, called sea beets or sea spinach today. By ancient times, the plants were bred into something like Swiss chard, widely grown in gardens and considered to be a very healthy addition to the diet. The plants even appeared in ancient literature, such as in this culinary quote from  The Acharnians  by Aristophanes circa 425BC:


Look at this charming eel, that returns to us after six long years of absence. Salute it, my children; as for myself, I will supply coal to do honour to the stranger. Take it into my house; death itself could not separate me from her, if cooked with beet leaves.


Beets and beet greens remained popular throughout the centuries. In 812, Charlemagne issued a decree that imperial estates include beets in their gardens, referring to a plant similar to table beets in that both leaves and roots can be eaten. In 1538, several varieties of beets were described by  Andrea Cesalpino  , an Italian botanist, in  De Plantus  . In 1600, the sweetness of beets was praised by  Oliver De Serres  , a French agronomist, in  Thatre d;agriculture.


Finally, in 1747  Andreas Sigsmund Marggraf  reported to the Prussian Academy of Sciences that he had extracted pure sugar from beets! However, the sugar was only about 1.6% of the total beet weight, which seemed too low to bother with. His student,  Franz Carl Archard  , working with white beets used for animal feed, developed the highly sweet White Silesian beet. Franz went on to open the first sugar beet extraction plant, and the rest is history.


Historical information is paraphrased from  Sugar Beet  by A. Philip Draycott.


.


*GM stands for genetically modified or genetic modification.


Note: Much of this post originally appeared as  No risk assessment for sugar beets?  but has been edited to be a broader discussion of sugar beet biology, with additional discussion of seed production. The historical part was just incidental, I found all of this cool information and just had to include it. I hope you;ll think it;s cool too!


Note: A few small changes were made on 14 October 2010 to improve accuracy. Specifically, information on freezing temperatures killing broken beet pieces and that 75% of beet seed production has the Roundup Ready gene in the female side of the hybrid.













Document Number: 9282 



 Supreme Court decides on Alfalfa case 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 21 June 2010 


Supreme Court of the United States (Source: SupremeCourt.gov)


In what (for me) seemed like no time at all, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has  issued its ruling  on the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case. In a landslide 7:1 ruling (with one recusing), the high court has lifted the nationwide ban on planting genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant alfalfa. What does this mean for GE alfalfa and sugar beet plantings that have been affected by the courts?


Although the social media chatter over the case was mostly characterizing it as crucial to win to ;stop; GE alfalfa, it was really more about what the proper course of action is for the GE regulatory process, and whether a court can issue an injunction against planting GE crops while the environmental impact statement (EIS) is being drafted, without having to provide evidence of harm. For more background information,  read my previous post about the case  . In essence, the court was considering whether the lower court was right in ;remanding; the GE alfalfa back to the USDA to determine whether it was ok to plant, while  also  issuing an injunction preventing them from saying it was ok to plant until the EIS is complete.


SCOTUS ruled that the lower court acted wrongly by remanding  and  enjoining at the same time.


The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agencys completion of its detailed environmental review.  (;)  Most importantly, respondents cannot show that they will suffer irreparable injury if APHIS is allowed to proceed with any partial deregulation, for at least two reasons. First, if and when APHIS pursues a partial deregulation that arguably runs afoul of NEPA, respondents may file a new suit challenging such action and seeking appropriate preliminary relief. Accordingly, a permanent injunction is not now needed to guard against any present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm. Second, a partial deregulation need not cause respondents any injury at all; if its scope is sufficiently limited, the risk of gene flow could be virtually nonexistent. Indeed, the broad injunction entered below essentially pre-empts the very procedure by which APHIS could determine, independently of the pending EIS process for assessing the effects of a complete deregulation, that a limited deregulation would not pose any appreciable risk of environmental harm.


This sort of ruling was suggested by reading the transcript of the hearing ; it sounded like they were interested in the double-barrier that the lower court had erected. By sending the alfalfa back to the USDA the lower court was saying that the USDA needed to figure out what to do about the alfalfa and whether it can be planted in the future. But by also issuing an injunction the court was saying that the USDA could not decide what to do according to its procedures unless the EIS is fully complete, which means no partial deregulation, which would be allowing some RR alfalfa plantings to go forward. In a bizarre twist, the lower court also said that farmers currently growing it could continue growing it. So essentially the court was saying that the USDA could not decide to allow some farmers to grow it while the EIS is pending because of environmental risk, but the court could. The SCOTUS latched onto that contradiction in their ruling:


First, the impropriety of the District Courts broad injunction against planting flows from the impropriety of its injunction against partial deregulation. If APHIS may partially deregulate RRA before preparing a full-blown EISa question that we need not and do not decide herefarmers should be able to grow and sell RRA in accordance with that agency determination. Because it was inappropriate for the District Court to foreclose even the possibility of a partial and temporary deregulation, it necessarily follows that it was likewise inappropriate to enjoin any and all parties from acting in accordance with the terms ofsuch a deregulation decision.


And to sum it all up:


In sum, the District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the possibility of planting in accordance with the terms of such a deregulation. Given those errors, this Court need not express any view on whether injunctive relief of some kind was available to respondents on the record before us. Nor does the Court address the question whether the District Court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before entering the relief at issue here. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  It is so ordered.


So what does this mean about GE alfalfa plantings, can farmers just start buying and planting the herbicide-tolerant legume? No, what was lifted by the court was the injunction that prevented the USDA from allowing some farmers to plant GE alfalfa under partial deregulation. The court did not touch on the issue of whether it was right to re-regulate the alfalfa, or on the issue of whether an evidentiary hearing was required. What they did do was determine that the broad injunction was not justified by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and is saying that it is up to the USDA to assess whether it can partially deregulate the alfalfa should it choose to do so. Until that happens, no new alfalfa plantings can happen.


The dual remand/injunction nature of this situation has led to a lot of confusion in the first few hours of the news coming out. While the traditional news sources are getting it mostly right as lifting the ban, others are saying almost the opposite. The Center for Food Safety, the anti-GE lawyer group that led the legal battle in the first place, is  also  calling it a victory  ! Their statement has been carried through social media networks quickly. They said:


The Center for Food Safety today celebrated the United States Supreme Courts decision in  Monsanto v. Geerston Farms  , the first genetically modified crop case ever brought before the Supreme Court. Although the High Court decision reverses parts of the lower courts rulings, the judgment holds that a vacatur bars the planting of Monsantos Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs. It is a victory for the Center for Food Safety and the Farmers and Consumers it represents.  The Justices decision today means that the selling and planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal. The ban on the crop will remain in place until a full and adequate EIS is prepared by USDA and they officially deregulate the crop. This is a year or more away according to the agency, and even then, a deregulation move may be subject to further litigation if the agencys analysis is not adequate, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. In sum, its a significant victory in our ongoing fight to protect farmer and consumer choice, the environment and the organic industry.  In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held: In sumthe vacatur of APHISs deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA (Roundup Ready Alfalfa) can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made. (Opinion at p. 22).The Court also held that:   Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge.  The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court.


Uh oh; whenever you see an ellipses (;) check what was removed. Here is the full paragraph:


In sum, we do not know whether and to what extent APHIS would seek to effect a limited deregulation during the pendency of the EIS process if it were free to do so; we do know that the vacatur of APHISs deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made. In light of these particular circumstances, we hold that the District Court did not properly exercise its discretion in enjoining a partial deregulation of any kind pending APHISs preparation of an EIS. It follows that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming that aspect of the District Courts judgment.


The court did not rule that no RR alfalfa can be grown, this paragraph says that the court  knows what the lower court ruled and its implications  . So that;s nothing new. The whole previous section is filled with discussion of what exactly was meant by the lower court;s ruling, so this is a summary of that section. The court did not address whether the lower court was right in sending the alfalfa back to the USDA, from page 3 of the syllabus:


Because petitioners and the Government do not argue other-wise, the Court assumes without deciding that the District Court acted lawfully in vacating the agencys decision to completely deregu-late RRA. The Court therefore addresses only the injunction prohibiting APHIS from deregulating RRA pending completion of the EIS, and the nationwide injunction prohibiting almost all RRA planting during the pendency of the EIS process.


As if that was not enough spin for the Center For Food Safety to use to declare victory, they also appear to have invented a new part of the ruling that is not even in there.


Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge.


The court did NOT rule on what would be required for partial regulation, in fact they emphatically declared that they were not ruling on that issue:


We do not express any view on the Governments contention that a limited deregulation of the kind embodied inits proposed judgment would not require the prior preparation of an EIS.  (;) [note- you can check my ellipses if you want - nothing important left out]  Because APHIS has not yet invoked the procedures necessary to attempt a limited deregulation, any judicial consideration of such issues is not warranted at this time.(p19)


In fact, the ruling did mention in several places that a partial deregulation would involve an Environmental Assessment or EA (less involved than EIS). Page 9: (emphasis added)


In order for a partial deregulation to occur, respondents argued, the case would have to be remanded to the agency, and APHIS  would have to prepare an EA  that may or may not come out in favor of a partial deregulation.


And Page 10:


Nor is any doubt as to whether APHIS would issue a new EA in favor of a partial deregulation sufficient to defeat petitioners standing.


And most importantly, on page


If the agency found,  on the basis of a new EA  , that a limited and temporary deregulation satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, it could proceed with such a deregulation even if it had not yet finished the onerous EIS required for complete deregulation.


Keep in mind this is   not  the SCOTUS ruling that an EA is the appropriate action for partial deregulation though they seem to assume it, and they are certainly not saying that an EIS ;may be required.; Granted, an EA could be challenged legally, but there is a difference between an EA and an EIS that goes beyond just how they are spelled.


I have  left a comment  on the CFS website asking for them to point out where in the decision they supposedly rule on this issue, but I expect,  as before  , that my comment will be moderated out of existence. Here it is for posterity:


Hi, Im a little unclear about one statement made above about the SCOTUS ruling:  Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge.   My reading of the ruling indicates otherwise  they said on the bottom of page 19:  We do not express any view on the Governments contention that a limited deregulation of the kind embodied in its proposed judgment would not require the prior preparation of an EIS.  They also mention that a partial deregulation would involve an EA, not an EIS. Could you please point me to the passage in the ruling that supports what was included in your post?


Keep in mind,  this press release  was issued from the same lawyers that lost the case. As Mica Veihman from the Monsanto blog  quips on twitter  : ;Wonder what Center for Food Safety;s statement would have said if the decision were the reverse. Hmmm;..; Still, you can;t fault them for being optimistic, just for making stuff up.


There is a silver lining for their side, however. The court did decide that conventional non-GE farmers and organic farmers have  standing  to claim that they can be  harmed  by cross-pollination of GE crops in court even if the cross-pollination has not yet occurred:


For example, respondents represent that, in order to continue marketing their product to consumers who wish to buy nongenetically-engineered alfalfa, respondents would have to conduct testing to find out whether and to what extenttheir crops have been contaminated. (p11)  Such harms, which respondents will suffer even if their crops are not actually infected with the Roundup ready gene, are sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing analysis. (p13)


While you could say they are harmed by doing additional testing, at the same time they are charging more for such ;verified; food via the  Non GMO Project  . As standing was necessary for the merits of the case to be addressed at all, it is a thin silver lining to those that want to use the desire of some farmers not to grow any GE plants at all as a means to prevent others from growing any at all. And the level of risk of harm was determined by the court not to be sufficient for an injunction.


So what other implications will there be for GE crops, like sugar beets? They, too, have been sent back to the USDA for a full EIS rather than just an EA. It appears that although the court in that case did not yet grant an injunction against the sugar beets,  the judge indicated it was possible  , which this could prevent . It could mean that farmers could continue to grow GE sugar beets under partial deregulation despite the fact that the USDA has to draft an EIS for complete deregulation of the beets. The alfalfa is nearer to approving its EIS than the beets, so as I said before the implications for the beets will probably be greater than the alfalfa.


Source: Wikimedia Commons


It seems that the USDA may change its policy of doing the Environmental Assessment before the Environmental Impact Statement, so if that is the case I doubt many other crops being affected by this sort of thing. Except, perhaps, if the CFS or someone else successfully gets a court to reject an EIS and send it back to the USDA, this ruling could probably affect partial deregulation in that case.


Finally, as a 7:1 ruling, this is not a split-decision ;blame Clarence Thomas for working for Monsanto 30 years ago; situation. (Which as a more legally-educated science blogger Ed Brayton  confirms is not an issue  .) This is an overwhelming ruling against the injunction preventing partial deregulation of the alfalfa, and it could set a precedent for lower courts on how they are able to determine what the USDA can or cannot do. The extreme measures of an injunction were ruled as not warranted in this case, which could affect others.


I hope this clears things up, and while the CFS continues to call their defeat a victory, I don;t think it will actually be added to their list of  victories  . The ban was defeated, not upheld.


It was so ordered.


More resources:


Monsanto Press Release   CFS Press Release   BusinessWeek   Reuters (on NY Times)   Saint Louis Dispatch   SCOTUS Wiki


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Information purposes only and yadda yadda yadda. Please correct any misunderstandings in the comments.













Document Number: 3486 



 Supreme Court hearing on GMO Alfalfa 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 27 April 2010 


Observers filing through to see a portion of the hearing. photo credit: Monsanto via Twitpic


There is certainly a lot of commotion about the first ever US Supreme Court hearing involving genetically engineered crops, which is being held today. The case is Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms, (  SCOTUS Wiki  ) and depending on how this turns out, it could mean the end of genetically engineered alfalfa forever or the eventual destruction of all organic dairies, right? Well, no. So what is the court case about?


The court case is not actually about GE alfalfa, although this legal battle began with alfalfa. In 2006, several groups joined together led by the Center for Food Safety to sue the Secretary of Agriculture over the deregulation of roundup-ready alfalfa produced by Monsanto. The USDA had conducted an Environmental Assessment according to its GE crop approval policies and concluded that there were no big issues that they needed to investigate further. If they had found any in the assessment they would have moved on to the much more involved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).


The court case over GE alfalfa was decided in 2007, with US District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer saying that the USDA should have done the full EIS, and placed an injunction on future plantings of GE alfalfa until such an EIS is conducted by the USDA. Farmers already growing the alfalfa could continue to grow it.


Since then, the case was appealed a couple times by Monsanto,  leading up to the Supreme Court  . The case is not about the specifics of alfalfa cross-pollination, organic farms, or export markets ; it is actually just about the specific details of what is required to grant an injunction under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). At one point, an evidentiary hearing was part of the short list of issues, but that has been dropped and this is what we have left:


(1) Whether plaintiffs under the National Environmental Policy Act are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction;  (2) whether a district court may enter an injunction sought to remedy a NEPA violation without conducting an evidentiary hearing sought by a party to resolve genuinely disputed facts directly relevant to the appropriate scope of the requested injunction; and  (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it affirmed a nationwide injunction that sought to remedy a NEPA violation based on only a remote possibility of reparable harm.


So while this is a case involving GE alfalfa, in many ways it is not even about genetic engineering. I had an hour-long conversation with one of the lawyers that filed an amicus brief (in favor of the anti-GE side) and learned a bit about the process and the issues involved. Essentially, it is over whether a court can grant an injunction (based on the NEPA) without presenting evidence of future harm, or even relying on remote possibilities. I would like to point out a few interesting observations I have made about this case and what it will mean or how it is being presented by either side.


First, this will very likely not matter very much for GE alfalfa. The injunction that prevents planting new stands of Monsanto;s forage will be lifted when/if the  USDA approves  the new draft EIS, which was completed in November 2009. What did they find? Well, pretty much the same thing as the original Assessment, just  1476 pages long  . If Monsanto loses the case, the EIS may go through and the alfalfa gets approved again. If Monsanto wins the case, the injunction is lifted and farmers can plant GE alfalfa again while waiting for the EIS. So while some people have framed the case in terms of ;stopping GM Alfalfa; it will probably not ;stop; the alfalfa at all. One of these two paths to approval may just be slower than the other.


Second, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Monsanto, then that may have profound implications for the GE sugar beet situation. The same process of EA ;&gt; injunction ;&gt; EIS is playing out, and if I understand the legal issues involved, the greater effect of this case will probably be that it could allow GE sugar beet plantings to continue. (There was apparently a  bentgrass field trial  affected by something similar, too.)


Third,  there is talk at the USDA  about requiring all GE crops to undergo an EIS right from the start, and if that is the case, then it may not matter much for future GE crop regulation. I think there will be greater implications for other cases involving the NEPA, but I do not know enough about it to have any prediction of which result would be good or bad. The idea of requiring evidence before action is appealing, but I suppose I could find an example where we don;t have evidence and we would want to pause and conduct further research before continuing. How would the (near-zero) likelihood of the Large Hadron Collider causing a black hole fare under either outcome if someone wanted to stop its operation? (If it was in the US, that is.)


There has been a slough of amicus briefs filed in support of either side, and I think it is kind of funny that each side only mentions the briefs filed in their favor. The Center for Food Safety;s  ;full list of amici;  has only their own supporters in the list. (The same with  Monsanto;s press release  ) The SCOTUS Wiki  has everything  .


Interestingly, one of the amicus briefs written by the Union of Concerned Scientists  clearly states  that GE crops have increased yields (3-4% in corn), while the Center for Food Safety;s page states that the UCS report found they have not. I left a polite comment on  this page  last week pointing out that the report Failure to Yield did in fact estimate a yield increase, and while I could see that comment for several days pending moderation, I no longer see it. It may have been deleted. Does the UCS know that the CFS disregards their research findings ; even when they put those findings in an amicus brief filed in favor of the CFS?


It is also interesting to note that the  Consumers Union poll that was misrepresented by the CU itself  has also made it into some of these briefs as evidence that organic consumers would reject ;contaminated; organic foods and that farmers would lose their markets. In reality, the biased poll showed the opposite ; that most organic consumers do not care or care little. The lawyer I talked to that filed one of the briefs, however, did not read the references used as evidence in the brief, and was only representing the interests of their clients (Also had no personal stake in the outcome). So take the statements about genetic engineering in these briefs with a grain of salty soil.


A lot has been written about alfalfa and markets and such in the amicus briefs, and it is possible that the justices could decide to rule on things that are more specific to GE crops, such as who has authority in deciding what is appropriate regulation of crop releases.


Finally, I would like to comment on one of the controversies surrounding the justices themselves. Justice Breyer has recused himself because the judge that issued the ruling in 2007 was his brother. That;s a pretty cut-and-dry conflict of interest. However many anti-GE individuals have been  calling for Clarence Thomas to also recuse himself  from the case because he used to work for Monsanto;  30 years ago.


I know of no case where working for an organization for a few years (1976-79) would be a conflict of interest after 30 years of time has passed (Now 31). My  entire life  isn;t even that long. I do not think that Thomas should have recused himself from the case (and he didn;t) because of the huge amount of time that has passed. It;s different people, a  different company  , and different issues.


The calls for his recusal instead stem from an analysis of Thomas;s politics and his assumed likelihood of ruling in favor of Monsanto. The court is split 5-4 on the conservative-liberal continuum, and Breyer was one of the liberal justices. With his recusal, that would make it 5-3, which worries the anti-GE folks. When I attended Zelig Golden;s talk at the MOSES Organic conference (former CFS lawyer whose name is still on the case), he talked about this worry as well, specifically mentioning the political split. However, genetic engineering in agriculture, despite their best efforts, is not a very politically polarizing topic. Predominantly liberal groups that oppose GE crops have been trying to link it to G.W. Bush and G. H.W. Bush policies, while Clinton and Obama do not appear to be very different. Heck, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, is an  advocate  of GE crops. So to base demands for Thomas;s recusal on a political analysis is problematic.


Indeed, as some of the interests that are against GE alfalfa  are businesses themselves  , the CFS might find Thomas deciding in their favor. Even some who call for his recusal  point out that his vote is not automatic  . And I;ll be the first to say that I have an  immense  distaste for Clarence Thomas;s politics, particularly his views on the  Establishment Clause of the Constitution  , Abortion, etc. But these are not good reasons to justify his recusal from cases involving those issues, as much as I would want him to.


I am no legal scholar or historian, but it seems to me that if conflicts of interest are to stretch back to employment that is older than three decades, it will reduce the ability of the highest court in the land to do its job considering that each justice is a lawyer and has worked for lots of places, and know a lot of people. How many years since employment is too close for comfort, anyhow? Have Supreme Court Justices recused themselves for more years, or not recused themselves for fewer?


One of the important things that the court does is discuss and deliberate amongst themselves, and needlessly excluding voices from that discussion reduces the number of innovative legal solutions that the court can offer. While this case may set legal precedent for other NEPA cases in lower courts, this debate over 31 years since employment as a conflict of interest risks setting a social precedent that could harm other cases as well.


Mica at Monsanto has  also commented on the case  , and here is the first  Associated Press article about the hearing  . Scuttlebutt in Twitter is that the Supreme Court is ;  going down a disastrous path  ; by suggesting that the  USDA should be in charge  of GE crops.  Outrageous!  Let the dire predictions begin.


The case is expected to be decided in early June.













Document Number: 6997 



 Suspicious seaweed source of serious serial soya sickness saga 


 by  David Tribe  on 1 October 2010 


Soy products are in the news due to an impending class action suit against a soy milk substitute distributer, but the culprit is seaweed. Kelp and its extracts can contain toxic amounts of iodine that can affect the thyroid.   Thankfully  Greenpeace  is not issuing demands for the banning of all seaweeds in food. Hopefully the case might highlight the idea that a balanced overall diet is more important for human health than any particular so called ;healthy food;.   Soy product robbed me of joys of motherhood: lawsuit figure   Daniella Miletic  October 1, 2010  The Age  , Melbourne   Bonsoy milks the life out of a mother   Erin Downie and 24 other plaintiffs lodge a class action against the distributors of Bonsoy for the product;s toxically high levels of iodine.   ERIN Downie drank Bonsoy when she became pregnant because she was told it was the best soy milk on the market. When she had trouble breastfeeding, she drank more. She put it in her porridge, in her smoothies, in her cups of tea. She never imagined the soy milk would allegedly lead her to be admitted to hospital twice, and leave her so weak that she couldn;t shower herself or pick up her baby, Mirakye, after she was born.&nbsp;   Crying, Ms Downie yesterday spoke of how her dream of being an active, engaged mother was taken away after her daughter, now two, was born. Ms Downie became sick from toxic levels of iodine ; levels she alleges were the result of the copious amounts of Bonsoy she consumed;   &nbsp;;Bonsoy tested positive for elevated iodine levels, thought to result from a seaweed-derived ingredient called kombu, believed to have been added to Bonsoy by makers in Japan since 2003.   See also   Soy drinkers launch multi-million-dollar class action  ABC Australia Updated Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:35pm AEST   The milk was recalled worldwide shortly before Christmas 2009, but a new version with lower iodine levels has since been returned to sale. (ABC News)&nbsp;The Victorian-based distributor of soy milk brand, Bonsoy, is being sued in a multi-million-dollar class action launched in Melbourne today.&nbsp;The milk was recalled worldwide shortly before Christmas 2009, after a number of people developed thyroid problems related to high levels of iodine.&nbsp;Lawyer Bernard Murphy, of Maurice Blackburn, says the distributor Spiral Foods added a seaweed extract to the milk from 2003 until its recall, raising its iodine count to seven times the safe level.&nbsp;;In that period, scores of people suffered serious health consequences as a result of their consumption of Bonsoy milk,; he said.&nbsp;;Our clients are health conscious people. They drank this milk to improve their health but instead they became sick, some of them critically ill.;&nbsp;The firm maintains there is strong medical evidence that excess iodine consumption causes thyroid conditions which can lead to severe chronic and acute illness.&nbsp;Mr Murphy says at least 25 people have already joined the class action and he expects there will be hundreds more. (more at link)  The science literature says this, and much more about the health effects of iodine in seaweeds:   Variability of iodine content in common commercially available edible seaweeds.  Teas J, Pino S, Critchley A, Braverman LE.   Abstract   Dietary seaweeds, common in Asia and in Asian restaurants, have become established as part of popular international cuisine. To understand the possibility for iodine-induced thyroid dysfunction better, we collected samples of the most common dietary seaweeds available from commercial sources in the United States, as well as harvester-provided samples from Canada, Tasmania, and Namibia. Altogether, 12 different species of seaweeds were analyzed for iodine content, and found to range from 16 microg/g (+/-2) in nori (  Porphyra tenera  ) to over 8165 +/- 373 microg/g in one sample of processed kelp granules (a salt substitute) made from  Laminaria digitata  . We explored variation in preharvest conditions in a small study of two Namibian kelps (  Laminaria pallida  and  Ecklonia maxima  ), and found that iodine content was lowest in sun-bleached blades (514 +/- 42 microg/g), and highest amount in freshly cut juvenile blades (6571 +/- 715 microg/g). Iodine is water-soluble in cooking and may vaporize in humid storage conditions, making average iodine content of prepared foods difficult to estimate. It is possible some Asian seaweed dishes may exceed the tolerable upper iodine intake level of 1100 microg/d..Thyroid. 2004 Oct;14(10):836-41.    Department of Health Promotion Education and Behavior, Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina and the South Carolina Cancer Center, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.













Document Number: 3887 



 Sweet Success 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 7 July 2010 


Clearly, transparency is critical but how much does the source of funding matter if it is fully disclosed?


Among the scientific community, government funded research is generally considered trustworthy and as a benefit for the public good. Still, that view is not universal. I have been accused of ;taking government funding; for my research (which is funded entirely from government sources: DOE, NIH, USDA, and NSF). The person asking clearly felt that the US government was not to be trusted and therefore the research funded by the US government was not to be trusted. But what is the alternative, would my research be of a higher quality if it was funded by industry or non-profits?


Truly we would be paralyzed if all research associated with money was viewed as faulty.


And that goes for industry-funded and non-profit funded research as well. If Pepsico were to sneak in a blog under the pseudonym ;Healthy for Life; touting the health benefits without any disclosure of the source of funding and salary, this would be obvious trickery. Similarly if a non-profit is funded by a company selling products for homeopathy and does not disclose this when blogging about homeopathy, this would also be a problem. This kind of stuff does go on all the time and we certainly do not want it on Scienceblogs.


However, if we can clearly see that the Food Frontiers blog is sponsored by Pepsico by a banner stating so, then that is full disclosure. Readers can take it or leave it, complain or not, but nothing is hidden.


We can make it even more transparent if the banner ;ADVERTORIAL; is a bolder color combination with a larger font so viewers cannot miss it. Also, I suggest that we simply indicate ;this blog was paid for by the sponsor; directly under ;ADVERTORIAL;. That will make it very, very clear. Other good ideas have come in as well such as keeping the sponsored blogs fully separate. But what if one of the current Sciencebloggers leaves his/her university position to start their own company based on some of their university research?


If this is disclosed, would the blogger need to leave Scienceblogs because of the source of funding is different or is it simply sufficient to indicate the new source funding? If industry-funded research is not supported, who will take basic science inventions to the market?


After all this, I am even more interested in seeing what Pepsico has to say. Will they provide science-based information? Can such a company make a profit if they no longer sell sugary drinks? Will they actually make this move ? Can we bloggers help in this regard? It will be fascinating to see how this turns out. Many aspects of our food system need to be changed, perhaps this is a start. And if not, what have we lost? Just some reading and writing time.


In the pursuit of keeping Scienceblogs and other media dedicated to publishing science-based information financially stable, I support exploring different models of funding. I am glad to be a part of Scienceblogs. I dont mind if there is a flare-up now and then, especially if problems that come up can be resolved quickly. It is a great place to blog.













Document Number: 9363 



 Take it down a notch 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 19 September 2010 


Hi everyone, Frank N. Foode speaking. I am delighted to see that discussions are really sprouting forth here at Biofortified. For the first time ever, one of our posts has gathered  more than 100 comments  , as both those in favor and against genetic engineering are engaging in healthy repartee. I am glad to see Duncan and Jasmine offering their perspectives on labeling issues. Reading the comments, it is almost as if everyone is surprised to be enjoying talking to each other!


In the tweetverse, I think I have made a new friend in Gavin (  @morethanorganic  ), and although we both strongly disagree on both genetically engineered golden rice and cross-pollination issues, we both learned that we  agree that sovereign nations should have the right to decide for themselves whether to allow their people to grow it  . If I had thought that he was just another hard-line anti-GE person I might have thought that he believed that wealthy nations could tell the Philippines ;no; to keep orange grains from showing up in their imports. Imagine how horrible that would be if it happened! I think most people can recognize that fact, and are not lacking in moral grounding. He also learned that genetic engineers aren;t haphazardly throwing genes out in the wild  without analyzing the potential consequences  . This is what everyone can gain from civil and indeed, friendly dialogue.


On the other hand, someone else who I have talked to through twitter has on many occasions lashed out with abusive language, and holds some very strong opinions about genetic engineering, myself, and the companies involved as well.  Talking of #GMO-tards  , apparently a reference to some sort of  medieval weapon  ? Others usually add the hashtag of #evil to almost every tweet that has  #gmo  in it. Recently, even a few comments here on Biofortified have pushed the boundaries of civil dialogue with words such as ;drama queen warrior hybrid;, ethical narcissism, and a few other things. While things are far more civil here than elsewhere in the world of this debate, how can we make it better? Jon Stewart on the Daily Show I believe has the answer! Have a looksie:


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  Mon ; Thurs 11p / 10c    Rally to Restore Sanity    www.thedailyshow.com        Daily Show Full Episodes   Political Humor   Tea Party


It can seem easy sometimes to ascribe the worst possible characteristics to our opponents and call them immoral, stupid, evil, selfish, and more. But in a discussion described by all those involved as being incredibly important, we need to break down the hyperbolic barriers of communication that exist between us. Maybe this October 30th we could join Stewart (in a virtual sense) in calling for everyone in this debate to Rally to Restore Sanity? Maybe people can ;Take it Down a Notch; for me? I don;t want to find out what a ;  pimp hand  ; is. Speak your minds, celebrate your disagreements, but remember everyone is human!


(except for me of course, I;m a plant.)


If you are new here or haven;t commented before, please take a moment in the comments below to say hi! Today;s a great day for De-lurking!













Document Number: 9852 



 Talked with Pollan, not too much, mostly about plants. 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 28 January 2010 


Anastasia was on the ball the other night with publishing  her review  of our evening with Michael Pollan. Mine comes a little late but not too little. We had all weekend to prepare our thoughts for what we wanted to talk about (And what we wanted to eat), and I daresay we did well on both accounts.


Golden Gate from Aquatic Park


We coordinated our flights from Wisconsin and Iowa to meet up at about Noon on Saturday the 23rd, giving us ample time to hang out and zoom around the Bay Area before the big dinner. We stayed at my folks; place in Petaluma, so it was very convenient that Michael happens to live near to where I grew up! They were happy to host, and to use us as an excuse to go eat Thai food!


First of all, it was great to spend the weekend hanging out with Anastasia (and Frank). Over the last couple of years, while joining forces to write about plant genetics, we have not only become good friends but also research collaborators. It makes me wonder if science blogging should join the list of suggested activities for professional development at graduate school? I;m serious.


Whether we were sitting in a restaurant by Aquatic Park, checking out the Japanese tea gardens and botanical gardens at Golden Gate Park, or driving all around we discussed a million and a half issues related to what we talk about on the blog. And we realized things that we didn;t think of before, all of which should hopefully make it into some blog posts soon. For example, why is there  no  mention  of the  afore-mentioned Greenpeace-funded study  on Greenpeace;s website? Very odd.


PZ talking about biological complexity


And thanks to prodding from my sister and from Frank, we zoomed down to Cupertino to meet up with  PZ Myers  who was a big driving force behind the contest victory that got us here. It was a busy weekend yet relaxing as well. My one regret is that we missed being able to meet up with James on Monday to have a blogging powwow. It was really weird as the time seemed to go faster and faster as it got closer to the 6 pm dinnertime. The next three hours, though, seemed to last a long time ; which was perfect.


Michael helped us decide what to order, and his familiarity with the restaurant;s fare really helped. Chez Panisse sources its food from the surrounding area, from huckleberries to citrus, mushrooms and lamb from Sacramento to Petaluma and in-between. To ;cap; the experience Anastasia had with her fungiferous pizzetta, mushroom hunter Anthony Tassinello (from The Omnivore;s Dilemma) happened to stop by and say hi.


It has been three days and I am still struggling to recall everything that was discussed. It would take hours to write (and read) everything that we can recall, so a summary of highlights will have to do. We began with thanking him for being willing to meet with  both  of us, and he started asking us questions. Lots of them.


He asked us about our research, backgrounds, and future goals. I had just rehearsed my ;career update; speech earlier with my parents so that was easy enough. Anastasia talked about how her plant genetics and sustainable ag curriculum allows her to bridge some gaps. Michael talked about his beginnings in journalism before he turned to writing about food. Then the conversation turned to some of the things that gave us unique perspectives on food. Although we needed to have some things on the dinner menu defined, I think we got food cred for pointing out that we are both CSA members ; myself trading honeybee pollination services for veggies.


We had an opportunity to tell him about the contest and the little bit of hilarity that ensued on the day that our votes shot up astronomically, and how we were the independent site and our anti-GE opponents were the industry-controlled organization. He said that was a good story.


We also talked a lot about Monsanto, how many companies there are that work on GE crops, and issues with patent law and the antitrust stuff that has been going on. Michael asked us if we had the resources of Monsanto, what kinds of things would we work on? Anastasia talked about solving specific problems, like flood tolerance in rice was addressed, and I waxed on about the genetic basis of the nutritional value of crops and how we could breed and engineer vegetables that taste good ; that maybe we could get more out of. He seemed interested in hearing about the effect of  Oxalate on Calcium bioavailability  .


Biofortification was also discussed. We talked about how Golden Rice is getting closer to success, following a nutritional study published in 2009. I made sure to point out that the rice endosperm turned out to be a better place to absorb beta-carotene than it was assumed. Although we didn;t ask what his opinion of the Great Yellow Hope might be today, he did talk about Monsanto;s Omega-3 biofortified soybean oil. He said that these traits that benefit the consumer directly  will  change the debate and drive genetic engineering toward acceptance. Whether it changes his opinion, he didn;t reveal.


This we agreed with. Last semester, for my communications class I read just about every paper on genetic engineering communication there was, and came to the same conclusion that he then expressed ; that the biotech companies over-estimate opposition to genetic engineering. I added that the anti-GE groups similarly over-estimate the support they have for their positions. Most people don;t care because it does not directly affect them, but when it does there will be a cultural collision. I remember imitating someone in a Whole Foods physically weighing their opposition to GE against their desire to consume Omega-3-containing fats.


The SF Botanical Gardens at wintertime


There was one piece of news that I knew he would want to hear about, and that was that recent research in Illinois that found that people would  rather have a local genetically-engineered apple than a conventional apple  from 2,000 miles away. As he advocates enhancing local ;foodsheds;, the idea that genetic engineering could allow for fungus-resistant local apples for the Midwest and that people might prefer them to ;gallon of gas; apples from Washington state certainly ought to be intrigue him. I think it confirmed the complexity of the issue.


He also asked about our take on the Union of Concerned Scientists; report, Failure to Yield, and we made sure to mention that for a report by a group critical of GE, it did estimate an  increase  in yield for Bt corn. It also left out information about tests of intrinsic yield-enhanced soybeans developed at  Mendel Biotechnology  , half an hour south of where we were eating.


A big tree given the Bonzai treatment at the Japanese Tea Gardens


We also asked him about whether he feels his fame and the attention he gets keeps him from being able to do new research, and if people avoid disagreeing with him (except for the crazies). He said that he has to send others to find things out for him, and that he does get the chance to debate people.


I also asked him a question for my wife Ariela, who is studying to become a dietitian. In his recent writings on food, he tells people to ignore the ;experts;, yet, she is studying to become an expert herself. His response was that there;s room for nutrition to focus on recommending foods rather than nutrients. But if you read his books, he often supports the healthful qualities of those foods on the presence of those nutrients; a contradiction that we did not explore that night. Perhaps another time.


Michael asked a lot more questions of us than we of him, and I;m glad that it was that way and not the other way around. It was his chance to learn about us, our blog, and how we want to affect the debate over genetic engineering. We made sure to talk about our mascot, Frank N. Foode, and how he helps us connect everything together with a story. As for whether Michael would be willing to do something with us for the blog, such as a Q/A or other thing in the future, there may come a time when that will be possible. Indeed, not to reveal too much about his future plans, he might be talking more about this stuff before too long!


Neat shrubs at the Tea Gardens


After getting together for a group picture at Chez Panisse, I handed Michael Pollan a jar of honey from my CSA-fed bees, and we said goodbye. He said to keep in touch, and asked for the feed URLs for this blog, the blogs of our authors, and even PZ Myers; blog that supported us. We hope we made a good impression, and that he finds Biofortified useful for following the discussion about GE crops in the years to come.


Anastasia and I returned to my parent;s house to be summarily debriefed by them and we recorded a video discussion of the evening. It will be posted fairly soon. It was a great dinner and discussion and we both noted that it seemed longer than three hours, and even though we paid more attention to talking than eating, we didn;t feel stuffed. All in all, satiating on multiple levels. Then it was early the next morning to fly back to our Midwest locations.


I know I have missed a few things, but I tried to cover what stuck out and hopefully Anastasia will help me remember the important things I may have missed. But there is one thing I have not forgotten but I have not yet told you. Michael took to Frank very well, and made him an offer he simply could not refuse. I;m still blown away, three days later. I;ve been freaking out people in my building since I got back telling them about this, but I;m afraid what happened at the close of the meal only Frank can tell you. Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion!













Document Number: 4207 



 Ten bad reasons why GE is incompatible with Organic 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 12 May 2010 


This is part II of a three-part series on Orgenic Backlash. How is the organic sector handling the argument in favor of integrating of genetically engineered crops into organic agricultural systems?


Previously  , I showed how Jim Riddle;s  10 reasons why genetic engineering is incompatible with organic agriculture  apply equally well to plant breeding. But many plant breeding techniques are allowed in organic agriculture. So how can these characteristics apply to both breeding and genetic engineering while one is compatible and the other is not? The answer lies in a tangled web of invalid logic and unsound argumentation. It requires not only misrepresenting genetic engineering, it also misrepresents organic agriculture. Let;s go through point by point. (You might need a cup of coffee or a stiff drink)


1. Basic science.  Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.


Riddle starts off with a convoluted argument here. I have seen this articulated elsewhere and each time I read it it raises the hair on my back where my prehensile tail should be. This is a mangling of evolutionary biology as well as a misrepresentation of organic agriculture. Most of the foods we eat have not ;evolved with us;, some of them have only been widespread in the human diet for hundreds of years, some less. And thousands of years is still too short of a time span for us to have evolved resistance to everything harmful in what we eat, nor is there a cohesive way to define foods that are perfectly safe and digestible for us as a result of such evolution. Additionally, the only  recent human dietary evolution I am aware of is lactose tolerance past childhood  , and not everyone has it (I don;t). This came about when a recent mutation gave dairy-dependent populations a competitive advantage over their lactose-intolerant forebears. Even if we evolved tolerances to different foods, they would probably only be in specific populations, too.


So because genetic engineering can introduce a novel protein that we have not eaten before, so too can plant breeding. Case in point:  Organic Kiwifruit  . This is a recent introduction into our diet, and it has been known to cause allergic reactions. Yet, this is not cause to exclude it on the principle that it brings novel substances into the human diet. Therefore, the presence of novel substances is not a reason to differentiate between what is or is not compatible with organic agriculture. Finally, there is no evidence that GE crops are the cause of any rise in allergies. As for the claim about diabetes and obesity ; this is simply grasping at straws.


2. Ecological impact.  Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cows milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.


As with the allergy claim above, Riddle is confusing correlation with causation when talking about impacts on insects. Even so, the monarch butterfly claim is easily addressed by an authoritative resource  published by the USDA  . The caddisfly claim is probably based on a flawed paper (  debunked here  by Anastasia) that did not use proper controls. As for the lacewings, I have not heard this claim before so I had to look it up. It took  all of one minute  . But the one that I object to more personally as a beekeeper who follows the news is his claim that GE crops may be the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. Here he has not been paying attention to the research that has come out about CCD and is repeating cultural mythology that even Wikipedia  debunked years ago  . These are the kinds of claims that distract researchers from the real problems that need investigating and delay their solutions.


The fact is, you can use genetic engineering to improve the ecological impact of farming, just as you can with breeding. Some alterations may make the ecological impact worse, while some may make them better. But throwing a blanket of misinformation over the entire technology and generalizing in that fashion does not do anyone justice. Even if the only example of a GE crop was one that harmed the environment, it would not mean that all GE applications will do so. Moreover, organic agriculture is not a guarantee that the ecological impact is superior. Excessive tillage and erosion can and does occur. There are cases where organic farms are worse than their conventional counterparts. Should tractors be banned from organics?


Finally, if rBST would not mesh with organic livestock requirements, then don;t allow rBST. But because something like herbicide tolerant soybeans would obviously not work with organics, that doesn;t mean that Bt corn or cotton can;t.


3. Control vs harmony.  Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite ; an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level ; the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.


Let;s not beat around the bush beans. Organic agriculture  is  an attempt to control nature  through  trying to set up a more harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem. Since when is plowing the soil with a tractor, spreading composted manure, and spraying crops with Bt-toxin producing bacteria  not  trying to control nature? Organic agriculture is best described as a more biological approach to farming as opposed to the more ;chemical; approach that it was a response to. In that sense, genetic engineering can fit in perfectly. And it can be used to foster a  more  harmonious relationship with the natural world. Traits such as drought tolerance, nitrogen use efficiency, and disease and pest resistance are examples where genetic engineering can (and in some cases has already) benefit farming through reducing their ecological impact. Spreading less manure (or getting more out of it, watering less, and having to employ fewer inputs to control pests and diseases can help organic agriculture do just what it has set out to do. If you say, ;well, you can work on those traits with breeding,; then you have already admitted that trying to control the genetics of a plant is compatible with organic agriculture.


Every time a breeder makes a cross between two plants he or she is creating an organism that has never before existed. And  every  time a breeder crosses two plants, the genetic combination represented by the offspring  has never before existed  . And that;s how nature, how evolution works ; by creating new combinations. If the absence of new combinations was a criterion for organic, then there would be no plant on this planet or breeding method compatible with organic systems.


4. Unpredictable consequences.  Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach ; know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.


It is very interesting that Riddle includes unpredictable consequences in his list of things that organic agriculture does not have. In some respects such as requiring manure to be composted if it is to be spread on crops that are anywhere near harvesting, there is a measure of precaution in organic agriculture. But in the area of the genetics of plants, the organic rules are in fact contradictory on this note. Let me start by asking you, what is  the most disruptive  thing you can do to modify the genetics of a plant ; the one that has the  highest  risk of unintended consequences? And is it allowed in organic agriculture?


The answer is not ;genetic engineering, and no; ; it is ;mutagenesis, and  yes  .; Using radiation or chemicals, you can create random mutations all over the genome of a plant. Then you look at thousands of plants that have gone through this process and pick out some that have interesting traits that you can use. Finally, this trait is bred into the crop that you grow. But along with your desired trait there are many other unknown changes that have occurred in the genome and there is no way of knowing where they are except by sequencing the whole thing. Several studies have compared mutagenesis to genetic engineering in its potential to cause unintended consequences, and GE has always come out looking good. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences  compared the risks of unintended consequences  between different methods, and concluded that yes, mutagenesis is the worst offender. Mind you, the risks of all the methods they surveyed are low, but if you are going to start drawing lines about acceptable risks, clearly the reason why mutagenesis was ;grandfathered; into organic ag and genetic engineering was excluded has nothing to do with relative risks.


We have eaten many foods made from crops that have been modified by mutagenesis, and to no ill effect. The same with genetic engineering. What is interesting is that regular old  plant breeding has had its fair share of unintended consequences  . That;s why I brought up the potatoes and celery because the old traditional way has caused more harm than the newer methods.


5. Transparency.  Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial genetic engineering is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary genetic patents for corporate profits. The ;substantial equivalence; regulatory framework has allowed the GMO industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public;s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.


While there is nothing in the Organic rules that mandates transparency at every level, Riddle is making a philosophical point here. And that is that ideally, organic agriculture involves making it easy for consumers (producers, farmers, etc) to know everything about the food that they are eating. Currently in the U.S., labels are not required for foods produced involving genetic engineering when it does not change the nutritional or culinary aspects of the food. It is also not prohibited, either. The FDA even has suggestions for how producers can voluntarily label their products as being ;produced through biotechnology; and such. Therefore, you  can  have complete transparency of foods that are genetically engineered and grown in an organic system.


Let;s imagine that today, the Rodale Institute came into a bunch of money and decided that they wanted to start up a genetic engineering project. They could do it completely  open-source  , tell everyone what they are doing and how they are doing it, and send the resulting plants to independent labs for additional testing. Riddle is not separating the technology from his views of the current regulatory structure. Perhaps he means to say that the regulations that current crops have gone through does not meet his criteria for what would be necessary, but you could, if need be, add additional requirements for GE crops that will be allowed into the organic system. It is simply not true that there have been no independent tests of GE crops, nor that they are virtually unregulated, either.  Just take a brief look at this list  to get an idea how much scrutiny goes into these crops.


Plant breeding is almost completely unregulated, and harmful mistakes have been made through just rubbing flowers together and growing what came of those crosses. We have no idea what the breeding history is of any of the produce in the supermarket, whether conventional or organic, so where is the transparency on plant breeding here? Polls have shown that a sizable number of people, (40%) believe it or not,  want to know if the plant they eat are hybrids  !


I would like to know whether any of the organic produce that comes from California has been hand-weeded (by latin-American laborers) ; a backbreaking practice banned from conventional ag ; but the Organic sector fought for an exemption. No conventional or organic produce must be labeled with what pesticides it has been sprayed with (And there are organic pesticides.) I daresay full transparency is not a characteristic of  any  agricultural system we have today.


6. Accountability.  Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances, including genetically engineered seeds and pollen. Genetically engineered crops do not respect property lines and cause harm to organic and non-GMO producers through genetic trespass, with no required containment or accountability.


Organic food is a premium market. Before genetic engineering came along, it set itself against conventional agriculture that was largely dependent upon artificial inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. Organic did not want to to have anything to do with that. But like gene flow through pollen, pesticides and fertilizers also have ;spillover; effects. Organic agriculture promises its customers that they will make an extra effort to keep these substances from coming in contact with their crops. It would make no sense for a small percentage of organic farming operations to demand that the other 98-99% of farms stop using anything that could ;contaminate; their crops and lower their value in a premium market. But that;s not exactly what Riddle is arguing here. Actually, he is arguing something quite bizarre.


This is the formal argument:


A. Organic standards do not permit GE crops  B. GE crops can ;contaminate; organic farms through pollen drift, potentially causing harm because they are not permitted.  C. Therefore, GE crops will not work if allowed into the organic standards.


Do you see what the argument is? It is a circular argument. GE crops shouldn;t be allowed in organics because; GE crops aren;t allowed in organics. Note that his objection to gene flow only works while GE is prohibited from organic agriculture. If the standards were changed today, it would no longer be an objection. And as a circular argument, it is also invalid.


Finally, although Riddle does not state that GE is a ;prohibited substance,; his wording implies that GE is a prohibited substance in the organic standards ; whereas it is actually an ;excluded method.; Testing is required only for prohibited substances, too. While there are no maximum thresholds for GE traits in organic fields, without any requirement to keep all genes out or test for them it doesn;t follow that organic farmers are being harmed economically by a low-level presence (LLP) of transgenes. Since Riddle is the Organic Outreach Coordinator for UM, it would be important not to gloss over the distinctions in the NOP requirements, and instead ensure that everyone understands exactly what the NOP requirements are. For an excellent discussion of these distinctions, I suggest reading  If your Farm is Organic, must it be GMO Free?


7. Unnecessary.  It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, recombinant genetic modification has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as genetic engineering, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.


Healthy crops involve an interplay between the soil, the weather, the genetic potential of plants, pathogens and pests, and the human health aspect involves a further interaction with human physiology, food preferences and how much time you leave yourself to cook. So while organic agriculture often criticizes conventional agriculture for being too ;reductionistic,; here Riddle is  reducing  our health to merely the health of the soil. While some nutrients are elevated (and a few depressed) in some organically grown crops, largely there is little difference between conventional and organic foods. While research should continue on how growing methods can affect nutrient levels (particularly a plant;s response to stress), there is a huge amount that can be gained through altering the genetic potential of the foods that we grow. This can be accomplished through breeding for nutrient content and bioavailability, and where there is little genetic variation for such traits (or pressing need such as beta-carotene and iron-enriched staples in developing countries) this can also be done with genetic engineering. Take a look at  my post about enhancing calcium content  in carrots and lettuce for an example.


As for soil erosion, herbicide tolerance in GE crops has contributed positively to the adoption of ;no-till; agriculture. While organic no-till research is ongoing (I have seen some such plots myself and they do not look pretty to the eyes or by the numbers), soil erosion has been lessened through reducing the need to plow up and disturb the soil. While many anti-GE people argue that it has not, even Charles Benbrook from the Organic Center has told me (in a recorded interview, not yet posted) that he accepts that it has. He also  penned  that Bt corn and Bt cotton have reduced insecticide applications considerably.


There is nothing about genetic engineering that says that you need to mono-crop on your farm. Furthermore, there is nothing about genetic engineering that prevents a farmer from planting a cover crop after harvest. This is a complete misunderstanding of what genetic engineering is ; it is a tool for modifying the genetics of an organism ; it is not an agricultural system or a philosophy on how things are to be grown. Just like you can breed a crop for a particular agricultural system (low input, for example) so, too, can you engineer a crop that is appropriate for such a system.


To come back to the issue of Riddle;s ;Healthy Soil; reductionism, if it was all due to healthy soil then there would be no need for plant breeding just as he believes there is no need for genetic engineering. Finally, there is no evidence that genetic engineering has lowered the nutritional content of foods ; another piece of cultural mythology espoused.


8. Genetic diversity.  Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Genetic modification has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping GMO varieties.


Technically, when you insert a transgene into a plant, you are increasing genetic diversity. To my knowledge,   there are no  prima facie  requirements in organic agriculture to increase the genetic diversity of their crops  within a species. Nevertheless, there is a tendency in organics toward open-pollinated (OP) varieties that contain a mixture of alleles for different genes. You can create OP varieties from a mixture of genetic stocks, and there is nothing about genetic engineering that dictates that you cannot include transgenes in an OP variety. If you were to do that with genes still covered by Monsanto patents you might run into a legal problem with breeding your own Bt sweet corn variety, however when those patents run out (first one will run out in 2014) there is nothing preventing you from doing that. But aside from GE traits that are currently commercialized, traits that benefit OP varieties could be developed through genetic engineering, or traits that benefit any variety can be incorporated into an OP variety.


Not all genetic variation is good. As I pointed out with breeding, the point of artificial selection is to eliminate bad traits. You do not want variability in important traits like how well the plant grows or whether it tolerates various stresses that impact the plant. You  do  want genetic variation in other genes that may give your population a degree of robustness. Imagine a bag of grass seed that you buy from the grocery store. Many of you may not know this, but these bags of grass seed may have a diverse mix of different species (usually 3) that thrive in different conditions (wet/dry, sun/shade) so that no matter how varied your yard is, you still get a full lawn. Sometimes they can have grass seeds from the same species that simply have  genetic diversity  for these traits. But some kinds of diversity you don;t want might be grass that grows to different heights or different shades of green. You definitely  do not want  genetic diversity of that kind.


Organic growers may want to go for this kind of robustness in OP varieties simply because they don;t have the insect, pest, and disease controls available to conventional growers, but there is no such requirement in organic rules. You can have a farm that grows a single genetically identical hybrid variety of corn and call it organic. Many probably do.


GE crops, as I learn more about how the system works, are not genetically uniform across the country or the world. GE traits are licensed out to different seed producing companies, and depending on the details of those license agreements they may be combining those GE traits with the genetics of corn, soybeans, or cotton that is adapted to different regions or contain other useful traits. It has been claimed that GE crops reduce genetic diversity ; but to my knowledge there has been no peer reviewed scientific paper that supports this claim. So Jim Riddle;s description of genetic engineering;s effect on genetic diversity is at the least false on its face and at the most a mere hypothesis.


So on this argument we have seen that not only were the premises false, the logic was unsound. Because if increasing genetic diversity was required in organic agriculture, then any plant breeding that reduces that diversity would be incompatible with the system. (BTW, a  recent paper  examining the genetic diversity of 8 crop species over the last century has revealed that the regional genetic diversity has not gone down, so breeders, you;re doing it right!)


9. Not profitable.  According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of GMO varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.


This is often a claim made by opponents of genetic engineering, who suggest that farmers that grow them lose money. One or two studies may be cited in support of this claim, ignoring many  other  studies that say the opposite. The truth is, whether or not you make more or less money growing (current) GE crops will depend on the unique situations that your farm presents. If you have lots of weed pressure, herbicide tolerant crops will probably make you more money. If not, you won;t get anything for the higher price of the seed. If corn borers and rootworm beetles are running rampant in your area, ;stacked; GE corn would help you reduce your pesticide costs and raise your yields (even The Organic Center and the UCS agree on that). But if you don;t have those problems you might be wasting your money.


You don;t need to know all these things to understand that farmers are making money planting GE crops ; the mere fact that the adoption levels are so high and are stable means that farmers are benefiting from them and a large part of that is probably due to profit. For those who are unsatisfied with shooting from the hip like that (as I am), the National Academy of Sciences just release a huge report on the impacts of GE crops, and one of the areas they examined was profitability. What did they  conclude  ?


Many adopters of genetically engineered crops have experienced either lower costs of production or higher yields, and sometimes both.


Read the report,  it;s over 200 pages of science goodness  . So it seems that farmers can make more money if they carefully choose GE crops that benefit them.


Finally, Riddle;s claim that GE crops has lowered the profitability of farms rests on poor logic. Because organic farms may make more money than conventional farm as a whole does  not  mean that the use of genetic engineering by conventional farms is the cause for that disparity. That is not even a valid claim.


10. No consumer demand.  Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be genetically engineered. In fact, over 275,000 people said no GMOs in organic, in response to the first proposed organic rule in 1997. Organic is the only federally regulated food label, which prohibits the use of genetic engineering. By genetically engineering organic foods, consumer choice would be eliminated, in the absence of mandatory labeling of all GMO foods.


Given the fact that many leaders in the organic community use fear of genetic engineering to try to get more people to buy organic, it would come as no surprise that there isn;t much support for GE among organic consumers. But if you polled consumers about whether they wanted their produce to have their genetics altered through breeding and hybridization, how many would stand up and say ;Yes!;? If you instead asked consumers whether they wanted their produce to taste better, be healthier, more colorful, cheaper, have fewer pesticide residues, etc, you might find more support.


Indeed, there are many things that consumers are looking for that genetic engineering can help provide. For instance, there are several examples of traits that enhance healthful aspects of lettuce, carrots, tomatoes, rice, and soybeans. The first health-oriented (and thus consumer-oriented) crop will soon be commercialized in the US, a soybean that produces Omega-3 fats in its oil. We may soon find a cultural collision occurring among the more health-oriented consumers. As Organic agriculture continues to claim health benefits, a portion of their market is probably buying it because they think they will be getting more nutrients. There will be people forced to make a decision between a perception of health benefits from organic production and demonstrated health benefits from future GE crops. They may look at an Omega-3 soy product and wonder why it cannot also be organic?


When Anastasia and I  met with Michael Pollan back in January  , this is one of the things we talked about. And Michael said that he believes that such consumer-oriented traits are going to shift public opinion to accept GE crops. When consumers are more confident in the benefits of such traits, will organic agriculture begin allowing the certification of GE crops grown organically to meet that demand? Will Jim Riddle change his position based upon mere demand?


And does that mean that there must be demand for organic pesticides from consumers before they are approved?


Conclusion


Jim Riddle;s article for the Rodale Institute has gotten some attention, and put forward some arguments why he thinks that genetic engineering is not compatible with organic agriculture. I have demonstrated that not a single one of these ten arguments is adequate for justifying why some genetically engineered traits could not be included in an organic system, and indeed, that these reasons as given can also be used as reasons to exclude even basic plant breeding from organic agriculture. I have shown that most of these arguments are based upon misleading or factually incorrect premises, and/or invalid logic.


Debunking Jim Riddle;s arguments is one thing, but he could always decide to make different ones. Indeed, I invited him to be a part of the discussion in the first post, which he declined to do, but he did say this:


When I said ;organisms that have never previously existed in nature; and ;novel genetic constructs,; I was referring to corn with bacteria genes and all other transgenic organisms that could otherwise never exist, without listing every such example. I did discuss the unintended impacts of Bt corn, which are the result of inserting the gene for Bt toxicity into every cell of the corn plant, which is something that has not and could not occur through natural or traditional breeding.  My entire article focused on why transgenic organisms are not compatible with organic production, so I see no need to outline my concerns further.


So now we get to the real argument. I;m sure that you could detect it as an undercurrent in many of the ten arguments that he gave. Many of them depended entirely upon this argument, and by not bringing this objection to the forefront it is preventing us from actually getting to the real arguments, and we spend all our time talking about mere cursory arguments. Allow me to venture a guess as to the real reason why the organic sector is against genetic engineering in agriculture, but it comes as no surprise why it did not ;officially; make Riddle;s list, because it is a silly argument. Are you ready? Here it is:


Genetic Engineering just isn;t ;Natural!;


And of course, neither are tractors, plows, computers, refrigerators, or anything else that humans make that are perfectly fine to use on organic farms, or with organic food. Naturalness is not a property of matter, it is a description of the process by which is was generated, that exists only in degrees, not absolutes. As proponents of organic agriculture rightly argue that humans are a part of the natural world and should not consider ourselves independent of nature, to claim that what human beings do is unnatural  depends on excluding human beings from nature  . You could say that it is  only natural  that humans do genetic engineering, as we seek to improve our lives with science and technology. Indeed, gene transfer happens between species in nature as well ; it is called  Horizontal Gene Transfer  ; apparently Nature has no respect for the ;natural; integrity of species boundaries.


Jim Riddle spent his entire article that was supposed to be about why transgenic organisms are incompatible with Organic Agriculture   not even talking about why specifically  transgenic  organisms are incompatible. Why specifically are new proteins introduced by transformation not allowed, while introducing many unknown proteins through wide crosses are allowed? So we are left still without a rational reason why they shouldn;t be allowed. And it took evaluating ten bad reasons to get to it. I think Jim Riddle does need to outline his reasons further, don;t you?


We need your help, Jim


Granted, Jim Riddle;s article is written for the Rodale Institute, and does  not  represent the opinion of the University of Minnesota, but his position as the UM;s Organic Outreach Coordinator is important to bring up. He has chosen to educate the public about organic agriculture as a career, and while trying to defend this important agricultural system from a perceived threat, has made several misrepresentations of that very agricultural system. In the discussion over genetic engineering in agriculture and the potential of integrating it into organic growing systems,  we desperately need the help of those who are knowledgeable about organic to faithfully represent this form of agriculture.


And we need people who have such know-how to freely admit that there are ways that genetic engineering and organic can work together to improve agriculture, even if it goes against current regulations or personal misgivings. If there is a rational justification for excluding genetic engineering from organic agriculture  in principle  , then we need to see the real arguments and not invalid post-hoc justifications.


Stay tuned for part III in which I will discuss the enormous error that every response to the idea of GE/Organic has made and what critics need to respond to; or ultimately agree.


Also, thanks to Anastasia Bodnar for taking a look at this post before I hit ;publish!;













Document Number: 9423 



 Terminator 2: My Mission is to Protect You 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 7 November 2009 


In discussions about GE crops, one of the contentious topics that often comes up is the use of what has been effectively dubbed ;Terminator; technology. These are crops that are engineered to produce sterile seeds that cannot be regrown. The use of this technology to force farmers to repurchase their seeds every year is often what causes the greatest objection from opponents of genetic engineering. But what is interesting is that like the films where this technology gets its nickname, it can also be used to  protect  seed-saving farmers.


;Terminator; technology, also referred to as ;Suicide Seeds,; are marketing terms coined by GE opponents to reframe what is technically called  Genetic Use Restriction Technology  , or GURT. This technology can take several forms, the most widely discussed one was developed by scientists working at the USDA and the Delta and Land Pine company, which is now owned by Monsanto. It works by means of three engineered genes, that when brought together in one plant, they act in combination to halt the development of embryos in the seeds the plant produces. The result is a plant that produces food as normal, but does not produce fertile seeds.


For those that are interested in a full scientific explanation of the technology, you can  read about it here  . But in short, GURTs can be used by seed companies to protect their intellectual property by preventing farmers from saving and replanting their seeds, which has often led to several lawsuits, some high-profile. It has also been suggested that for some crops that do not get much attention from plant breeders, that it would provide an incentive for them to spend the time and money it takes to improve a crop, because they could guarantee being able to sell their seeds in the future.


The public reaction to GURTs has been to imagine that it will turn farmers into servants of the seed industry, completely dependent upon them for seed purchases year after year. It is assumed that no non-GURT seeds will be available, and that this technology will allow seed companies to tell farmers what to grow and at what price, tell people what to eat, and basically rule the world. Hyperbole aside, at the very least the worry is that it will make farmers unable to choose what to grow, or financially yoked to a large corporation. For small-scale farmers in developing countries, they worry that it will give those large companies the power to extract all the money they can, keeping them in an impoverished state.


The strong backlash against ;Terminator; GURTs has likely contributed to Monsanto;s  decision to pledge  not to use GURTs in any of their seeds. They acquired the technology when they bought Delta and Land Pine in 2000, a cotton breeding company. Nevertheless, many people believe that GURTs are widespread in use, even  Vandana Shiva seems to repeatedly indicate that she believes that Bt cotton seeds are sterile and cannot be regrown  . (You would think that since preventing the use of GURTs in commercialized GE crops is regarded as a victory for GE opponents, that they would all be very conscious of its absence.)


How much of this opposition is based on legitimate fears, and how much does would it change seed buying/replanting practices on farms?


As I have said  elsewhere  , monopolistic control of food crops by a few companies does not sound very likely to me, since companies making GE crops are sprouting up around the world, and antitrust laws in this country and others. Not to mention that government agencies and nonprofit organizations are also working on GE crops for developed and developing countries alike. In the case of GE crops developed by companies, since they would have patents on their engineered traits, they would have the authority to require royalties for farmers to plant fields of those crops. Given that farmers today are not allowed to save GE soybeans and replant them without paying a fee to the seed company, the only difference in this situation with a GURT is that the control would be biological rather than legal.


Would it force farmers to buy seeds every year? The fact is, many farmers already rebuy seed every year. In the case of hybrid crops that have higher yields than open-pollinated varieties, the hybrid must be regenerated each year from two inbred parents (which are typically proprietary). The debate over seed saving was hashed out in the debates over hybrid corn in the 1900s, and the result is that the vast majority of corn grown are hybrids. The increase in yield and other beneficial traits outweighs the continual cost of buying the seed.


Indeed, as Raoul Adamchak explains in  Tomorrow;s Table  , even organic farmers often purchase new seeds every year. Whether it is an heirloom Brandywine tomato or a hybrid sweet corn, seeds bought from a company that specializes in seed production (and/or breeding) are often a good bet against a bad batch of seed. From page 133:


At reasonable prices it is easier to let the seed companies provide the seed. In addition, they generally do a better job of maintaining seed purity and quality. If hybrid prices get too high, growers can switch to [Open-Pollinated varieties] instead, and save seeds. This can be a difficult choice is a specific trait like disease resistance, size, or uniformity is needed. Yields may also be less.


Even if seed saving is possible to do, it is still economically preferrable to go with seed provided by professional seed-producing operations, aside from issues of variety and transgene patents. If the price of seed gets too high, whether genetically engineered or not, farmers will go back to other varieties that are better for their bottom line. The economics of the situation will drive farmers one direction or another. I;m no economist, but it seems that the economics of competition in the seed market will ensure that there are alternatives available, irrespective of the presence or absence of GURTs.


;Terminator;s; you Eat


There is a very widely used and accepted conventional analog of Terminator GURTs that most of us have eaten ; they;re called Seedless Watermelons. These are generated by manipulating the number of chromosomes in watermelon cells to give them three copies of each chromosome instead of two. (For more on how this works, you can  watch a video I made about it here  .) The resulting ;Triploid; Watermelons sponteneously abort their seeds, leaving a juicy, seedless fruit. The seeds have to be regenerated year after year from other plants, and farmers and consumers obviously cannot replant seeds that don;t even exist!


Ironically, while genetic engineering is not allowed in organic agriculture, Seedless watermelons are. Nevermind the fact that the chromosome numbers are artificially manipulated using chemicals ; it appears that this early form of direct genetic manipulation has been grandfathered in.


My point in bringing up the seedless watermelon is this: It results in exactly the same thing as genetically engineered GURTs ; and that is it effectively prevents the plant from generating fertile seeds.  The argument is often made, most vociferously by Shiva, that GURTs are immoral because they interrupt the traditional practice of seed saving. Shiva and others  must therefore agree  that seedless watermelons are also immoral for the same reason. Why is there no call for a moratorium on seedless watermelons? Well, that would be the pits.


Anyone wonder where the seeds are in bananas? There;s another one for you. The bananas we eat are also triploid, and produce no seeds. Although you can grow new banana trees from cuttings, it doesn;t produce any seeds that you could plant. Is the cavendish banana immoral, too?


Neither of these were made with genetic engineering, which means that unless Shiva hasn;t heard of Bananas and Seedless Watermelons, that the objection is not based on its effects on seed saving but on something else.


Can you think of any more examples?


Spread of Sterility?


In the global discussion of GURTs, there is a widespread perception that the ;Terminator; will get out and run rampant, killing off not only every native crop but also spreading into other species and wiping them out. This about this for a second, is it possible for  sterility  to spread?


Not by any genetic mechanism I am familiar with. The pollen grains from GURT crops that cross-pollinate with others will make a few sterile seeds that will not grow and so their genes will not make it to the next generation. So if you grew corn next to another farmer who grew corn with a GURT in it, some of the seeds from the edge of your field could have been pollenated by a few stray grains from your neighbor;s field. If you were growing an open-pollinated variety and saved seed from year to year, you would have a few seeds that wouldn;t grow ; but only if you gathered them from the margins of your field (which is not a good idea anyway).


And as for GURTs spreading into other species sterilizing them ; these claims are based on a basic misunderstanding of how evolution works. Genes spread when they provide a benefit to the organism, and sterility is the exact opposite of an advantage. Aside from the small increases that can be seen from genetic drift ; a trait needs to help the plant survive and reproduce to sweep through a population, and sexual sterility by definition does not do that.


But take a look at what Vandana Shiva said on  pages 82-83 of her book, Stolen Harvest  :


Molecular biologists are currently examining the risk of the terminator function escaping the genome of the crops into which it has been intentionally incorporated and moving into surrounding open-pollinated crops or wild, related plants in nearby fields. Given nature;s incredible adaptability and the fact that the technology has never been tested on a large scale, the possibility that the terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or to the natural environment is a serious one. The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet.


It is ironic that Shiva often argues that genetic engineering and the ;Terminator;  violate  evolution, when it is  evolution that proves  that her claims are unfounded.


It is possible that one of the three genes in the Delta and Pine-style GURT could mutate and not function anymore ; so this style of GURT is not 100.00% fool-proof. However even in that case the remaining two functional genes would not spread sterility because you would need all three genes to bring about sterility. Still no scientific justification for Shiva;s declaration about ;spreading sterility,; however it is possible that a few transgenes of the other traits in the crop could still leak out on rare occasions.  At Genetic Maize  Anastasia argues that a different style of GURT would be a better choice for preventing gene flow.


The prevention of gene flow is an interesting issue when it comes to GURTs. On one hand, companies want to make money selling their GE seeds and not have to chase patent infringers for saving their seeds. So the biological reification of the legal landscape seems to be what the opponents are the most afraid of. On the other hand, GURTs can be seen as a layer of protection for those who do not want to grow (or eat) genetically engineered crops.


My Mission is to Protect You


In the first Terminator film, Arnold Schwarzenegger played the enemy, a robot bent on terminating Sarah Connor before she could bear Humanity;s Last Hope. In the second film, the same Schwarzenegger instead played the part of the protector of Connor and her son. How can ;Terminator; technology instead become a protector working  for  seed savers rather than against?


To explain this, let me turn to Jeremy at the  Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog  . Jeremy is not known for very glowing reviews of genetically engineered crops, although he has said that he tires of the same old pro-anti debate. But recently, he posted  a very thoughtful rant  on seed saving and GURTs:


When are the knee-jerk opponents of genetically modified crops going to realize that genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) are their friends?   1  (;)  GURTs thus stop any characters bred into a GMO from being transferred into another variety of the same crop and into the crops wild relatives.   So, IIED, remind me, please: why is that a bad thing?  Does it stop the farmer saving seeds? On the contrary, it makes life easier, because the farmer does not have to worry about genetic pollution. She can, of course, still take advantage of good pollution, or introgression, if she wants to.  Does it stop her using farm-saved seed? No, how could it, when any polluted seeds are going to fail to grow. It makes using the farm-saved seed more secure.  Can she still exchange and sell farm-saved seed? You bet, and not only that, but her customers and swap-partners will be grateful that her seeds cannot possibly be polluted.  Opponents of GURTs seem to think that massive influxes of foreign pollen are the norm. Theyre not. And I certainly wouldnt want to accept, even as a gift, seed from someone who knew so little about farming and seed saving that they couldnt even maintain their own varieties. Cross pollination from a different field is a fascinating and rare source of diversity in farmers fields, not the norm. GURTs pose absolutely no threat to farm-saved seed. In fact, I believe that they can enhance genetic diversity (by maintaining the separation between varieties), improve seed quality (for the same reasons) and have no impact at all on the livelihoods of poor farmers.


So you can easily see that GE crops with GURTs in them can instead be used to  protect  non-GE crops from cross-pollination. Indeed, as many opponents of GE crops argue that farmers are afraid of getting sued for cross-pollination, this fear would be all but eliminated if they were using GURTs. Percy Schmeiser would have remained an obscure canola farmer in Canada. He wouldn;t have been able to spray his fields and collect herbicide-tolerant canola seeds for replanting, and he couldn;t have gotten sued.


There;s something else to think about when it comes to opponents of genetic engineering. Often, the argument is made that GE crops cannot be grown unless there is a 0% risk of affecting the environment, organic farms, etc. Zero percent risk does not exist anywhere in the Universe, but this is as close as it comes. Essentially, the most hardcore anti-GE voices out there are  asking for GURTs  , whether or not they are aware of it. The more you demand absolute exclusion of cross-pollination in biosafety regulations, the more incentive you are giving biotech companies to develop terminator technologies. If you really cannot stomach GURTs, then maybe pushing a little less hard on  absolute  separation would be tactically smarter (just a little advice).


GURTs are not opposed for scientific reasons ; the pseudo-biological reasons given by Shiva et al are a scientific veneer on what is really an economic argument. They fear consolidation of the seed market and corporate control of the food supply. But as Jeremy has demonstrated, the seed-saving diva Shiva might find GURTs to be her best ally in keeping a GE-free farm-saved seed supply in circulation amongst poor farmers. If a GURT can prevent the flow of patented transgenes into openly-traded seed supplies, it would instead be a A T-101 working to protect her effort from Monsanto;s T-1000. Ironic, isn;t it?


I;m not  advocating  the use of GURTs, lest anybody misunderstand me. (Although I could form a cogent argument in favor of GURTs in pharma-crops.) But there is more to this trait than meets the eye, and I think that it has become a lightning-rod issue that is less clear-cut than its opponents make it out to be. The Terminator can be sent to kill, but it can also be sent to protect. Discussions about the use of technology so often hinge on these kinds of dualities, which is why we need to discuss these things in a more sensible (and scientific) fashion.


I;ll leave you with Jeremy;s  dynamite conclusion  .


I hold no brief for or against GMOs, though I do think they have yet to prove themselves in the areas where they make the loudest claims. This is not about GMOs. It is about honesty. Any opponent of GMOs, however good the rest of their arguments might be, immediately loses my respect if they are also against GURTs.


*Arnold voice*: ;Respect Terminated.;













Document Number: 8215 



 Thanks, Farmers! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 26 November 2009 


Today is Thanksgiving, and I imagine that as everyone in the United States is preparing their turkeys, stuffing, pumpkin pies, baklava (whatever your fancy!), you are thinking about who to thank before you dive in. Mothers, fathers, friends and family, but how about the farmers who grew your veggies and raised the bird? I know  some people out there  take the time to draw attention to the source of their food for special meals, and it looks like even our President, Barack Obama, would like citizens to take a moment to reflect on their food this week. He has declared Thanksgiving week  National Farm-City Week  !


A PROCLAMATION  Our Nation;s farm and ranch families supply many of the basic necessities of our daily life. They manage a large portion of our country;s fertile land base, and they are caretakers of our valuable natural resources and diverse ecosystems. Their connections with urban and suburban communities are critical to our economy and to the nourishment of our people. During National Farm-City Week, we express gratitude for the contributions of our Nation;s farmers and ranchers, and we rededicate ourselves to providing all Americans with access to healthy food, and thus, a healthy future.   Pioneered by Native Americans, agriculture was our Nation;s first industry. For agriculture to thrive in the 21st century, we must continue to cultivate the relationships between farmers and rural businesses and their partners and customers in cities and towns. American farmers and ranchers are proud to grow the food, feed, fuel, and fiber that enhance our national security and prosperity, and remain steadfast stewards of the land they love. We must ensure that farming is maintained as an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable way of life for future generations.  This Thanksgiving season, we celebrate farms of every size that produce fruits, vegetables, dairy, and livestock indispensable to the health of our families. We also recognize the vital ties between our urban and suburban communities and their local farmers through regional food systems, farmers markets, and community gardens. During National Farm-City Week, we celebrate the bounty of America, and we honor the commitment of those who grow, harvest, and deliver agricultural goods to feed our country and grow our economy.  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim the week ending on Thanksgiving Day of each year as National Farm-City Week. I call on Americans as they gather with their families and friends to reflect on the accomplishments of all who dedicate their lives to promoting our [N]ation;s agricultural abundance and environmental stewardship.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.


Sounds like a great idea! The Monsanto company also  made a page  where people can post short messages to show their gratitude to farmers. I added my thanks, go ahead and pile on! There;s also a ;Twibbon; where you can  show your support  for farmers in your twitter account. I;m totally there in honor of Thanksgiving this week. It sure beats buying a magnet for my Cornmobile!


But what would the farmers grow if it weren;t for plant breeders who continue to advance the best genetics of our crops forward into the seeds that they plant? And what about those intrepid genetic engineers that have helped reduce insecticide sprays, shield produce from viruses, and more? Whether working in the field or in the lab, these are essential, but often thankless jobs.


Thank a farmer, and thank a plant geneticist, too!


And a happy Thanksgiving to you all, from the center of my cobb!













Document Number: 1786 



 The 12 posts of Gristmas 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 27 December 2010 


Hi everyone, I hope you are keeping warm and rested this holiday season. Internet is real spotty where I am in L.A., otherwise I would be putting up a bunch of posts about the Vatican, Wikileaks, and more. But I have a moment in my  favorite coffee shop  in Culver City to share a little song I put together. As you are probably aware, I;ve been chatting and debating with some folks over at Grist lately, and the conversations have been both revealing and instructive, while also being up close and personal. It was amazing to see as I pointed out that both Tom Philpott and Tom Laskawy were wrong on basic facts and also wrong on interpretations, that they have not once responded to my comments. Doug Gurian-Sherman laid down a bombshell that he doesn;t care if anyone thinks his stuff is peer-reviewed or not, and an anti-GE campaigner thanked me for being the first scientist to explain something to her (brownie points that didn;t last very long, apparently). And amidst a string of personal attacks, a surprise defender swooped in! There;s not enough time for me to find each comment, but the verses here are all based on real comments, you can search my  Grist comment account  to find them if you like.


And this holiday season, Grist itself sent me half a dozen requests for money as a registered user (besides banner ads when visiting the site), saying that a donation would be a gift that keeps on giving. Truly Grist has been such a gift, but not in the way that they intended. I thought about the important things I observed, and put them all to a familiar tune. Sing along with me as you read The 12 Posts of Gristmas!


On the first post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the second post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the third post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Brand new flame accounts


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the fourth post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Thanks for explaining Bt


Brand new flame accounts


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the fifth post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the sixth post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Personal attacks,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the seventh post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Conspiracy theories,


Personal attacks,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the eighth post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Obfuscating facts,


Conspiracy theories,


Personal attacks,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the ninth post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Misrepresenting sources,


Obfuscating facts,


Conspiracy theories,


Personal attacks,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the tenth post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Screw Peer review,


Misrepresenting sources,


Obfuscating facts,


Conspiracy theories,


Personal attacks,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the eleventh post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


No comment moderation,


Screw peer review,


Misrepresenting sources,


Obfuscating facts,


Conspiracy theories,


Personal attacks,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass.


On the twelfth post of Gristmas the comments gave to me,


Twelve annoying requests for money,


With no comment moderation,


Screw Peer review,


Misrepresenting sources,


Obfuscating facts,


Conspiracy theories,


Personal attacks,


Matthew De-fends Meeee


Psst thanks for explaining Bt,


Brand new flame accounts,


Two silent Toms,


And Doug doesnt give a rats ass!


I will have more to say about these encounters in the near future, but for now, Merry Gristmas! And a happy new year of reaching out to people!













Document Number: 9122 



 The Biofortified Forum 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 14 October 2009 


After much hard work, and diving into php code, I am pleased to announce the launch of the  Biofortified Forum  !


Coming close on the heels of the  recent wordpress upgrade  , new user registration spam protections, and other little things running in the background that you may or may not have noticed, this new addition is something I;m really excited about. I have been to many sites that have their own forums for allowing users to start their own discussions, and I have wanted to add one to the site for some time. But those forums are often tacked on to the sites where they are hosted, and feel like an external addition, not unlike a lean-to. No one wants to hang out in a shed attached to a mansion! And to have to have two sets of keys to get into each one? No thanks!


Yes, the new forum is contained within the site, thanks to a spiffy wordpress plugin called  Forum Server  . It places the forum into any page you want within the site, and so the discussion happens with the look and feel of the site it is a part of. Seamless. But the best part about this plugin is that it taps into the same base of users that the blog uses. Register for one and you are registered for both! One set of keys does it. Plus, if you sign up for Gravatar with the email address you use for commenting or registering, you can replace that funky image with your own picture on both the blog and in the forum. Painless.


Well, almost.  I have had no formal training in computer or web code, yet I have managed to make some things work that wouldn;t have on their own. The plugin wasn;t installing, and I tweaked the code a little and it installed. Next, it was installed but the plugin settings weren;t working at all. After looking at what functions in the browser window were going nowhere, and following those words in the plugin files, I found a problem with one of the changes I made and fixed it. Voila! The main issue was that some of the functions in the code were calling up files based upon the folder they were in (relative) rather than the full path to the file (absolute). Then one of the absolute paths I added went to the wrong folder.


Funny thing, I learn about computer code like a geneticist. I see some function with values and parameters, and I tweak them (or remove it entirely) and see what that does. After a while I form a mental model of how some of it all works. It seems haphazard, but there;s nothing like navigating through a bunch of colorful lines of code and picking out genes, err, php functions and figuring out what they do, engineering them to do what I want them to do! Biofortified, built by genetic engineering. The analogy is striking.


I would like to extend a special thanks to  Eric Hamby  for designing this excellent forum plugin, and for being on call to help me figure out what was wrong with the installation.


The forum has several categories, from genetics to genetic engineering, agriculture, food, and an off-topic ;coffee house; to chat about things totally unrelated to genetics. There is also a category for discussions in other languages, in hopes that people in spanish or german-speaking countries might also want to talk in the form they find most comfortable. Let;s try to break some language barriers while talking about species barriers! Each category has several sub-catgories such as news, politics, philosophy, growing methods, recipes, etc. There;s even one for  Jeremy  ; Agricultural Biodiversity! Feel free to start a new topic anytime!


This forum is one of several new things that we;re putting together at Biofortified. A couple weeks ago Anastasia and I had a brainstorming session on the future direction of the site, and we;ve got a few things cooking up for ideas that will expand the ways that people can contribute to the blog, the discussion, and the future of this field.


Another thing that you may or may not have noticed is a new Twitter widget in the sidebar. Anastasia twitters,  I refuse to twitter  , however some readers have expressed a desire for a twitter feed for the blog. As it turns out, Frank N. Foode was very willing to step up to the task of tweeting (?) his thoughts and news links for everyone. (Speaking of you Frank, when are you going to tell everyone about all the stuff you did this summer?) You can ;follow; his corny shenanigans by going  here  .


We;re going to great lengths to try to expand this blog to be what we think it can eventually be ;  the  go-to place for information and discussion about genetic engineering in agriculture. If you like what you see so far, please consider voting for us in the  changemakers contest  . Voting ends in less than two weeks! Go  here to register  , and  here to vote  .


Finally, I just wanted to mention that in the midst of the upgrading and code editing, I discovered that there was a security breach and several posts were hacked by a malicious user. It was a bot, probably designed to exploit an old WordPress vulnerability, and all it did was insert some invisible code linking to commercial websites to try to raise their page rank in google searches. But it wasn;t a well-designed one, the code made itself invisible, and only affected a few posts. By coincidence, it entered the site just two days before I did the upgrade, which wiped system files, so after a brief cleanup all is made well. I wanted to let everyone know so that if you find something odd, like an ad for male enhancement pills where it shouldn;t be, please let us know. You could do it in the  forum  !













Document Number: 7613 



 The Bustamante Affaire reaches Nature magazine 


 by  David Tribe  on 12 January 2011 


Peruvian Biologist;s Defamation Conviction Overturned  - Lucas Laursen, Nature, January 12, 2011  A defamation case that hinges on a dispute over the presence of genetic modification in Peruvian maize crops, and that has attracted international attention, has moved back to square one ; with a twist.  Biologist Ernesto Bustamante Donayre was last April found guilty of defamation ; a criminal offence in Peru ; for publicly criticizing a report published by a fellow biologist. Last month, however, the conviction was overturned: the appeal judge found that a lower court had not demonstrated that Bustamante had sufficient motivation to harm or defame his alleged victim. SNIP


The case began in 2008, when Antonietta Ornella Gutirrez Rosati of La Molina National Agricultural University in Lima accused Bustamante, the scientific director of private genetic-screening firm BioGenmica, of defaming her by publicly criticizing a study she wrote and publicized that reported evidence of transgenic maize in Peru. SNIP  Gutirrez, who did not respond to an interview request, may still take the suit to another lower court, although the appeals judge recommended that the case go to a pre-trial conciliation hearing first. SNIP; the National Institute for Agrarian Innovation (INIA) in Lima has tried to replicate Gutirrez;s findings in Barranca but has failed to find genetically modified varieties of native maize, despite examining 162 samples.  ;In the conciliation hearing I;ll most likely use that as a proof that what I said at that time was later found to be actually true,; Bustamante says. A finding in his favour will discourage other scientists from taking each other to court, Bustamante adds. ;It would have been nice to have a judge come out and say, ;Yes, science should not be taken to court;, but that;s not for lawyers to say. That;s for us scientists to state and to express and to fight for.;  See also  Science lives on in Peru













Document Number: 3003 



 The End of Poverty Part VI. Effects of high-quality modern agricultural technology on food production in Malawi 


 by  David Tribe  on 3 December 2010 


Maize (corn) production, and net exports trade statistics for the African country of Malawi for the period 1998 to 2008, based on FAOSTAT data. Graph prepared by D Tribe.


There is much debate and concern about food security and development for Africa. On a hopeful note, several GMO Pundit posts have dealt with the wonderful story of improved corn growing output in Malawi (see links at the end of this posting).


GMO Pundit has now found the time to look over the FAO official statistics for corn production and corn trade in Malawi.&nbsp; He has produced from official FAO statistics the graph shown above.


This graph documents the overall economic story surrounding the decisive government policy response to the disastrous 2005 food crisis in that country with interventions that subsidised seed and fertiliser inputs for 1 million smallholder farmers.


The the trade and farm statistics suggest that Malawi has made a break from the past as a result of this carefully considered intervention.


The past consisted of all too frequent food emergencies;and Malawi was at these times of food crises, a food import-dependent country.


The present record shows that that Malawi is now a major maize exporter with significantly increased capacity to produce the staple maize crop.


It will be fascinating to follow the ongoing results of corn trade from this country, which will hopefully increase rural family incomes and drive down poverty. Whole country food output is a very strong measure of whether there has been improvement in farm productivity.


Some commentators doubt whether modern technology is helpful or even relevant to African smallholder producers. The real scenario in Malawi should give these commentators reason to pause in their arguments.


Previous GMO Pundit posts relating to Malawi and other interventions to end poverty:  There is hope in Africa. A fertiliser scheme in Malawi raised maize yields from 0.8 to 2.2 times per hectare; one of the continent;s poorest countries now exports food. 2010


How the Rich World Can Help Africa Help Itself. 2007 ; Glenn Denning and Jeffrey Sachs, Financial Times (London) , May 29, 2007


The End of Poverty Part I. The Positives.  The End of Poverty Part II. A reversal of fortune.  The End of Poverty Part III. The Poverty Trap Is a Rural Phenomenon.  The End of Poverty PartIV. Interview with Jeffrey Sachs  The End of Poverty Part V. In 1978 China;s economic resurgence started with rural farming communities.


Update 5 December 2010  from a reader comment posted at the Biofortified mirror version of this posting  the Pundit is extremely grateful to Andrew Dorward for making this contribution, and is currently reading has research paper with considerable interest.


Author of comment :  Andrew Dorward  Comment:  Thanks for this. There is much to learn from the Malawi experience and its achievements. You may be interested in an in depth analysis of the programme with more detailed and comprehensive statistics: see  Dorward, A and Chirwa, E. (2010) ;The Malawi Agricultural Input Subsidy Programme: 2005-6 to 2008-9.;International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability (IJAS), 9 (1). (Forthcoming)  This can be downloaded from &lt;  http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/9598  /&gt;


Abstract:  Malawis implementation of a large scale agricultural input subsidy programme in 2005/6 and subsequent years has attracted significant international interest. This paper reviews the background, processes, achievements and outcomes of the programme over the period 2005/6 to 2008/9. The very large scale disbursement of heavily subsidised fertilisers and (mainly hybrid and composite maize) seed to very large numbers of beneficiaries across the country represents a significant logistical achievement and led to significant increases in national maize production and productivity, and this has contributed to increased food availability, higher real wages and wider economic growth and poverty reduction. However the latter years of the programme have also been accompanied by very high international fertilizer prices and costs and by high maize prices, the latter undermining the programmes food security, poverty reduction and growth benefits for the majority of Malawian farmers, who are very poor and rely on purchased maize for significant amounts of their staple food requirements. Estimated economic returns to the programme have been modest but, given other benefits of the programme not captured in cost benefit analysis, satisfactory. With substantial reductions in both prices and subsidised volumes of fertilisers in subsequent years, there is considerable scope for building on achievements to substantially raise programme effectiveness, efficiency and benefits. Any application of Malawis subsidy experience to other countries needs to take account of special characteristics of the Malawian maize economy and of measures needed to raise such programmes effectiveness and efficiency and ensure their best fit with and contribution to sustainable development policies.













Document Number: 879 



 The Future of Food and Farming Priority 6: Promote sustainable intensification. 


 by  David Tribe  on 24 January 2011 


The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability  UK Government Office for Science 2011  Executive Summary


From the Introduction  Project aim  : to explore the pressures on the global food system between now and 2050 and&nbsp;identify the decisions that policy makers need to take today, and in the years ahead, to ensure that a global population rising to nine billion or more can be fed sustainably and equitably.


The global food system will experience an unprecedented confluence of pressures over the next 40 years. On the demand side, global population size will increase from nearly seven billion today to eight billion by 2030, and probably to over nine billion by 2050; many people are likely to be wealthier, creating demand for a more varied, high-quality diet requiring additional resources to produce. On the production side, competition for land, water and energy will intensify, while the effects of climate change will become increasingly apparent. The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate will become imperative. Over this period globalisation will continue, exposing the food system to novel economic and political pressures.  Any one of these pressures (drivers of change) would present substantial challenges to food security; together they constitute a major threat that requires a strategic reappraisal of how the world is fed. Overall, the Project has identified and analysed five key challenges for the future.


Addressing these in a pragmatic way that promotes resilience to shocks and future uncertainties will be vital if major stresses to the food system are to be anticipated and managed. The five challenges, outlined further in Sections 4  8, are:


A. Balancing future demand and supply sustainably  to ensure that food supplies are affordable.  B. Ensuring that there is adequate stability in food supplies  and protecting the most vulnerable from the volatility that does occur.&nbsp;  C. Achieving global access to food and ending hunger. This recognises that producing enough food in the world so that everyone can potentially be fed is not the same thing as ensuring food security for all.&nbsp;  D. Managing the contribution of the food system to the mitigation of climate change.&nbsp;  E. Maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services while feeding the world.  These last two challenges recognise that food production already dominates much of the global land surface and water bodies, and has a major impact on all the Earths environmental systems;


;page 34


8 Priorities for action  A key conclusion of this Foresight Project is that no single approach can meet all of the complex challenges that have been outlined above  decisive action is needed across a wide front. This is perhaps unsurprising, given the diversity and scale of the challenges, and the need for the global food system to deliver much more than just food, and food security in the future. The attention of policy makers will therefore shift to the question of prioritisation  where to focus efforts, and how best to deploy scarce resources.  The following 12 cross-cutting actions (Box 8.1  these are not in any order of importance) are priorities for policy-makers suggested by the wider analysis of the Project.


Box 8.1 Key priorities for action for policy makers


Spread best practice.  Invest in new knowledge.  Make sustainable food production central in development.&nbsp;  Work on the assumption that there is little new land for agriculture.  Ensure long-term sustainability of fish stocks.   Promote sustainable intensification.  Include the environment in food system economics.  Reduce waste  both in high- and low-income countries.  Improve the evidence base upon which decisions are made and develop metrics to assess&nbsp;  progress.&nbsp;  Anticipate major issues with water availability for food production.  Work to change consumption patterns.  Empower citizens.


Update.


Interview with Sir John Beddington on this report on the Financial Times webpages


FT Science with Clive Cookson   http://podcast.ft.com/index.php?pid=1036&amp;sid=43  Food, farming and the NHS Jan 25, 2011 ; 5:56 pm  In this week;s podcast: Clive talks to the chief scientific adviser to the UK government, Sir John Beddington, about the long-term global future of food and farming ;  Presented by Clive Cookson with Andrew Jack.  Produced by LJ Filotrani













Document Number: 6149 



 The GE crop Battlefield 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 2 September 2009 


Nature News has just published a long article by Emily Waltz about the sometimes harsh scientific debates and battles that are waged over genetic engineering in agiculture:   GM Crops: Battlefield.  Papers suggesting that biotech crops might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from other scientists. Emily Waltz asks if the critics fight fair.


The article is pretty good, and it discusses a 2007 paper about Bt corn negatively affecting caddissfly larva when compared to non-Bt corn. ;Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems;, by Rosi-Marhsall et al. You can access the paper  here  , and also read Anastasia;s commentary about the paper with  Even Scientists make Mistakes  at Genetic Maize.


Waltz;s article doesn;t focus so much on the paper itself so much as the responses to the paper, with implications for the culture of scientific debate following controversial results. If someone comes along with a preliminary result that is based on a study with some problems, and there is a danger that it could be used politically to everyone;s detriment, what is the proper response? Shoot it down with all your guns blazing, snipe the problems at a distance, or politely suggest a more rigorous examination? Will the latter response prevent it from being used to make policy decisions?


In the case of this particular paper, it was used by anti-GE organizations, and found its way into supporting the French ban on GE maize:


Rosi-Marshall;s caddis-fly paper did find its way into the anti-GMO rhetoric, although on nowhere near the scale that the monarch butterfly paper did. For example, the London-based Institute of Science in Society, a not-for-profit organization involved in the GM debate, on 30 October 2007 posted its summary of the paper, saying that: ;calling a halt to planting  Bt  corn next to streams  would be in keeping with the evidence [the authors] have provided;. Greenpeace included the paper in an April 2008 briefing on  Bt  maize, citing it as evidence of environmental risk.   The impact went further than that. On 9 January 2008, three months after Rosi-Marshall;s paper was published, France;s watchdog on GM foods ruled that one of Monsanto;s types of  Bt  maize, known as MON810, may have an impact on wildlife. The evidence it cited included Rosi-Marshall;s paper. Two days later, the French government announced a ban on cultivating the maize. ;[The paper] got to every agency and non-governmental organization that doesn;t like the technology and gave them a flag to wave,; says Parrott. Not that he considers the effort wasted: ;I have no doubt the impact on policy-makers would have been much worse had it not been countered.;


But if the response is too harsh it can be seen as discouraging scientists from conducting useful research. If it is too weak, then poorly conducted science gets a passing grade and makes its way into the poltical, cultural, and even scientific spheres and influences opinions. Besides just conducting research, it is the duty of scientists to point out flaws in their own and each other;s work to arrive closer to the truth than we were before. Even good science has its flaws, and pointing them out can improve future research. Rather than quote more of the article, I suggest you read it because it does a pretty good job discussing the various reasons that come up.


The ultimate goal should be the advancement of knowledge ; predicated on the idea that knowledge if used properly can lead to a better life, of course. There is one thing that scientists should probably consider: If a bad paper is published and the response to that paper is too harsh, it might create a ;career contrarian.; Scientists work hard on their research, and have a personal interest in defending it. Rather than abandon the position they take in their paper, responses that are too personal or go over the top in terms of their wording might instead  galvanize  the opinions of these researchers. Now you have someone with hardened opinion on the topic, who will likely advocate their position more, and it could also potentially color what kind of research they pursue.


For example, John Losey, who authored the obsolete Monarch Butterfly Bt-pollen study mentioned in the quote above, got a lot of attention due to the responses, and participated in a four-way panel discussion that included Ignacio Chapela and Arpad Puztai ; two other scientists that have become anti-GE career contrarians. The video doesn;t appear to be available anymore, but  here is a description of the event  . Those two scientists got attention due to the responses to the flaws in their research as well. Just as we should consider the potential impact of poorly conducted research, the impact of responses to that research should be considered for the future of the debate.


The attention to the paper could also have the opposite effect of what is intended, drawing instead  more  attention to the paper in political circles. Where to draw the line is a good question; one that I do not have an answer to.


I think the Nature article would have benefited by including an example in the other direction. For instance, Shane Morris has been the target of many politically-based as well as personal attacks due in part to a study he worked on that found that people preferred GE sweet corn over conventional sweet corn that had been sprayed with pesticides. That paper had a few problems, too, but they weren;t fatal to the conclusion, nor the award it received. You can read his take on it at GMO Ireland ;  Lessons in Biopolitics  .


In my own case, speaking up as a public servant scientist who only has ever accepted public funds led to letters to my employer, intimidating e-mails, defamation (and retractions), comments regarding my wife on an anti-GM website and even a British 9/11 conspiracy theorist politician using the protection of Parliamentary privilege to make false statements to which one has no recourse. These are the daily trials and tribulations that the average politician faces and, though distasteful to most scientists, are ultimately short lived with no real impact. In fact, one only needs a thick skin, knowledge that this is the political norm and an understanding that your actions are legitimate because sense and sensibility will not prevail on their own.


Indeed, the excessive responses that anti-GE activists often give to inconvenient results can be quite jarring ; for example, in the case of this same Bt sweet corn paper, Professor Emeritus Joe Cummins compares a journalist that reports on the affair ; and the fact that other researchers found similar results ;  to a Nazi  :


That is the issue that I and those international scientists joining a letter of complaint to the editor of the British Food Journal dealt with not Steves phoney comments and obfuscations.  Steves short bio comments he still remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the motto of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is. Unfortunately Steve seems closer in practice to the German Joseph Goebbels.


Last time I checked, no pro-GE critique of research has used  Reductio ad Hitlerum  . But there are several examples of  anti;s using it  . It isn;t just research on genetic engineering, either. When a UK study found that there isn;t enough evidence to say that organic crops are more nutritious than conventional crops ;  the barrage of hate-mail  accusing the researchers of working for Monsanto was very telling. The research didn;t even have anything to do with genetic engineering ; this was all political!


It seems to me, though, that both sides of the debate could use a  little  more collegiality. Then maybe the debate can be more about the science and not about who was a big bad meanie on the internet.













Document Number: 5980 



 The Holy Father Benedict XVI : &quot;Technology;is a response to Gods command to till and to keep the land&quot; 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 November 2010 


PAS Study Week, Vatican City, 15-19 May 2009  Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development  A Study Week on the subject of Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development was held under the sponsorship of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at its headquarters in the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican from 15 to 19 May 2009. During the course of the meeting, we surveyed recent advances in the scientific understanding of novel varieties of genetically engineered (GE) plants, as well as the social conditions under which GE technology could be made available for the improvement of agriculture in general and for the benefit of the poor and vulnerable in particular. The spirit of the participants was inspired by the same approach to technology that Benedict XVI expressed in his new Encyclical, in particular that Technology is the objective side of human action (1) whose origin and raison dtre is found in the subjective element: the worker himself. For this reason, technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations towards development, it expresses the inner tension that impels him gradually to overcome material limitations. Technology, in this sense, is a response to Gods command to till and to keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror Gods creative love. (2)


[GMO Pundit note ---  see also next post here  ]


Main Scientific Conclusions  We reaffirm the principal conclusions of the Study-Document on the Use of Genetically Modified Food Plants to Combat Hunger in the World, issued at the end of the Jubilee Plenary Session on Science and the Future of Mankind, 10-13 November 2000. Summarised and updated, these include:  1. More than 1 billion of the world population of 6.8 billion people are currently undernourished, a condition that urgently requires the development of new agricultural systems and technologies.  2. The expected addition of 2-2.5 billion people to reach a total of approximately 9 billion people by 2050 adds urgency to this problem.  3. The predicted consequences of climate change and associated decreases in the availability of water for agriculture will also affect our ability to feed the increased world population.  4. Agriculture as currently practised is unsustainable, evidenced by the massive loss of topsoil and unacceptably high applications of pesticides throughout most of the world.  5. The appropriate application of GE and other modern molecular techniques in agriculture is contributing toward addressing some of these challenges.  6. There is nothing intrinsic about the use of GE technologies for crop improvement that would cause the plants themselves or the resulting food products to be unsafe.  7. The scientific community should be responsible for research and development (R&amp;D) leading to advances in agricultural productivity, and should also endeavour to see that the benefits associated with such advances accrue to the benefit of the poor as well as to those in developed countries who currently enjoy relatively high standards of living.  8. Special efforts should be made to provide poor farmers in the developing world with access to improved GE crop varieties adapted to their local conditions.  9. Research to develop such improved crops should pay particular attention to local needs and crop varieties and to the capacity of each country to adapt its traditions, social heritage and administrative practices to achieve the successful introduction of GE crops.   Further Evidence  Since the preparation of that earlier study document, evidence that has been subjected to high standards of peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny, as well as a vast amount of real-world experience, has accumulated about the development, application and effects of GE technology. During our study-week we reviewed this evidence and arrived at the following conclusions:  1. GE technology, used appropriately and responsibly, can in many circumstances make essential contributions to agricultural productivity by crop improvement, including enhancing crop yields and nutritional quality, and increasing resistance to pests, as well as improving tolerance to drought and other forms of environmental stress. These improvements are needed around the world to help improve the sustainability and productivity of agriculture.  2. The genetic improvement of crop and ornamental plants represents a long and seamless continuum of progressively more precise and predictable techniques. As the U.S. National Research Council concluded in a 1989 report: As the molecular methods are more specific, users of these methods will be more certain about the traits they introduce into the plants and hence less liable to produce untoward effects than other methods of plant breeding:  There are many different terms used to describe the processes involved in plant breeding. All living organisms are made up of cells in which are contained their genes, which give them their distinctive characteristics. The complete set of genes (the genotype) is encoded in DNA and is referred to as the genome; it is the hereditary information that is passed from parent to offspring. All plant breeding, and indeed all evolution, involves genetic change or modification followed by selection for beneficial characteristics from among the offspring. Most alterations to a plants phenotype or observable traits (such as its physical structure, development, biochemical and nutritional properties) result from changes to its genotype. Plant breeding traditionally used the random reshuffling of genes among closely-related and sexually compatible species, often with unpredictable consequences and always with the details of the genetic changes unexplored. In the mid-twentieth century this was supplemented by mutagenesis breeding, the equally random treatment of seeds or whole plants with mutagenic chemicals or high-energy radiation in the hope of generating phenotypic improvements; this, too, gave rise to unpredictable and unexplored genetic consequences from which the plant breeder selected the beneficial traits. Most recently, techniques have been developed allowing the transfer of specific, identified and well characterised genes, or small blocks of genes that confer particular traits, accompanied by a precise analysis of the genetic and phenotypic outcomes: this last category is called transgenesis (because genes are transferred from a donor to a recipient) or genetic engineering (abbreviated to GE in this report) but, in truth, this term applies to all breeding procedures.


3. The benefits have already been of major significance in countries such as the U.S., Argentina, India, China and Brazil, where GE crops are widely grown.  4. They also can be of major significance for resource-poor farmers and vulnerable members of poor farming communities, especially women and children. Insect-resistant GE cotton and maize, in particular, have greatly reduced insecticide use (and hence enhanced farm safety) and contributed to substantially higher yields, higher household income and lower poverty rates (and also fewer poisonings with chemical pesticides) in specific small-farm sectors of several developing countries, including India, China, South Africa and the Philippines.  5. The introduction of resistance to environmentally benign, inexpensive herbicides in maize, soybean, canola, and other crops is the most widely used GE trait. It has increased yields per hectare, replaced back-breaking manual weeding and has facilitated lower input resulting in minimum tillage (no till) techniques that have lowered the rate of soil erosion. This technology could be especially useful to farmers in the developing world who, for reasons of age or disease, cannot engage in traditional manual weed control.  6. GE technology can combat nutritional deficiencies through modification that provides essential micro-nutrients. For example, studies of provitamin A-biofortified Golden Rice have shown that standard daily diets containing this biofortified rice would be sufficient to prevent vitamin A deficiency.  7. The application of GE technology to insect resistance has led to a reduction in the use of chemical insecticides, lowering the cost of some agricultural inputs and improving the health of agricultural workers. This relationship is particularly important in areas such as many European nations, where applications of insecticides are much higher than in most other regions, which may damage ecosystems generally as well as human health.  8. GE technology can reduce harmful, energy consuming, mechanical tilling practices, enhancing biodiversity and protecting the environment, in part by reducing the release of CO2, the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, into the environment.  9. The predicted impact of climate change reinforces the need to use GE coupled with other breeding techniques appropriately and purposively, so that traits such as drought resistance and flooding tolerance are incorporated into the major food crops of all regions as quickly as possible.  10. GE technology has already raised crop yields of poor farmers and there is evidence of its generating increased income and employment that would not otherwise have taken place.  11. Costly regulatory oversight of GE technology needs to become scientifically defensible and risk-based. This means that regulation should be based upon the particular traits of a new plant variety rather than the technological means used to produce it.  12. Risk assessments must consider not only the potential risks of the use of a new plant variety, but also the risks of alternatives if that particular variety is not made available.  13. Significant public-sector efforts are currently underway to produce genetically improved varieties or lines of cassava, sweet potatoes, rice, maize, bananas, sorghum, and other major tropical crops that will be of direct benefit to the poor. These efforts should be strongly encouraged.  14. The magnitude of the challenges facing the worlds poor and undernourished must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Every year nutritional deficiencies cause preventable illness and death. The recent rise in food prices throughout the world has revealed the vulnerability of the poor to competition for resources. In this context, forgone benefits are lost forever.  15. Given these scientific findings, there is a moral imperative to make the benefits of GE technology available on a larger scale to poor and vulnerable populations who want them and on terms that will enable them to raise their standards of living, improve their health and protect their environments.


In general, the application of GE technology has demonstrated its importance for improving agricultural productivity throughout the world, but it is still only one part of what must be a multifaceted strategy. As the Holy Father Benedict XVI has observed: it could be useful to consider the new possibilities that are opening up through proper use of traditional as well as innovative farming techniques, always assuming that these have been judged, after sufficient testing, to be appropriate, respectful of the environment and attentive to the needs of the most deprived peoples. (3) Nevertheless, we recognise that not all developments of GE technology will realise their original promise, as happens with any technology. We must continue to evaluate the potential contribution of all appropriate technologies, which together with conventional plant breeding and additional strategies must be used to improve food security and alleviate poverty for future generations. (4) Many of them can be used synergistically with GE technologies. Strategies include the retention of topsoil through no-till and other conservation practices, the appropriate application of fertilizers, the development of new kinds of fertilizers and environmentally friendly agrochemicals, water conservation, integrated pest management, conservation of genetic diversity, the adoption of new kinds of crops where appropriate and improving existing crops (particularly orphan crops (5)) for wider use through public-private investment and partnerships. Other factors of vital importance to increasing food security or particular importance to resource-poor countries include improvements in infrastructure (transport, electricity supply and storage facilities), capacity building by way of the provision of knowledgeable and impartial advice to farmers about seed choice through local extension services, the development of fair systems of finance and insurance, and the licensing of proprietary technology. However, awareness that there is no single solution to the problem of poverty and discrimination against the poor in many regions should not prevent our use of GE varieties of crops where they can make appropriate contributions to an overall solution.


The Broader Public Debate  GE technology has aroused general public interest and debate around the world about the contribution of science in addressing many of the health and food related challenges that face society in the twenty-first century. This debate on the power and potential role and range of uses to which it can be applied is welcomed, but the discussion must rely on peer-reviewed or otherwise verifiable information if the science and technology are to be appropriately evaluated, regulated, and deployed for the benefit of mankind. Doing nothing is not an option, nor can science and technology be switched on and off like a tap to provide appropriate solutions to problems as they arise: if anything, the task of science is to foresee possible damage in order to avoid it and secure the greatest possible good. In this context, there are six domains of action that need attention: the public understanding of science; the place of intellectual property rights; the role of the public sector; the role of civil society; cooperation between governments, international organisations and civil society; and appropriate and cost-effective justifiable regulatory oversight.  The Public Understanding of Science  Participants at our meeting called attention repeatedly to the widespread misapprehensions about GE technology that pervade both public discussion and administrative regulation. For example, often ignored in the public debate is that all forms of plant breeding involve genetic modification and that some examples of what is called conventional breeding  for example mutagenesis induced by radiation  have outcomes that are intrinsically much less predictable than the application of GE technologies.  All participants in the Study Week are committed to playing their part in contributing to public dialogue and debate in such a way that it is informed and enlightened. It is an obligation for scientists to make themselves heard, explain their science, and demystify technology, and make their conclusions widely available. We urge those who oppose or are sceptical about the use of GE crop varieties and the application of modern genetics generally to evaluate carefully the science  involved and the demonstrable harm caused by withholding this proven technology from those who need it the most. The common good can be served only if public debate rests upon the highest standards of scientific evidence and the civil exchange of opinion.  The Place of Intellectual Property Rights  Proprietary rights play an important role in developing any technology, including medical and agricultural biotechnology, as they do in all aspects of modern society. We are aware that the best practices of the commercial sector have made a significant contribution to the goals of eliminating poverty and food insecurity. However, in line with the social teaching of the Church, which indicates as a primary right the universal destination of the goods of the earth for all mankind, (6) we urge both private and public actors to recognise that the legitimate claims of their property rights should, as much as possible, be subordinated, often beyond the existing norms of civil society, to this universal destination and not allow unjust enrichment or the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.  Public-private partnerships have become increasingly important in encouraging the development and distribution of improved varieties of crops regularly consumed by poor people in developing countries. The humanitarian Golden Rice project provides an excellent example of such collaboration, where the patents held by the private companies were readily licensed, at no cost, to the public enterprises developing the varieties now ready to be deployed in farmers fields for the benefit of the societies of which they are part. A number of similar examples are under development; such progress accords well with the belief that all human beings have a claim upon the fruits of the earth. When the private sector shows willingness to make proprietary technologies available for the benefit of the poor it deserves our congratulations, and we encourage it to continue to follow the highest ethical standards in this field.  For that matter, when we consider the relationship between business and ethics, every private company, and in particular a multinational, in the agricultural sphere as well, should not confine itself solely to economic gain. Above all else it should transmit human, cultural and educational values. For this reason, Caritas in veritate welcomes recent developments towards a civil economy and an economy of communion, a composite reality which does not exclude profit but sees it as a means for attaining human and social ends. Indeed this encyclical affirms that the very plurality of institutional forms of business gives rise to a market which is not only more civilized but also more competitive. (7) These reflections are particularly valid as regards the quality and quantity of food available to a population.  The Role of the Public Sector  The development of new crop varieties that made possible the Green Revolution of the twentieth century was largely achieved by public sector research laboratories in a number of countries. Although the public sector no longer has a near monopoly on such developments, its role is vital and still highly significant. In particular, it can use such funds as it has from national revenues and donor agencies to promote research relevant to those crop needs of the poorest and most vulnerable groups of people. The public sector has an important role to play in making widely available the results of research, and it can innovate in ways that are very difficult for the private sector, where the development of crop varieties for commercialisation is the central goal. If cooperation between private and public sectors has proved beneficial in the development of many applications of science and technology for human benefit particularly in areas of health, agriculture should not be an exception. Unfortunately, we must recognise that, in the case of crop improvement by modern biotechnological approaches, an unscientific and excessive regulation inflates the costs of R&amp;D without any concomitant increase in safety, and makes its application and use by public sector institutions difficult and often impossible for financial reasons.  The Role of Civil Society  Governments, learned societies, NGOs, charities, civil society organisations and religions can all play a part in promoting an informed dialogue and a broad public understanding of the benefits that science can provide, as well as working to improve all aspects of the lives of the less fortunate. They must help to protect the poor from exploitation of all kinds for any purpose, but they also bear the responsibility for ensuring that these communities are not denied access to the benefits of modern science, to prevent them from being condemned to poverty, ill health, and food insecurity.  Cooperation between Governments, International Organisations and Civil Society  As has already been observed, GE technology has already made a significant contribution to crop improvement and increased food security. Appropriate application of the technology in combination with other molecular approaches to plant breeding offers the potential to make further major contributions to improve both major commodity crops and so-called orphan crops in the developing world. The use of these proven scientific advances can thus be considered a Global Public Good.  Because of the high cost of R&amp;D of these new approaches to crop improvement, coupled with the inflated regulatory costs of bringing new traits to market, these technologies have primarily only  been applied by multinational companies to the major high volume commodity crops grown in the developed world. Public-good plant breeding using GE approaches has been limited for two major reasons:  1. The high cost involved and lack of investment by national governments. This has resulted in failure to apply this approach to the improvement and adaptation of locally grown crops, including important (so-called orphan) crops such as sorghum, cassava, plantains, etc., which are not internationally traded and have not justified commercial investment by multinational companies;  2. The excessive and unnecessary regulation of this technology compared with all others in agriculture has made it too expensive to apply it to minor crops and those that cannot offer developers returns commensurate with the investment and risk undertaken. This, of course, does not apply solely to the private sector: all investment, private or public, has to be viewed in the light of likely returns. Therefore, the public sector as well as the private sector may refrain from developing products for limited use compared with major commodity crops as a result of the investment needed, problematic regulation and uncertainty of delivery.  Thus there is a need for cooperation between governments, international organisations and aid agencies and charities in this area. The potential benefits of such cooperation have already been demonstrated when multinational corporations have shown a willingness to negotiate with private-public partnerships that has led to the free donation of relevant patentable technologies for use in crop improvement. In the case of Golden Rice, this had led to technology transfers to many countries in Asia. Other examples include drought-resistant maize in Africa, insect-resistant vegetables and legumes in India and Africa, and many dozens of additional projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America.  Defining an Appropriate Approach to Regulatory Oversight  The realization of the benefits of any new technology requires an appropriate approach to regulation. Overly stringent regulation developed by wealthy countries and focused almost exclusively on the hypothetical risks of GE crops discriminates against developing and poor countries, as well as against smaller and poorer producers and retailers. This has placed the poor people of the world at an unacceptable disadvantage. The harm deriving from not being able to use more precise and predictable production technologies is irreversible, in the sense that the opportunity costs of lost investment, R&amp;D and products (and their benefits) cannot be recovered.  The evaluation of new and improved crop varieties should be based on the traits of plant varieties and not on the technologies used to produce them: they should be judged in the light of their actual characteristics. This would facilitate the exploitation of the potential of the technology for our common benefit by delivering novel varieties of both major and local crops with improved traits.  This is emphatically not a matter of using the poor for experimentation, but of ensuring that the poor have access to technologies that have been proven to be safe, widely accepted and beneficial, in most of the developed and developing world. We cannot become more risk averse about science and technology  and the consequent risks of food and farming  than what we see as acceptable in the rest of our daily lives.  The hypothetical hazards associated with the genetic engineering of crop plants do not differ from those associated with other instances of the application of such genetic technology to other organisms (e.g., those used in medical biotechnology or biotechnology-enhanced enzymes used in cheese or beer processing). Short-term risks arising from the presence of toxic or allergenic products can be studied and excluded from new crop varieties, a procedure that is more precautionary than is usually the case in the cultivation of crop varieties produced by conventional breeding. As to longer-term evolutionary consequences, the present understanding of molecular evolution as it occurs at low rates in nature by spontaneously arising genetic variation, clearly shows that genetic modifications engineered into a genome can only follow the well-studied natural strategies of biological evolution. Viable modifications are only possible in small steps. This becomes understandable if one bears in mind that land plant genomes are like large encyclopaedias of several hundred books, while genetic modifications using modern genetic techniques affect only one or a few genes out of c. 26,000 genes in the average plant genome. Therefore, the possible evolutionary risks of genetic engineering events cannot be greater than the risks of the natural process of biological evolution or of the application of chemical mutagenesis, both responsible for generating extensive and poorly characterised degrees of genetic change. Statistical records show that the undesirable effects of such genetic change are extremely rare and, in the case of conventional breeding, selected against.  Given the developments in scientific understanding since the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2000, it is now time to reassess that protocol in the light of a science-based understanding of regulatory needs and benefits.  Faith, Scientific Reason and Ethics  For a believer, the point of departure for the Christian vision is the upholding of the divine origin of man, above all because of his soul, which explains the commission that God gives to human beings to govern the whole world of living creatures on the earth through the work to which they dedicate the strength of their bodies guided by the light of the spirit. In this way human beings become the stewards of God by developing and modifying natural beings from which they can draw nourishment through the application of the methods of improvement. (8) Thus, however limited the action of humans may be in the infinite cosmos, they nevertheless participate in the power of God and are able to build their world, that is to say an environment suited to their dual corporeal and spiritual life, their subsistence and their wellbeing. Thus new human forms of intervention in the natural world should not be seen as contrary to the natural law that God has given to the Creation. Indeed, as Paul VI told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1975, (9) on the one hand, the scientist must honestly consider the question of the earthly future of mankind and, as a responsible person,  help to prepare it, to preserve it for subsistence and wellbeing, and eliminate risks. Therefore, we must express solidarity with the present and future generations as a form of love and Christian charity. On the other hand, the scientist also must be animated by the confidence that nature has in store secret possibilities that are for human intelligence to discover and make use of, in order to achieve that level of development which is in the plan of the Creator. Thus, scientific intervention should be seen as a development of physical or vegetal/animal nature for the benefit of human life, in the same way that many things for the benefit of human life have been added over and above the natural law, both by divine law and by human laws. (10)  Recommendations  1. Enhance the provision of reliable information to regulators, farmers and producers around the world so that they will be enabled to make sound decisions based on up-to-date information and knowledge about all aspects of farm management for productivity and sustainability.  2. Standardise  and rationalise  the principles involved in the evaluation and approval of new crop varieties (whether produced by so-called conventional, marker assisted breeding, or GE technologies) universally so that they are scientific, risk-based, predictable and transparent. It is critical that the scope of what is subject to case-by-case review is as important as the actual review itself; it must also be scientific and risk-based.  3. Re-evaluate the application of the precautionary principle to agriculture, reframing it scientifically and practically and making the regulatory requirements and procedures proportional to the risk, and considering the risks associated with lack of action. It must be borne in mind that prudence (phronesis or prudentia) is the practical wisdom that should guide action. (11) Although this practical wisdom or prudence needs precaution in order to have such a grasp of good as to avoid evil, the main component of prudence is not precaution but prediction. This means that the primary feature of prudence is not refraining from acting to avoid harm but using scientific prediction as a basis for action. (12) Thus, Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the occasion of the 2006 Plenary Session on Predictability in Science, emphasised that the possibility of making predictions is one of the main reasons for the prestige that science enjoys in contemporary society and that the creation of the scientific method has given science the capability of predicting phenomena, studying their development and thus keeping the habitat of human beings under control. Indeed we could say, affirms Pope Benedict, that the work of predicting, controlling and governing nature, which science today renders more practical than in the past, is itself a part of the Creators plan. (13)  4. Evaluate the Cartagena Protocol, an international agreement that regulates international trade in GE crop varieties, developed at a time when less was known about the science of GE crops, to ensure that it is in line with current scientific understanding.  5. Free GE techniques, the most modern, precise and predictable ones for genetic improvement, from excessive, unscientific regulation, allowing their application to enhance the nutritional quality and productivity of crops (and eventually also the production of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals) everywhere.  6. Promote the potential of technology to assist small farmers through adequate research funding, capacity building and training linked through to appropriate public policy.  7. Encourage the wide adoption of sustainable sound and productive agricultural practices and extension services, which are especially critical for improving the lives of poor and needy people throughout the world.  8. In order to ensure that appropriate GE and molecular marker-assisted breeding is used to improve relevant crops grown in food-insecure, poor nations, where they can be expected to have an important impact on improving food security, we urge that governments, international aid agencies and charities increase funding in this area. Given the urgency, international organisations such as the FAO, CGIAR, UNDP or UNESCO have the moral responsibility to guarantee food security for the current and future world population. They must use all their endeavours to mediate the establishment of private-public cooperative relationships to ensure the cost-free exploitation of these technologies for the common good in the developing world where they will have the greatest impact. (14)


Background  The PAS Study Week from 15-19 May 2009 was organised, on behalf of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, by academy member Professor Ingo Potrykus, with support from academy members Professor Werner Arber, and Professor Peter Raven. The organisers knew that since 2000, when an earlier Study-Document was published by the same Academy on Genetically Modified Food Plants to Combat Hunger in the World, a great deal of evidence and experience had accumulated about genetically engineered crops.  The aim of the Study Week was, therefore, to evaluate benefits and risks of genetic engineering and of other agricultural practices on the basis of present scientific knowledge and of its potential for applications to improve food security and human welfare worldwide in the context of a sustainable development. The participants were also aware of the social teaching of the Church on biotechnology and accepted the moral imperative to focus on the responsible application of GE according to the principles of social justice.  Participation was by invitation only and participants were selected for their scientific merits in their respective fields of expertise and their engagement for scientific rigour and social justice. The organisers had to make a selection of participants, and based their choice on the need to advance the principal purpose of the meeting, which was to review experience to date. Although there were differences of opinions, points of view and emphasis among the participants, all agreed on the broad principles contained in this statement.  The participants of the Study Week and their scientific competence are given below in alphabetic order


Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:  Prof. em. Werner Arber  Switzerland, University of Basel: Microbiology, Evolution.  Prof. Nicola Cabibbo   Italy, Rome, President Pontifical Academy of Sciences: Physics. H.Em. Georges Cardinal Cottier, Vatican City: Theology.  Prof. em. Ingo Potrykus  Switzerland, Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology: Plant Biology, Agricultural Biotechnology.  Prof. em. Peter H. Raven  USA, St. Louis, President Missouri Botanical Garden: Botany, Ecology.  H.Em. Msgr. Marcelo Snchez Sorondo  Vatican City: Chancellor Pontifical Academy of Sciences: Philosophy.  Prof. Rafael Vicua  Chile, Santiago, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile: Microbiology, Molecular Genetics.  Outside Experts:  Prof. em. Klaus Ammann  Switzerland, University of Berne, Botany, Vegetation Ecology.  Prof. Kym Anderson  Australia, The University of Adelaide, CEPR and World Bank: Agricultural Development Economics, International Economics.  Dr. iur. Andrew Apel  USA, Raymond, Editor in Chief of GMObelus: Law.  Prof. Roger Beachy  USA, St. Louis, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, now NIVA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Washington DC.,: Plant Pathology, Agricultural Biotechnology.  Prof. Peter Beyer  Germany, Freiburg, Albert-Ludwig University, Biochemistry, Metabolic Pathways.  Prof. Joachim von Braun  USA, Washington, Director General, International Food Policy Research Institute, now University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF): Agricultural and Development Economics.  Prof. Moiss Burachik  Argentina, Buenos Aires, General Coordinator of the Biotechnology Department: Agricultural Biotechnology, Biosafety.  Prof. Bruce Chassy  USA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Biochemistry, Food Safety.  Prof. Nina Fedoroff  USA, The Pennsylvania State University: Molecular Biology, Biotechnology.  Prof. Dick Flavell  USA, CERES, Inc., Thousand Oaks: Agricultural Biotechnology, Genetics.  Prof. em. Jonathan Gressel  Israel, Rehovot, Weizmann Institute of Science: Plant Protection, Biosafety.  Prof. Ronald J. Herring  USA, Ithaca, Cornell University: Political Economy.  Prof. Drew Kershen  USA, University of Oklahoma: Agricultural Law, Biotechnological Law.  Prof. Anatole Krattiger  USA, Ithaca, Cornell University and Arizona State University, now: Director, Global Challenges Division, WIPO, Geneva, Switzerland: Intellectual Property Management.  Prof. em. Christopher Leaver  UK, University of Oxford: Plant Sciences, Plant Molecular Biology.  Prof. Stephen P. Long  USA, Urbana, Energy Science Institute: Plant Biology, Crop Science, Ecology.  Prof. Cathie Martin  UK, Norwich, John Innes Centre: Plant Sciences, Cellular Regulation.  Prof. Marshall Martin  USA, West Lafayette: Purdue University: Agricultural Economics, Technology Assessment.  Prof. Henry Miller  USA, Hoover Institution, Stanford University: Biosafety, Regulation.  Prof.em. Marc Baron van Montagu  Belgium, Gent: President European Federation of Biotechnology: Microbiology, Agricultural Biotechnology.  Prof. Piero Morandini  Italy, University of Milan: Molecular Biology, Agricultural Biotechnology.  Prof. Martina Newell-McGloughlin  USA, Davis, University of California: Agricultural Biotechnology.  H.Em. Msgr. George Nkuo  Cameroon, Bishop of Kumbo: Theology.  Prof. Rob Paarlberg  USA, Wellesley College: Political Science.  Prof. Wayne Parrott  USA, Athens, University of Georgia: Agronomy, Agricultural Biotechnology.  Prof. Channapatna S. Prakash  USA, Tuskegee University: Genetics, Agricultural Biotechnology.  Prof. Matin Qaim  Germany, Georg-August University of Gttingen: Agricultural Economics, Development Economics.  Dr. Raghavendra S. Rao  India, New Delhi, Department of Biotechnology, Adviser to the Ministry of Science and Technology: Agriculture, Plant Pathology.  Prof. Konstantin Skryabin  Russia, Moscow, Bioengineering Centre Russian Academy of Sciences: Molecular Biology, Agricultural Biotechnology.  Prof. Monkumbu Sambasivan Swaminathan  India, Chennai, Chairman, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation: Agriculture, Sustainable Development.  Prof. Chiara Tonelli  Italy, University of Milan: Genetics, Cellular Regulation.  Prof. Albert Weale  UK, Nuffield Council on Bioethics and University of Essex, now University College of London, Dept. of Political Sciences: Social &amp; Political Sciences.  Prof. Robert Zeigler  Philippines, Metro Manila, Director General International Rice Research: Agricultural Biotechnology, Rice research and Development Policy.  Notes  1) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem exercens, 5: loc. cit., 586-589.  2) Caritas in veritate,  69.  3) Caritas in veritate,  27.  4) This is a principle to be remembered in agricultural production itself, whenever there is a question of its advance through the application of biotechnologies, which cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the earth (John Paul II, Address to the Jubilee of the Agricultural World, 11 November 2000).  5) Orphan crops, also referred as neglected or lost crops, are crops of high economic value in developing countries. These crops include cereal crops (such as millet and tef), legumes (cow pea, grass pea and bambara groundnut), and root crops (cassava and sweet potato). Although orphan crops are vital for the livelihood of millions of resource-poor farmers, research in these crops is lagging behind that of major crops. To boost crop productivity and attain food self-sufficiency in the developing world, research on orphan crops should get more attention.  6) Centesimus annus,  6.  7) Caritas in veritate,  46.  God has sovereign dominion over all things: and He, according to His providence, directed certain things to the sustenance of mans body. For this reason man has a natural dominion over things, as regards the power to make use of them (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 66, a. 1 ad 1).  9) Cf. Paul VI, Address to the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of 19 April 1975, Papal Addresses, Vatican City 2003, p. 209.  10) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, 94, a.5. Cf. loc. cit. ad 3.  11) Prudence (phronesis) is a truth-attaining rational quality, concerned with action in relation to the things that are good for human beings (Aristotle, Eth. Nic., VI, 5, 1140 b 20, Eng. tr. J. Bywater). Cf. also the rest of the chapter.  12) Prediction is the principle of prudenceHence it is that the very name of prudence is taken from prediction *providential+ as from its principal part (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 49, a. 6 ad 1).  13) Address of the Holy Father Benedict XVI to the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Available online at http://www.vatican.va/holy-father/benedict _xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spec_20061106_academy-sciences_en.html  14) Cf. P. Dasgupta, Science as an Institution: Setting Priorities in a New Socio-Economic Context in World Conference on Science: Science for the Twenty-First Century, A New Commitment (UNESCO, Paris, 2000).  The English Version represents the official Conference Statement of the Pontifical Academy of Science. It has been drafted and endorsed by all participants of the Study Week, and it was synthesized mainly by Ingo Potrykus, Peter Raven, Albert Weale and Chris Leaver.













Document Number: 692 



 The Inadequacy of Anecdotes 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 15 April 2009 


Over on OpEd  News  Blogs, there is a rather lengthy discussion going on beneath a post by ;Yup Farming; called ;  Independent Studies Refute GMO Safety Claims.  ; Those ;studies,; of course, are an assembly of non-peer-reviewed and anecdotal claims, but that is not the reason why I bring it up. The discussion was derailed by a few tangents, and I was just about to abandon reading it any further, until someone posted their real reason why they believe that GE foods are unsafe. Personal experience.


Barbara Peterson  , a retired correctional officer from California, described how she eliminated a food reaction that her mother was having, through dietary changes. She then went on to experiment on herself:


You;d think I would have learned from this, but no. I kept on with the processed foods for myself, along with the good stuff. Well, guess what? Yup, I got the ugly stuff too. This stuff was so bad that it started on my leg and spread all the way to my shoulders and down my arms. It looked like the worst case of oozing poison oak you have ever seen. It felt like bugs were crawling under my skin, and I couldn;t sleep. I was going crazy.   I started experimenting on myself, and researching about GMOs.  At first, I cut out everything but raw veggies, fruits, and organic eggs. I started clearing up. It took a while, but finally the rash was gone. Then I introduced things into my diet one at a time. When I ate things with high fructose corn syrup, I broke out almost immediately. When I stopped, the rash went away. I finally determined through trial and error, that if I eat products that are high in GMO content, I have a reaction. Since omitting most GMO from my diet, the rash has not come back.  So, anyone attempting to convince me that GMOs are not harmful is barking up the wrong tree. I know from personal experience that they are. Statistics can be manipulated according to personal bias and in favor of the person signing the paycheck. One thing that no one can manipulate is the way my system reacts to GMO.


Anyone convinced that she is having an allergic reaction to genetically engineered foods? I decided to wade back into the discussion with a thoughtful response, reproduced here so you don;t have to dig:


Barbara, countless people have attested to the veracity of astrology by their own personal experience, and although you may believe that you have eliminated all variables except genetic engineering, you haven;t. Does your body react differently to ;organic; High Fructose Corn Syrup (yes it exists), or just HFCS that comes from conventional GE corn? Do you have an allergy to a commodity crop such as corn, soy, or canola that is also commonly genetically engineered? Or are there other common components of some processed foods causing it, and you pinned it on the wrong cause?  There;s a simple way to find out. No fancy arcane statistics, no chain of suspicious funding from people you don;t know ; the Gold Standard of allergy testing is in fact very accessible. You need three people. The first person randomizes a placebo (sugar pill) with a suspicious food item. In this case, you should have a placebo, a GE food sample, and the equivalent non-GE food sample. These randomized samples are numbered and given to a second person (doctor) who will administer them to you on separate days. Neither you, nor the doctor know which one is which. This is a Double-Blind study, because you and the person examining the symptoms are both blind to which one is the GE food.   People have claimed to be allergic to GE crops, and have gone in for double-blind allergy testing at hospitals and every one of them has come out having absolutely no reaction to it. If you really, truly believe that you are reacting to GE foods, you should go in and get yourself tested as above at a well-known allergy clinic. Let me tell you, if you were actually allergic to GE corn but not non-GE corn, you would become instantly famous. Everyone in the debate would know your name and you would be instrumental in clamping down on GE crops. In fact, if you  know  that you are allergic, it is your duty to everyone else to demonstrate it scientifically to prevent it from happening to anyone else!   On the other hand, you are probably not, and you eliminated something from you and your mother;s diets that was causing your problems, and you don;t know what it was. A guy named Keith Finger (google ;  keith finger GMO  ;) put videos online of himself ;reacting; to starlink corn, but he went in for a double-blind test and it turns out he was not allergic to it at all.  People believe that their own personal experiences are more reliable than statistical studies, but they are not. We fool ourselves every day. Just a few weeks ago I had an apparent sinus infection and was prescribed antibiotics. Did the antibiotics fix the problem, or did I just get better at the same time for other reasons? I don;t actually know. Personal experience is at best pseudo-statistical, and when it comes to a complex web of variables like food (especially processed food with lots of ingredients) it is wholly inadequate.


In a later comment, I mentioned that high fructose corn syrup made from conventional and GE corn is completely indistinguishable, and suggested that she contact me so I could forward her the study. No word from her yet. (In fact, by a later comment, she has apparently ignored my responses.) Bottom line: she is not having a reaction to genetically engineered corn via corn syrup, but is perfectly willing to claim that she is indeed having such a reaction.


Here is a question: is it responsible for someone to claim that a food is causing them to have a reaction when they don;t actually know whether or not it is? My dad has a mild case of celiac disease, known not from a professional diagnosis but from him cutting out wheat, barley, and rye from his diet. A small amount of gluten from these grains is enough to send his digestive tract in a spin.


But wheat-gluten intolerance is well known, and the symptoms are well described. But Barbara is not claiming to have a known nutritional disease, she is claiming to have an altogether novel reaction to genetically engineered crops, moreover, that she  knows  that she is having this reaction. What if she was?


As I said above, it would be her  duty  to civil society to take herself to a credible allergy clinic at a hospital and undergo a double-blind test to determine if she really is having this reaction. Then it would be her duty to tell everyone that there was an unseen risk with GE foods. I;m not talking about writing a blog post for OpEd  News  Blogs, I;m talking about the New York Times. Science, Nature, The Lancet, Skeptic Magazine ; it should be printed everywhere; if it could actually be demonstrated.


The proteins introduced into GE crops have been tested to make sure that they are not allergens. To continue to claim, publicly, that any food as well-tested as GE crops is causing someone to have an allergic reaction ; without sufficient evidence to back it up ; is irresponsible. Especially so when it is part of an effort to manufacture doubt about those foods. (Would anyone care if someone claimed they were allergic to Dragonfruit ; unless they were trying to ban it from being grown anywhere?)


In order to have an intelligent dialogue over genetic engineering in agriculture, the people engaging in that dialogue have to agree to back up their claims with the best information that is available, and when they believe that something extraordinary is true they must go to the effort to demonstrate that it is indeed true. If we don;t trust to a rigorous scientific approach in determining the truth-value of our beliefs, then all we will be doing is endlessly debating over our own delusions.













Document Number: 1318 



 The likelihood of pollen from GE cotton causing harm to the environment is about as likely as a poodle escaping into the wild 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 11 November 2010 


One more day to vote in the  , which asks the question ;Is Biotechnology compatible with sustainable agriculture?;


PZ Myers answers the question this way  : ;this is weird: agriculture is biotechnology, and just breaking ground with a sharp stick and throwing some seeds in is an example of an ;unnatural; human practice;


He also publishes the opposition;s ;  top secret email  ;, which has some gobbledy-gook about how farmers are turning against GE crops (um, name one?) and contaminating nature (massive reductions in insecticide use on BT cotton fields and enhanced biodiversity is destruction?). PZ also asks you to ;notice who is backing up all their arguments with citations of the peer-reviewed literature.;


Don;t forget to  vote  .


My final statement:


Virtually every food we eat has been genetically altered. Unless you eat wild Alaskan salmon, chanterelles gathered from your local forest,  Sierra Nevada yampah  and wild blueberries, your diet consists entirely of foods that have been modified by humans and domesticated in artificial, fabulous ecosystems;called farms.


GE crops are the latest addition to our farms. Are Bt cotton and  GE papaya  different from conventionally bred cotton and papaya? Yes.


Scientists have introduced a bacterial gene into corn and a snippet of virus into papaya. These alterations are not feats that could have been carried out with conventional breeding technologies. But do these crops pose harm to human health in some entirely new way? No.


Bt toxins, produced by a common soil bacterium, cause little or no harm to most non-target organisms including beneficial insects, wildlife and people. For these reasons, sprayed formulations of Bt toxins are among the favoured insecticides of organic growers.


When you eat GE papaya, you ingest only trace amounts of viral nucleic acids, much less than when you bite into an organic papaya infected with vast amounts of the virus.


What about the environment;are there risks of unintended consequences with GE crops? Yes.


But the risk is similar whether or not the seed was developed using GE or non-GE approaches. And the likelihood of pollen from GE cotton causing harm to the environment in most regions of the world where it is grown is about as likely as one of our domesticated Ameraucana hens, a breed developed in the 1970s to incorporate the favored ;blue; genes from a South American bird, mating with the red-tailed hawk circling our coop. Or, as Freeman Dyson once said, ;about as likely as a poodle escaping into the wild;.


In addition to the clear benefits today, the future benefits of this technology are also considerable. Is the genetic engineering of rice for provitamin A, an essential nutrient woefully lacking from the diets of many small children, so different from adding iodine to salt, a process credited with drastically reducing iodine-deficiency disorders in infants? Probably not. Still, just as some people today view vitamin A-enriched rice with suspicion, in some nations, iodisation was thought by many to be a governmental plot to poison the salt. In a 2006 New York Times article, journalist Donald McNeil describes how iodised salt was blamed for AIDS, diabetes, seizures, impotence and peevishness. He wrote, ;Iodised salt ; will make pickled vegetables explode, ruin caviar or soften hard cheese.; In Kazakhstan, breaking down resistance to science-based evidence took both money and political leadership. But it eventually succeeded. Today 94% of households in Kazakhstan use iodised salt and the UN is expected to certify the country officially free of iodine-deficiency disorders. We can and should do the same for vitamin A deficiency by releasing Golden rice seed, which can be self-pollinated, saved and replanted to farmers and their families in poor regions of the world who rely on rice for nutrition.


In considering whether to embrace GE crops as a way to enhance the sustainability of our global agricultural systems, we must not disregard the well-documented impacts of production: reduced insecticide use, a shift from toxic to more benign herbicides, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, reduced soil erosion, increased profit to small- and large-holder farmers, and enhanced farm-worker safety.


These benefits are not restricted to large industrial farms in the west; the majority economic benefits from GE crops have gone to millions of poor farmers in China and India.


These conclusions were reached after 14 years of deliberative research, and the scientific consensus is robust. They are not based on polls of religious or political groups (or magazine readers).


GE seed that are tolerant of stress or resistant to insects can be used in any farming system. Drought tolerance corn will be broadly beneficial across almost any non-irrigated agriculture situation and in any management system. As has been well-documented for Bt cotton in Arizona, the ability to combine innovations in farming practice with the planting of GE seed has had a huge positive benefit/cost ratio, far beyond what could be achieved by innovating farming practices or planting GE crops alone. The benefit/cost ratio of Bt crops is the highest for any agricultural innovations in the last 100 years.


Charles Benbrook and I agree that crops engineered to resist pest and disease can enhance sustainable agriculture when integrated with good management. We have seen that Bt cotton has dramatically reduced global reliance on synthetic insecticides, which are harmful to human health and the environment. For these reasons, GE crops have been adopted at unprecedented rates.


We also agree that each new technological advance must be considered on a case-by-case basis and that the evaluation must be science-based. Finally, we agree that developing-country farmers, scientists and other groups should continue to drive the process of application of GE technology in their own countries;and that priority needs to be a focus on the public good.


Still, Mr Benbrook and I disagree on important points. He argues for additional safety testing that goes beyond the conclusions of the leading scientific agencies and scientists around the world. This vague argument for ;more testing;, despite the fact that GE crops are the most highly regulated crops on the market, stokes uncertainty and fear in consumers. As  Slate journalist Daniel Engber aptly remarks  :


;The ;  manufactured uncertainty  ; strategy has much in common with the approach of denialists of global climate change in their strategies to challenge scientific findings ;The success of these programs shows how the public;s understanding of science has devolved into a perverse worship of uncertainty, a fanatical devotion to the god of the gaps. Nowhere is this more apparent than the debate over global warming, where the irresolute terms of responsible research have been a large liability: According to several major polls conducted last year, about 60 percent of Americans believe there;s no scientific consensus on climate change.;


Big tobacco used a similar approach for years, calling for more data in the face of clear evidence that smoking is toxic to humans.


Journalist Michael Specter argues  that this tendency among consumers to trust anecdotes over peer-reviewed science, leads to disastrous results. Referring to the anti-vaccine movement, which manufactures uncertainty about the well-documented safety of lifesaving vaccines, he writes, ;The US is now the only place in the world where vaccine rates for measles are going down.; If this such denialism continues, the consequence will almost certainly be an outbreak of measles among children in the US, a potentially deadly disease.


Similarly,  6,000 thousand children and young mothers to die every day  from vitamin A deficiency-related problems while we continue to test Golden Rice for possible but highly improbable unexpected consequences that even in the worst case scenario are trivial in comparison with this ongoing loss of life.


It is now generally accepted that world food production needs to rise by 50% by 2030. We cannot go back to a time when arable land was abundant and there was little concern for natural ecosystems. Then, if we needed more food, we could simply open up more undeveloped land for cultivation. Such an approach is ;  flawed  ;, according to Sir David Baulcombe, regius professor of botany and Royal Society research professor at Cambridge University, and leader of the Royal Society;s study, ;  Reaping the Benefits  ;.


He explains, ;It ignores issues associated with the suitability of land for agricultural production, like geography and the political importance of local food, particularly to poorer or developing nations that could become entirely dependent on others for their staple foodstuffs.;


The path towards a future sustainable agriculture lies in harnessing the best of biotechnology, including genetically engineered seed, within the framework of ecological farming.













Document Number: 3631 



 The Man who saved a billion lives 


 by  David Tribe  on 25 November 2010 


Why Genetically Modified food is necessary to feed the planet


by Jonathan Gray for  The Toronto Globalist  Saving the species. Its the noblest goal any human can aspire to, and it is associated with figures who are the paragon of humanity. I do not wish to speak about saving souls in a religious sense. Abraham Lincoln literally saved tens of thousands of men and women who would otherwise be subject to abject slavery. Nelson Mandela literally saved millions from apartheid. In terms of occurrences outside ones lifetime, there are some individuals whose contributions to medical science have saved numbers of an unimaginable order of magnitude &nbsp; Jonas Salk discovered a method of defeating polio; Edward Jenner brought about the beginning of the end for smallpox. We have our heroes, our saviors, the ones who dedicated themselves to helping, above all else.


We are 6.6 billion people now. We can only feed 4 billion. I dont see 2 billion volunteers to disappear. -Norman Borlaug


Norman Borlaug isnt a household name by far. Yet, in his lifetime, he was credited to saving over a billion people, in a very literal sense. For this, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, a frank defeat of the doomsaying Malthusians and Population Bomb adherents. Thomas Malthus, a British economist, had predicted in 1798 that exponential population growth would outstrip global food output, which was limited by the efficiency of the land. Now deceased, Norman Borlaugs legacy lives on in the technology he tirelessly distributed across the globe. This is the legacy of agricultural technology, specifically of genetically modified organisms. Yet, it is amongst the most maligned scientific achievements of the past decades; the Franken-Foods have been spurned in favor of a return to the natural processes of the organic food movement.


More at the link













Document Number: 9421 



 The new organic 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 26 March 2008 


Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison report that ;  organic  forage crops yielded as much or more dry matter as their conventional counterparts with quality sufficient to produce as much milk as the conventional systems; and organic grain crops: corn, soybean, and winter wheat produced 90% as well as their conventionally managed counterparts;. In their paper,  Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 19902002  , the researchers point out that the 90% is an average. In 34% of site-years, mechanical weed control methods were not successful, resulting in only 74% yield compared to conventional. In the remaining 66% of site-years, yields were 99% of conventional. Producing as much or more with fewer inputs is definitely the right direction in a world where inputs are becoming more and more expensive.


A less positive note can be found when we consider how unpredictable agriculture can be, with insects, weather, and fungi just to name a few. University of Illinois researchers found that high CO2 levels cause plants to loose their ability to defend themselves against herbivorous  beetles  . This could become a serious problem, considering that CO2 levels have been steadily rising. Climate change is already causing huge fluctuations in weather patterns, including droughts, freezes, and floods. A destructive wheat  fungus  has recently spread from Africa into the Middle East and Asia;


Is it realistic to expect organic methods to keep up with all of these things and more? Is it realistic to expect traditional plant breeding to bring us the solutions quickly enough to prevent monetary loss or worse? I just don;t think so. However, I don;t think we should totally abandon organic, either. I;ve long been a proponent of a new type of farming that intelligently blends traditional / low-input / organic methods with modern technology to achieve the very best possible crops for farmers, consumers, and the environment. It turns out that I;m not the only one who thinks so!


Dr. Pamela Ronald of UC Davis is the co-author of the upcoming   Tomorrow;s Table  : Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, with her husband  Raoul Adamchak. Their bios from  Oxford University Press:


Pamela C. Ronald  is a Professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. Her laboratory has genetically engineered rice for resistance to diseases and flooding. Her work has been published in Science,  Nature  ; She is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.   Raoul Adamchak  has grown organic crops for twenty years, part of the time as a partner in Full Belly Farm, a private 150-acre organic vegetable farm. He has inspected over one hundred organic farms as an inspector for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and served as a member and President of CCOF;s Board of Directors.


Dr. Ronald shares her thoughts on the possible union of organic and genetic engineering in  The New Organic  In the Boston Globe. She writes: ;To meet the appetites of the world;s population without drastically hurting the environment requires a visionary new approach: combining genetic engineering and organic farming.; My favorite paragraph is towards the end of the article:


Pitting genetic engineering and organic farming against each other only prevents the transformative changes needed on our farms. There seems to be a communication gap between organic and conventional farmers and between consumers and scientists. The stakes are high in closing that gap. Without good science and good farming, we cannot even begin to dream about establishing an ecologically balanced, biologically based system of farming and ensuring food security.


I wholeheartedly agree that communication between scientists and consumers needs to be improved. This is why I blog. This is why I make an effort to comment on articles involving genetic engineering on sites like Wired and Grist. I want people to know that I;m here. I am a scientist, I am reasonable, and I am a good person.


Photo credit: Christian L. via Flickr.


Dr. Ronald is also a good person. The Sacramento Bee tells about her efforts to use genes from native rices in  Mali  to improve agriculture for poor farmers there. The wide reaching series, ;  Seeds of Doubt  ;, doesn;t contain any science, but does provide a window into patent issues and consumer confusion for those who know little about the issue of GMOs. It also provides a few glimpses into Dr. Ronald;s private life and her personal ethics.


Like Dr. Ronald and her husband, I believe that the two types of scientists and farmers (sustainable agriculture and genetic engineers) need to communicate and work together. This is why I attend ISU;s  Sustainable Agriculture Colloquium  whenever my courseload allows. I;m even considering a Sus Ag Graduate Minor, depending on how it affects my genetics coursework and research. The partnership can only happen if every scientist and every person on each side of the issue works to share and understand each other. I;m willing to take steps. Are you?


The future of agriculture could be bright or dark. It all depends on how we choose to act.


Thanks to  Ethicurian  for bringing the article The New Organic to my attention. I;ll never know how they manage to cover so many sources!


Posner, J., Baldock, J., &amp; Hedtcke, J. (2008). Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990-2002  Agronomy Journal, 100  (2), 253-260 DOI:  10.2134/agrojnl2007.0058













Document Number: 7452 



 The Power of Genetics 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 13 February 2009 


Here  I have posted a time-lapse video (4 months) of a rice field at the International Rice Research Institute. This video, shot by Gene Hettle, shows survival of the  submergence tolerance rice  , developed by our team, after a 17 day flood.


The Sub1 rice yielded about 3 fold more in these field trials. In farmers fields in bangladesh, yields are even higher- up to 5 fold. For more information, please see the recent  CNN story  .


I received quite a few heartwarming emails in response to the CNN story. Here are a couple  (names removed to protect privacy):


Dear Prof. Ronald,


I just read the article on ;Fighting hunger with flood-tolerant rice; in CNN. I am immensely touched with what you and your students have been working on, and the breakthrough in your research. I am a native of India (born in Calcutta) and I know very well the implication of this research to millions of farmers in SouthEast Asia and more than billion people, whose staple food is rice. Both Bangladesh and India is devasted with monsoon floods, pretty much every other year, many of the farmers only survival is their rice (which not only sustain as their food but also as a cash crop). I am praying that you continue to work in this area; as food scarcity is a global security problem and survival of a civilization. There are too many hungry children in the world, it is for them.


Thank you and wish you more success.


Hello Pam,


I read about your discovery of flood sustaining rice and I must admit, this is the most happiest news I read in my recent memory. There are lots of people dying of starvation every day, and I have read and seen farmers whose families are ruined because of floods. I am very happy today that there are still some scientists in this world, who did not forget the fundamental needs of humans and who actually works for the benefit of mankind, in the true sense of its meaning, and remind the rest of the world what;s being humane. I am not denying progress we make in inventing xbox systems, unmanned bomber aircraft, and missions to mars, but unfortunately, we are forgetting that, we first need to fill stomachs of millions of people and give them shelter. The calamities of flooding they are facing is because of greenhouse effects that we make.


I am an engineer working in Canada for last 9 years, and since I moved to this country from India when I was 23, I could never understand why some people are starving to death in some parts of the world, and at same time, people in other parts of the world are just ignoring it when they can help. But, today, I am extremely happy, to read this news. You shall remain my inspiration. God bless you and your family with peace and long life.













Document Number: 1685 



 The Right to Know: Why GMO Labeling Law Isnt So Black and White 


 by  Guest Posts  on 10 November 2009 


By Rob Hebert


Consumer advocacy groups are a strange animal. It seems that for every influential lobbying group with a senator;s ear, there are hundreds or thousands with only vague mission statements and no clear agenda for attaining their stated goals. I once spent a summer working for the latter type. A hallmark of this kind of crew is the use of the petition (bonus points  if it;s online and has been circulating for more than a year  ). Issue-specific petitions almost never work when directed at agencies; they are often unsophisticated (in a legal sense) and rife with ambiguous language and emotional rhetoric. If I were more cynical, I might point out the possibility that many people in charge of these groups are aware of their petitions; minuscule chances for success and instead use them to gin up controversy and interest in their cause, which is always a great way to get a few email addresses or financial contributions;some petitions even have a convenient donate button right next to where you ;sign; your name!


A quick google search for ;  gm labeling petition  ; pulls up, well, more petitions than I really care to count. Most make seemingly modest demands about the ;right to know,; consumer education, and truth in advertising. Is that an accurate view of the debate: Consumer education versus corporate secrecy? Truth is, the legal reality is a little more complex than these petitions would seem to indicate. Below, I;ve written a short synopsis of the government;s current stance on GMO labeling. It;s written for people without any legal training, so it;s only a sketch. I;ve also listed a few helpful resources at the bottom for anyone who wants to dig a little deeper. This is exclusively about U.S. law, but in future posts, I;ll discuss recent developments in the biotech laws of Canada, the European Union, and Japan.


Food Labeling in the U.S.


In the U.S., food labeling is overseen by the FDA according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The FDA first discussed the labeling of biotechnology food products in 1992, with a policy statement titled ;Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties.; In it, the FDA said it had no reason to single out bioengineered foods for special labeling, because recombinant DNA techniques were really just extensions of traditional methods for developing new plant varieties;such as hybridization;which had not received special attention in the past. Without decent evidence that bioengineered foods differed from their conventional counterparts in terms of safety, the FDA determined that they should be labeled with the same name (called the ;common; or ;usual; name) as the conventional crop (i.e., ;corn; or ;tomatoes;).


Safety is basically the main issue whenever the FDA requires new labeling for foods. For instance, if a tomato is created using a peanut protein, the FDA may require its producer to put a label saying ;this tomato has been bioengineered with a peanut protein that may be allergenic to some individuals with nut allergies.; In the past, the courts have found that consumer curiosity alone is not enough to require special labeling (see  International Dairy Foods Assoc. v. Amestoy  , 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996).  http://openjurist.org/92/f3d/67  ;  Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala  , 116 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000)). The reasoning behind this is simple: First, it places an enormous financial burden on industries that would have to investigate, document, and label the ;level; of bioengineering that went into their product; second, it may mislead consumers into thinking that bioengineered crops are somehow less safe than their conventional counterparts; third, it places a burden on the FDA itself which must then divert efforts from safety labeling issues to consumer curiosity labeling issues; and fourth, it places no end on the information that consumers could require manufacturers to disclose.


Some groups are now demanding that the FDA allow voluntary labeling for ;No GMO; or ;GMO Free; products. While the FDA does not punish producers for labeling their products as such, they do discourage that practice. In January 2001, the FDA announced a  ;draft guidance;  (a non-binding document that informally tells people how to act in a way that won;t attract the ire of the agency) outlining the reasons against voluntary labeling of food products as ;GMO Free. The FDA had three major concerns, which I;ve taken the liberty of paraphrasing below:


1) that the terms ;GMO,; ;GM,; and ;GE,; were not technically precise and did nothing to inform the average consumer, and that ;genetic modification; was overly broad, since it would include conventional means of generating new plant varieties (the FDA prefers the terms ;bioengineering; or ;biotechnology;;which they use interchangeably;to distinguish newer transgenic processes from conventional practices);  2) that the term ;free; implied ;zero,; and that the prevalence of bioengineered products made such a claim false, misleading, or unprovable; and  3) that the label would be misleading to the extent that it implied that foods not labeled as ;GMO free; were in some way unsafe or inferior (a claim that is, in the FDA;s opinion, unsubstantiated by the scientific literature).


The FDA did express support for certain types of voluntary labeling, so long as the information contained therein is not vague or inaccurate. For example, a producer may use a label that says ;Our tomato growers do not plant seeds developed using biotechnology; (assuming such a label would be accurate). On the other side, another producer may use a label that says ;Our tomato growers use genetically engineered tomato seeds to increase total crop yields,; adding a purposive explanation to the label for greater consumer understanding. The FDA reserves the right to ask for substantiation, through validated testing means or appropriate record keeping, for any claims a producer makes through labeling. A quick side note: this draft guidance has been neither finalized nor withdrawn since its announcement almost nine years ago, and therefore does not itself create legal duties or liabilities. In the meantime, the FDA has not chosen to actually go after anyone touting their product as ;GMO Free,; despite their draft guidance. Just today I drank an overpriced (but tasty) Odwalla juice that proudly advertised itself as ;No GMO.;


So, if you want to label your product ;GMO Free,; knock yourself out;the FDA probably won;t do anything (except maybe send you a strongly worded letter if you;re being blatantly dishonest). As for mandatory labeling, I hate to break it to the numerous purveyors of all those internet petitions, but the FDA is unlikely;absent some very convincing evidence showing the danger of bioengineered food (and, no,  eyewitness reports of chickens turning their noses  up at  Bt corn do not count);to reconsider its position on the matter. This might change through two ways: Either the FDA can initiate a rule-making procedure to make consumer curiosity a material issue (highly unlikely and easily challenged in court), or Congress can amend the FDCA to make special provisions for bioengineered products (still a longshot considering it doesn;t have traction right now, but you never know). Technically, President Obama, et al. have little, if anything, to do with the decision, so petitions  directed towards them  will have  no effect  on the labeling law. But they sure are a good way to add emails to your list-serv!


Disclaimer: The information contained on this page has been compiled for educational purposes only; though it is wholly accurate to the best knowledge of me, the author, it does not constitute legal advice and should not be taken as such.


References:


FDA policy statement for regulating biotechnology products. 43 Fed. Reg. 50878 (Dec. 31, 1984), 51 Fed. Reg. 23309 (June 26, 1986).


Food and Drug Administration, Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties. 57 Fed. Reg. 22984 (May 29, 1992).


International Dairy Foods Assoc. v. Amestoy  , 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996).  http://openjurist.org/92/f3d/67


Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala  , 116 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000).


Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Draft Guidance. 66 Fed. Reg. 4839 (Jan. 18, 2001).  http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm059098.htm


Rob Hebert is a second-year student at Georgetown Law. Before moving to DC, he lived in Brooklyn, NY, just blocks from a bar that had over twenty-five beers on tap and thirty arcade machines that all played for a quarter. He can draw you a pretty interesting graph relating Drinks Consumed to Last Score on Pac-Man.













Document Number: 9114 



 The sister scare to GMO-phobia ; Chemophobia ; seen as a business proposition 


 by  David Tribe  on 24 August 2010 


Finally, I Have Worked Out What The Story of Cosmetics is Really About | Personal Care    Finally, I Have Worked Out What The Story of Cosmetics is Really About    August 24th, 2010   .  1 Comment 


Since I was a teenager in the Seventies, Ive always regarded myself as a pretty green. Green in the environmental sense that is. I remember the campaign to get lead out of petrol with affection. I studied Environmental Science at university and can remember talking long into the night about issues affecting the planet. I think I even joined the Ecology Party, the forerunner of the Green Party when I was about 18  though I dont remember doing anything other than pay the subscription.  Jobs were short when I graduated and I got a job formulating cosmetics rather than doing the environmental work I had originally had in mind. I was surprised to find myself in an industry where people seemed pretty positive about issues close to my heart. Biodegradable surfactants were a new thing but there was never any question of using anything else. I have spoken on other blogs about the fact that formaldehyde was still in use then, but was being removed purely at the initiative of the chemists in the labs.  Given this, I have always listened with care and attention to the environmental lobby. For a long time I didnt have any problem with being an environmentalist as well as being a scientist at the same time as developing cosmetics. They all seemed to be going in the same direction.  So when I first heard about an American pressure group called the Environmental Working Group I was predisposed to support them. I came across the Skin Deep database and was initially quite impressed with the idea. In fact I am still impressed with the idea. Why not collect all the information about cosmetic raw materials onto a database and make it available to the public. I hope somebody does it some day. Even when I started looking things up on the Skin Deep database and found it to be almost comically inaccurate I still gave the people behind it the benefit of the doubt. I imagined enthusiastic young volunteers  probably in California  punching data in during all night long sessions powered by idealism and pizza. I assumed that they would be getting complaints and would be putting it right shortly. You always have to give people a bit of time to get things straight.  Then I saw the Story of Cosmetics video. This really changed things. Whatever else you think of it, this is a professional piece of work. Time, effort and money has gone into it. And you cant miss that it is propaganda not advocacy. It sets out to scare.  Even now, I was prepared to justify it to some extent in my mind  as you will see if you read my post from only a few days ago. They had gone off the scale for accuracy, but maybe they felt that they had to use modern techniques to get their message across. I started to think of the EWG as sort of green Lenninists. They had betrayed the ideals of the revolution, but they were still radicals. They had chosen the wrong way to go about fighting the system, but they were still against the system. Even when I heard about the very large salaries that the directors of the EWG were drawing from their organisation I still did not realise what was really going on.  But now I understand. Did I say I was green? Well I sure was. Green in the sense of being inexperienced and unknowing in the ways of the world.  Continues at link













Document Number: 6116 



 The UC Davis Student Farm Harvests Striped Tomatoes and Pumpkins 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 20 September 2010 


Today is the first week of Fall quarter at UC Davis and the Student Farm has harvested some glorious vegetables.


The tomatoes in the CSA (community supported agriculture) basket today came mostly from the farm;s Seeds of Change variety trial. The green striped, red striped, orange, dark striped, etc. tomatoes represent only a fraction of the 75 varieties the farm trialed  this year. There are a couple of red slicers in the mix as well. In their newsletter, the Student Farm crew (Eric, Larisa, Sasha, Ari, Ethan and Raoul) asks us customers to observe how the trial tomato varieties compare to the hybrid red slicers in terms of flavor, texture, and degree of softness.


Today;s baskets include: peppers, okra, onions, garlic, chard, basil, tomatoes,  cherry tomatoes, tomatillos, figs, grapes, zucchini, Chinese Long  Beans, green beans, and pumpkins.


The Student Farm recipe of the week is from  chow.com  . Pumpkin Curry.


When cooked, pumpkin becomes sweet and makes the perfect partner for fiery chili and warm spices such as cumin and turmeric. Despite its quick cooking time, this dish has a rounded flavor. Serve as a vegetable aside to meat and fish dishes or by itself with steamed basmati rice or flatbreads and maybe an accompanying salad.


INGREDIENTS   1 pound pumpkin or butternut squash, cut into 1-inch cubes   1 teaspoon turmeric   1 teaspoon smoked paprika   2 1/2 cups water   7 ounces freshly grated coconut   1 teaspoon cumin seeds   1 tablespoon sunflower oil   1 teaspoon black mustard seeds   8-10 curry leaves   2 small red chiles, split in half lengthwise   Salt


INSTRUCTIONS  1. Put the pumpkin or butternut squash in a saucepan with the  turmeric, smoked paprika, and the water. Bring to a boil and simmer  gently for 6-8 minutes or until tender.  2. Grind half of the coconut in a spice mill or a mortar and pestle  with the cumin seeds. Stir this into the pumpkin mixture and stir and  cook for 2-3 minutes. Remove from heat.  3. In a small, nonstick frying pan, heat the oil until hot and add the  mustard seeds, curry leaves, and red chiles. Stir and cook over high  heat for 1-2 minutes, then pour this mixture over the pumpkin curry.  Season and serve.


CHOW note: We tried this recipe with dried, grated, unsweetened  coconut (available in health food stores), and it was delicious. Do  not use sweetened shredded or flaked coconut.  Beverage pairing: Finding the perfect wine to pair with curries can be  daunting, because the spices will clash with many wines containing too  much tannin. And because of those same spices, high alcohol levels are  also to be avoided. An off-dry Chenin Blanc from the Loire Valley will  not overpower this dish and also pairs very nicely with the  sweet/earthy pumpkin component. Try the 2005 Franois Pinon Vouvray  Cuve Tradition.


The Market Garden at the Student Farm is CCOF Certified Organic.













Document Number: 1956 



 The US government is at it again! 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 29 May 2010 


;. or is it?


In  Proposed US law to mandate GMOs?  , I posted the actual text of the The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S.384, introduced by Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA), in response to authors of blog posts and petitions that didn;t quite seem to have read it before getting all excited about it.


The next big GMO scandal involves recommended changes to the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. All relevant documents have been posted by the  Codex Committee on Food Labeling  (CCFL), apparently unknown to those who would have us up in alarm.


The Institute for Responsible Technology (founded by  Jeffery Smith  ) wants us to pay attention to their  Action Alert ; Codex Conference  (emphasis original):


Please send this URGENT message to US Government leaders to protect your right to know which foods are made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs);   They must stop US negotiators at an international (Codex) conference from May 3-7, from pushing an agenda that could make it difficult for anyone,  anywhere in the world  to label foods as genetically modified (GM) foodor even make  non-GMO claims on their products label.


A petition on  CREDO Action Network  is even more alarming (emphasis mine):


;the current U.S. draft position paper declares that mandatory labeling laws such as they have in Europe are ;false, misleading or deceptive.; If the U.S. succeeds in writing the proposed Codex regulations,  any attempts here in the U.S. to label foods as genetically engineered, whether voluntary or by law, would become far more difficult.


What;s actually ;misleading or deceptive; is the way the US recommendations are presented by these two groups. Ironically, the US actually seems to be recommending most recently that nothing be changed at all, in  Government Comments at Step 3  (pdf). The US recommendations, presented 3-7 May 2010, as ;Proposed draft recommendations for the labelling of foods and food ingredients obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification/genetic engineering;, are as follows:


We strongly encourage CCFL to discontinue further discussion of the provisions in Appendix VII of ALINORM 09/32/22 so that the Committee may focus its resources on the agenda items dealing with the implementation of the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity, and Health, an agenda item of immense public health significance and directly related to the mandate of Codexto protect the health of consumers.


Why would the US want the Codex Committee to stop working on plans to make rules for mandatory labeling of GMOs? In short, member countries have such different regulatory frameworks and such different ideas that it;s unlikely that any consensus will be reached. In fact, no consensus has been reached in over a decade of discussion on this topic, and by Codex rules, where there is no basis for consensus, discussion should end. This is laid out in full in the above referenced document. Other countries and some other groups put out Comments at Step 3, which you can find at the  Codex Committee on Food Labeling  website. Perhaps it is inappropriate for the US to propose that discussion be stopped, but stopping the discussion is far from being the same as banning labeling of GMOs.


Did the US ever propose that voluntary labels be prohibited? Nope. They did advocate that labels ;indicate that foods derived from GM/GE were not in any way different or less safe due to their method of production provided that they had undergone safety assessments consistent with relevant Codex guidelines.; This is consistent with other labeling requirements in the CODEX and other labeling sources. A voluntary label that meets this requirement would be similar to  rBST labels  in the US that state that milk from cows that have not been treated with rBST is no different than milk from cows that have been treated with rBST.













Document Number: 5425 



 Threat to world;s wheat being met with money from Bill and Melinda Gates 


 by  David Tribe  on 28 February 2011 


&nbsp;  Armed with US$40 million, global research team to fight Ug99;   &nbsp;Wind-borne wheat pathogen endangers food security worldwide  &nbsp;With grant from DFID and Gates Foundation, Cornell University and partners  &nbsp;will ramp up surveillance; provide farmers with resistant wheat varieties  &nbsp;&nbsp;  &nbsp;ITHACA, NY (27 February 2011)The United Kingdoms Department of International Development (DFID) and the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation today announced they will invest US$40 million in a global project led by Cornell University to combat deadly strains of Ug99, an evolving wheat pathogen that poses a dangerous threat to global food security, particularly in the poorest nations of the developing world.  &nbsp;The five-year grant, made to the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat (DRRW) project at Cornell will support efforts to identify new stem rust resistant genes in wheat, improve surveillance, and multiply and distribute rust-resistant wheat seed to farmers and their families.  &nbsp;We cannot overstate the importance of this announcement on the part of two of the most important funders of solutions for addressing the causes of poverty, hunger and disease in the developing world, said Ronnie Coffman, Cornell professor of plant breeding and genetics and director of DRRW. Against the backdrop of rising food prices, and wheat in particular, researchers worldwide will be able to play an increasingly vital role in protecting wheat fields from dangerous new forms of stem rust, particularly in countries whose people can ill afford the economic impact of damage to this vital crop.  &nbsp;First discovered in 1998 in Uganda, the original Ug99 has also been found in Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen and Iran. A Global Cereal Rust Monitoring System, housed at the U.N.s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), suggests variants of Ug99 are on the march, threatening major wheat-growing areas of Southern and Eastern Africa, the Central Asian Republics, the Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent, South America, Australia and North America.  &nbsp;We applaud DFID for taking a leadership role in supporting agricultural research, said Sylvia Mathews Burwelle, president of the Global Development Program at the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation. We hope other governments in both the developed and developing world and donors will follow the UKs lead and increase investments to provide small-scale farmers with the tools they need to improve their yields so they can feed their families and overcome poverty.  &nbsp;The new grant will allow Cornell to build on international efforts to combat stem rustparticularly Ug99 and its variants. Among the universitys partners are national research centers in Kenya and Ethiopia, and scientists at two international agricultural research centers that focus on wheat, the Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (known by its Spanish acronym as CIMMYT), and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), in Syria. The FAO and advanced research laboratories in the United States, Canada, China, Australia, Denmark and South Africa also collaborate on the project.&nbsp; The DRRW project now involves more than 20 leading universities and research institutes throughout the world, and scientists and farmers from more than 40 countries.  &nbsp;As part of the agreement, DFID will contribute approximately US$15M and the foundation US$25M to the DRRW over the next five years.  &nbsp;It is important that public and private institutions work together to develop long-term, sustainable and effective solutions to make life better for the world in which we live, said David J. Skorton, president of Cornell University.  &nbsp;In the 1950s, a fatal strain of wheat stem rust invaded North America and ruined 40 percent of the spring wheat crop. The late Norman Borlaug, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and a renowned plant breeder, led a team of scientists who developed high-yield rust-resistant varieties that helped launch the Green Revolution. But 50 years later, virulent new strains of the pathogen emerged unexpectedly in Uganda, putting at risk most of the wheat planted in farmers fields worldwide.  &nbsp;Two other rusts pose threats to wheat, leaf and stripe, or yellow rust. Stem rust, of which Ug99 is a variant, is the most feared because it can quickly lead to the loss of an entire harvest.  &nbsp;Since 2008, when the DRRW project was first funded with US$2.8 million from the foundation, researchers have distributed new resistant wheat varieties for testing and evaluation in 40 countries; strengthened nurseries in Kenya and Ethiopia for screening wheat for vulnerability to rusts, and distributed nearly five tons of Ug99-resistant seed for planting in the at-risk nations of Ethiopia, Kenya, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Nepal.  &nbsp;Wheat is one of Kenyas most important crops, second only to maize. Our people depend upon it for food security, said Ruth Wanyera, a plant pathologist with the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute in Njoro. We hope this important investment on the part of the Gates Foundation and DFID will prompt other funders and policy makers in the industrialized and developing worlds to support efforts to protect our global wheat supply.  &nbsp;Initially called to arms by Norman Borlaug, the DRRW works closely with the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI) on a global strategy to avert agricultural disaster for wheat.  &nbsp;This is a major and much-welcomed investment, said Jeanie Borlaug, daughter of the late Norman Borlaug, and chair of the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI). My Dad used to say, rust never sleeps. The worlds leaders are finally waking up to the threat.













Document Number: 8699 



 To dye or not to dye 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 15 February 2009 


Brownfield Ag News America had an interesting blurb on Thurs Feb 12:  Maryland may ban certain food colorings  .


A couple of bills pending in the Maryland state legislature seek to require labeling and eventually ban some synthetic food colorings. The bills have been pushed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest which charges the food dyes have been linked to ADHD, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.


The Maryland bills deal with the dyes: Blue 1; Blue 2; Green 3; Orange B; Red 3; Red 40; Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. One of the bills would prohibit public schools and child care facilities from providing food with the coloring in it. The second bill would require a label warning: The color additives in this food may cause hyperactivity and behavior problems in some children. Use of the dyes would be banned in the state in 2012.


The food industry opposes the bill saying the link to ADHD is based on flawed research while the Food and Drug Administration states there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the colorings cause hyperactivity.


I;m rather conflicted about this. On the one hand, there really isn;t any science backing the idea that dye  causes  ADHD, although perhaps there is a genetic predisposition that is exacerbated by the dye. There are studies showing a link between dye and hyperactivity ; is that enough of a reason to ban it? Sugars cause tooth decay and diabetes, high-fat and high-sodium foods cause heart disease; if we ban one, shouldn;t we ban, restrict use of, or at least paste a warning label on the others?  On the other hand, do we need food dye? Shouldn;t food just be the color it is? What about other additives, like sodium benzoate? Do we need those more or less than, say, trans-fats?  Risk benefit analysis may tell us the answer, but we need regulators to actually think through it.  In a correspondence in June 2008  Environ Health Perspectives, titled  Food Additives and Hyperactivity  , Bernard Weiss writes:


; The Forum article [  Barrett (2007)  ] emphasized how food additives might contribute to the clinical diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder rather than on the more significant finding that food additives, particularly synthetic colors at levels prevailing in the diet, induce adverse behavioral responses. This is hardly a novel finding. In 1980, such effects were documented in two different groups of subjects with two different experimental designs (  Swanson and Kinsbourne 1980  ;  Weiss et al. 1980  ). Many later publications have confirmed their results. I briefly reviewed the data in  Environmental Health Perspectives  (  Weiss 2000  ).


According to Barrett (2007), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official, Mike Herndon, maintains that the agency sees ;; no reason at this time to change our conclusions that the ingredients that were tested in this study that currently are permitted for food use in the United States are safe for the general population.; This is a rather baffling statement. In fact, our study (Weiss et al. 1980) was funded by the FDA, and its results, along with a number of others from that period, definitively demonstrated adverse behavioral effects of synthetic food colors (Weiss 1982). During the intervening years, with a plethora of confirmations, the FDA has remained blindly obstinate. It continues to shield food additives from testing for neurotoxicity and apparently believes that adverse behavioral responses are not an expression of toxicity.


Herndon and the FDA should seriously consider what the late  Philip Handler  said about balancing risks and benefits:


A sensible guide would surely be to reduce exposure to hazard whenever possible, to accept substantial hazard only for great benefit, minor hazard for modest benefit, and no hazard at all when the benefit seems relatively trivial. (Handler 1979)


The FDA has never clarified the health benefits of artificial food colors.


Balancing risks and benefits can help us to rank various ingredients, additives, processes, methods. It;s not that easy, though. These food dyes have no health benefit but do have economic benefits to the companies selling products like juice drinks, for example. What about natural colorants, like beet juice? Some might argue they are superior to artificial dyes, but some people are allergic to beet juice. There just isn;t a clear answer. I have to wonder if the best answer isn;t to let people decide for themselves.  I really like the idea of stickers with websites or even better barcodes that could be scanned with an iPhone or similar device. Rather than cramming a ton of labels onto the product, consumers could obtain information if they wished, in a format that could actually present valuable information. As Pamela Ronald pointed out in  To Label or not to Label  , a lot of labels are utterly unhelpful to the average person, serving only to confuse and alarm. The ability to see detailed information about a product (perhaps an ingredient list linking to a FDA or NGO database of studies or up-to-date summaries?) would be more helpful and allow people to decide for themselves.   Bernard Weiss (2008). Food Additives and Hyperactivity  Environmental Health Perspectives, 116  (6) DOI:  10.1289/ehp.11182  .  Lovely photo of  Red velvet cake mix  by  designergeek  via flickr.













Document Number: 388 



 To Label or Not to Label 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 31 January 2009 


If GE crops are considered safe by most scientists, why not simply label the produce from these crops and let people decide for themselves? Most people like to know what they are eating and make their own choices.


I am a label reader. If there is an excess of added sugar or too many ingredients with names that I don;t recognize then I don;t buy the product. Not all information, however, is useful.


A few months ago our local food coop began posting red ;consumer alert; signs that say, ;Conventional foods that contain corn, soy, or canola may be genetically engineered.; I nd these signs more annoying than helpful.  It is a little bit like the warnings posted on science textbooks in some states that say, ;This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientic explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. No one was present when life rst appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life;s origins should be considered as theory, not fact;.


Neither statement says anything informative about the state of our food nor the creation of our universe. With  no specic hazards associated with GE foods  or evolution, how can a consumer use these statements to make a more informed choice about the risk to their health or to their faith in God?


The National Research Council Committee states that attempts to assess food safety based solely on the process are  scientically unjustied  . Rather than adding a general label about the process with which a plant variety was developed, it would make more sense to label food so that consumers are informed about what is actually in or on the food. But this, too, is not necessarily helpful. For some people it may be informative to read a label that says, ;may contain traces of carbamate pesticides, which at high concentrations are known to cause death of animals; or ;may contain trace amounts of puried  Bacillus thuringiensis  protein, which kill Leptidoptera (a class of insects).; But is it helpful to most consumers who are not familiar with the science?


Here is another example. If we carry forward with labeling the product, then organic produce treated with rotenone, a ;natural; pesticide favored by some organic farmers, would need to be labeled with the following, ;may contain trace amounts of rotenone;chronic exposure can cause damage to liver and kidney; (Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1998). Organic super sweet corn would require this label: ;Carries a genetic mutation induced by radiation mutagenesis, resulting in the presence of a mutant protein.; Organically grown papaya would need to be marked: ;may contain vast amounts of papaya ringspot viral RNA and protein;.


These labels are so ominous that it is not likely that many people would feel comfortable eating these organic fruits and vegetables. Still, there is no evidence that any of these food products are hazardous. After all, we have been eating sweet corn and organic papaya safely for years.


It seems to me that if the labeling statement does not help with safety interventions or inform consumer choice, it does not serve the purpose. It only confuses and unnecessarily alarms people.


This is a repost from  Tomorrow;s Table  .













Document Number: 2725 



 Today;s Organic, Yesterday;s Yields 


 by  Steve Savage  on 10 February 2011 


In 2008, the National Agricultural Statistics Service of USDA conducted a detailed survey of Organic agriculture in the US. Participation rates were high with Organic growers, so the data is quite reliable. What it showed was probably surprising to many. After at least three decades of ;rapid growth,; Organic now accounts for 0.52% of harvested US cropland. NASS did not go ahead and compare the yields of Organic crops to equivalent data for the rest of agriculture, but all that data is publicly available and I have posted a comparative analysis on  SCRIBD  . Organic crop yields are generally lower, but it is hard to put that into perspective.


What does it mean for Organic corn yields to be 71% of the national average? What does it mean that Organic soy yields are 66% of the national average? One way to put this in perspective is to ask the question, ;how many years ago was non-Organic ag getting the kind of yields that Organic saw in 2008?; Through a host of technical and operational advances, the yields of most crops in the developed world have been increasing steadily ever since the mid 20th century. This is a very good thing because we have thus been able to feed a growing world population without even more land-use-conversion than has happened. A high research investment crop like corn has yields that have been going up at a pace of 2 bushels/acre/year even for the national average. Even a low research investment crop like oats has seen yields increase by about 0.4 bushels/acre/year. So it becomes interesting to take the 2008 Organic yields and compare them to historical data about yield trends. The graph below does this for US Soybeans and has a key that will pertain to the following illustrations.  The yield data for Organic soy came from a total of 1,331 farms and 98,113 acres, so it is probably not an artifact. That 2008 Organic yields of a nitrogen fixing crop would be like those of 29 years ago is surprising. My guess is that it reflects higher weed competition and less moisture retention because of tillage. Soybeans are not a pesticide-intensive crop, but perhaps some seed treatments and an occasional foliar spray account for some of the difference.


It is interesting that Organic grain corn yields are equivalent to the trend from only 21.5 years ago (2,146 farms, 143,432 acres). In this case there is also the fertilizer difference, but my guess would be that the Organic growers get the benefit of the massive investment that has been made in Corn genetics.  Organic wheat production is equivalent to that from even earlier eras ; 57 years for Winter Wheat and 58 years for Spring Wheat on a national basis. Even on a single state basis, the differential is large. See the graphs for South Dakota Spring Wheat and New York Winter Wheat below.


(The SD Organic data comes from 92 farms and 20,867 acres)


(The NY Organic data comes from 44 farms and 2,417 acres)


Since wheat is a relatively low input crop, the difference is probably a function of fertilizer efficiency, weed competition, and moisture loss during tillage.


The crops listed above have less than 1% Organic acres and often far less. However, the same time equivalents are seen for the row crops that have a more significant Organic share.


(Organic Flax is 4.1% of the US total,85 farms, 13,958 acres)


(Organic Oats are 2.94% of the US total, 1,040 farms, 41,016 acres)


(Organic Barley is 1.25% of the US total, 578 farms, 47,227 acres)


As we enter into a new round of rising global food prices, the idea of a production system that effectively eliminates decades of of productivity gain is  not attractive  . Organic row cropping is unlikely to ever be employed on a significant acreage, and from a food supply perspective, this is a good thing.


There are additional crops and state-level examples available  here  . Graphs by Steve Savage from USDA NASS data. You are welcome to comment here or to email me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com













Document Number: 2794 



 Top Flops of 2009 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 11 January 2010 


The new year is here, and people everywhere are publishing their top 10 lists for the last year. Rather than try to come up with a similar list and fit exactly 10 items into it, I thought I would put together a short list of genetic engineering campaigns that rose and fell this year. Get ready for the Top Flops of 2009!


Beet This


The first campaign I would like to talk about is part of an ongoing effort to oppose genetically engineered sugar beets.  Sugar beets  are an interesting variety of plant, bred from chard and fodder beets to become a white behemoth that is up to 1/5 sugar by dry weight. About 30% of the sugar produced in the world comes from these beets, 1 million acres of them in the US, so it comes as no surprise that sooner or later a GE sugar beet would come along. Europe, however, is a much bigger producer, apparently for political and historical reasons as much as biological. (Read the  Wikipedia page  for more history.)


Growing fields of beets is not always easy, and conventional sugar beets have often required many applications of different herbicides and pesticides. When Monsanto;s Roundup-Ready sugar beets came along in 2008, they were very popular among farmers that adopted them, and 2009 saw a dramatic expansion with about 90% of acres in the U.S. being planted with the biotech beets. This got the anti-GE groups wondering, what would be the best way to stop the beets?


A group of organizations led by the Center for Food Safety got together and decided to start a beet sugar boycott ; which surfaced just in time for Valentines Day:


Today the Center for Food Safety, along with allied food safety, environmental, and corporate watchdog groups, launched the  Non-Genetically Modified (GM) Beet Sugar Registry  , documenting commitments from over seventy grocery chains and food producers including Organic Valley not to use or sell GM beet sugar. This call to halt the introduction of GM sugar beets into the food supply comes on the heels of public outcry over mercury contamination of our nations dominant sweetener  high fructose corn syrup  and on the eve of the years sweetest holiday  Valentines Day.


There;s nothing so sweet like exaggerating not only the risks of beets engineered to produce one enzyme that switches the farmers from one suite of herbicides to another, but also exaggerating how much support their boycott had.  If you take a look a the registry, it is a collection of small producers, co-op grocery stores (including one in my own Madison, WI), and just one company large enough to be mentioned by name. Considering that Organic Valley probably already sourced its sugar from organic sources, pledging not to buy sugar from a source they already don;t buy from is a marketing no-brainer. And although they say ;grocery chains,; I count only one small chain in their list. Some food producers don;t even use sugar at all!


This campaign built itself entirely on food-fear strategies from the start ; note the mention of mercury in corn syrup (which, by the way, was at such low levels that  Marion Nestle was not impressed  ). Throughout the year, this was the strategy employed by the CFS, to use candy-laden holidays as reason to try to drum up consumer opposition to sugar derived from GE beets. The registry list never grew ; its purpose was to help petition large candy companies such as Mars and Hershey to reject sugar from those beets. This led to an  ironic statement  on their part:


I have always looked to sugar as one of the few ingredients I could count on to be GM-free, unlike corn syrups and some other sweeteners. Without labeling of GM products, I have to rely on companies that have publicly stated that they will avoid GM sugar in order to make my purchasing decisions.


Remember when white sugar was the devil? Now it is apparently a safety net of foodies.  Tom Laskawy  at Gristmill remarks that he will ;stick to organic sugar.; Good old  organic  empty calories ; your ticket to good health!


Andrew Kimbrell, the director of the Center for Food Safety, went a few steps further with  Poison: One Lump or Two?  Repeating the same line about mercury and corn syrup, Kimbrell suggested that consumers are now going to be poisoned by pesticides in their coffee cups:


Concurrent with the USDA;s approval of the GM beets for human consumption, the EPA eased its regulation of herbicide residues on sugar beet roots, allowing for a surprising 5000% increase. The public has no way of knowing how much damage may be caused by long-term consumption of these pesticides.


Never mind the fact that the sugar is highly refined and  indistinguishable  from that from conventional beets. DNA, protein, pesticide, good luck finding any of them in there at all. Never mind the fact that sugar beets have been grown with a suite of nastier pesticides that roundup would replace. And never mind the fact that the 5,000% figure is taken  out of context  as well.


However, a spokesperson for Monsanto told FoodNavigator-USA.com:  The referenced 5,000 percent increase is not being used in its complete and correct contextRefined sugarbeet roots produce pure sugar that is the same as any other sugar, and with no glyphosate residue.   Critics of Roundup Ready sugarbeets like to publicize this decade-old EPA increase to scare people, but do not further qualify their math by purposely omitting two important facts: 1) The original 30-year-old tolerance was set at time when glyphosate was not used on sugarbeet crops, and 2) the increase is currently at a maximum EPA safe tolerance level of 1/1000th percent (0.001%).


Andrew Kimbrell crossed the line in a desperate attempt to raise false fears about pesticides in table sugar. Did it work on Valentines day? Nope.


So Kimbrell dialed up the rhetoric  a few months later  for the next big candy holiday: Mother;s Day.


Sugar is extracted from the beet;s root and the inevitable result is more glyphosate in our sugar. This is not good news for those who want to enjoy their chocolate morsels without the threat of ingesting toxic weed killer.  ;this could be the last year Mother;s Day candy doesn;t contain elevated pesticide levels.


The effort would continue with Halloween, too,  gathering signatures  but with no real effect. This time there;s a new misleading tactic employed. As a judge ruled this year that the roundup-ready sugar beets should have undergone the more stringent environmental impact statement (rather than the environmental impact assessment it did go through), the beets were effectively re-regulated. The main reason the judge gave was that the USDA didn;t prove that cross-pollination with other crops wasn;t going to be a problem. But the Halloween petition misrepresented the ruling to suggest that the judge determined that the sugar beets weren;t safe for human health:


Last month, in a stunning setback for the biotech industry, a federal court ruled that genetically modified (GMO) sugar beets should never have been approved for introduction into the food supply.


Not true. The judge;s ruling applies to planting the crop, which is under the purview of the USDA. The FDA oversees the food safety aspects. D;oh.


There is no such thing as genetically modified sugar. It has no genes!


As Halloween approaches, I am shocked to learn that your company is experimenting on our children! As you know, a federal judge recently ruled that the GMO beets should not have been approved for planting, yet the sugar from these experimental beets has been in the food supply since 2008.


This one is thanks to the  Center for Environmental Health  , which includes in its  staff  Charles Margulis, who used to work for Greenpeace, the CFS, and the Organic Consumers Association.


Nevertheless, despite their best efforts at scaring up fears about pesticides in coffee and confections, this particular campaign coordinated between many anti-GE organizations failed to get any backing from the big candy companies and other major buyers of sugar. Despite exaggerations and plain falsehoods, this campaign flopped.


Take the Challenge


While Biofortified was still young and we were trying to find time to blog, everyone;s favorite author Jeffrey Smith made a foray into social media. The end of genetic engineering would surely come through bringing people together to blog together about how bad GMOs are. Everyone loves blog carnivals!


Is this a person, or a teddy bear?


With much fanfare, the  No GMO Challenge was born on Earth Day  . Bloggers could take a public stand against genetic engineering, and proclaim that they are going to live free of genetically modified organisms for a month. And to join the blog carnival, all they had to do was submit a post in the comment section.


Ok, first of all, this is the laziest blog carnival I have ever seen. I have submitted to, and hosted many blog carnivals in the last few years. Bloggers submit their posts by email, and the carnival host reads them, organizes them, and picks the best ones to string together in a creative fashion. It is not only a chance for submitting authors to show off their work, but also a chance for the host to show off their stuff. I;ve seen animations, fun stories, comic strips, all sorts of stuff. I went over the top once for the 45th Skeptic;s Circle and  made it a podcast  for a week with phoned-in lines from each blogger. But sometimes with time crunches blog carnival hosts will admit that they didn;t have the time to do anything interesting, and just put the links together in a list.


The No GMO Challenge was even lazier than that. All submitting bloggers could look forward to was a link in a small stream of comments. In return, they were supposed to investigate every last food they ate to eliminate and avoid any ingredient that could come from a GE crop. Switch corn syrup for cane sugar, trade canola for olive oil, and unless you go for blue ; stay away from corn. And I thought I was asking a lot by instructing people to call a Skype number to read a few sentences. Can you imagine telling someone how to eat for a month?


Hang on, I;ve left something out. Olive oil. A big, old-fashioned metal can containing a gallon of olive oil. For the best post submitted to the carnival, a small family food outfit offered up a sample of their ;GMO free; stuff. I have GE-free olive oil, too. All olive oil is. Still, hey, offering up food for prizes in a food-related blog  carnival  comment thread is a nice idea. And if anyone was having a hard time looking for GE-free foods to eat, they could look up Jeffrey Smith;s  corporate sponsors  .


I was very busy at the time, but there was no stated restriction about no ;pro GMO; posts in the carnival, so I thought I would drop them some links in a future carnival and see what happened. With classes over in late May and research going fine, I eagerly anticipated their June ;carnival.; It never came.


As a matter of fact, all No GMO Challenge activity abruptly ceased in June.  Facebook  , Dead.  Twitter  , Dead.  No GMO Challenge  page; down for maintenance. Now it is completely missing. And not even the  Google cache  or the Wayback machine saved any of it. So in some sense, you;ll have to take my word for it that there was  indeed  a gallon of olive oil at stake! It is simply surprising that given the  number of google hits  that the event got that it dried up so quickly. I didn;t think it would have much staying power, but this is ridiculous! (It was apparently  supposed to post every week  .)


Strangely, Real Food Media, where it was hosted, made the  link to the root directory  of the ;carnival; redirect to an announcement for it. This post I am writing stands as the only known record of what happened to this disappearing campaign.


So why did this flop? Yes it asked a lot of its contributors, and gave little in return. It appealed only to a narrow niche of bloggers and was not attractive to the wider public. But most of all, it flopped because the folks that started it didn;t care enough to pursue an idea to its own conclusion before moving on to  other  ventures.


2010 Predictions:


Judge White;s decision against GE sugar beets could be considered a major flop for GE crops, although it seems like more of a setback than anything else. But embedded in this issue there is a potential flop for the coming year. Although the judge ruled that the USDA should have completed a more stringent environmental impact statement before deregulating Roundup-Ready sugar beets, whether or not the farmers can plant them this year is still unknown.


The ;environmental; issue was over whether the beets would cross-pollinate with nearby seed crops of related varieties, however, beets typically only flower in their second year of growth. Therefore, farmers planting sugar beets in 2010 will pose very little risk of cross-pollination, because they are only grown one season and harvested.


Producing seed, however, takes two years. Since seed producers had to start plants in 2008 for the 2010 season, and roundup-ready beet seeds were in very high demand (90%), there may be a shortage of non-GE sugar beet seeds for the coming season. While it was argued that GE sugar beets threatened one organic seed producer;s ability to do business,  the same might be said  for the conventional sugar beet farmers this year unless they are allowed to use the GE sugar beet seeds that are available. And it is not like any old non-GE sugar beet seed will do ; farmers will need to have enough of the varieties that are resistant to pests and diseases and can thrive in their climate.


The U.S. sugar beet industry could suffer billions of dollars in losses if Roundup Ready varieties are banned next year, according to attorneys representing growers and processors.  ;At this point, a halt on planting Roundup Ready sugar beet seed for the 2010 root crop in 10 states would create severe seed shortages in many areas of the country and pose other very significant problems potentially resulting in billions of dollars in damages to thousands of sugar beet farmers, to cooperatives and processors and to communities across the country; ; attorneys Gilbert S. Keteltas, John F. Bruce, Christopher H. Marroro of Washington, D.C., and Joanne Lichtman of Los Angeles, said in court documents filed Wednesday, Nov. 25, in federal court in San Franciso.


The Center for Food Safety was behind the case brought against the USDA. If you look at the legal action taken against the Roundup Ready sugar beets as a campaign to prevent farmers from growing them, it may be a flop this next year due to seed availability issues. But the resentment it may spark in sugar beet farmers should they not be able to plant them could be the bigger flop ; a failure to negotiate the needs of two different sectors of agriculture that may only deepen the divide between them. The planting issue has not yet been decided, and hopefully something  can still be negotiated  that makes everyone happy.


What is your goal here?


But let;s end this one on a note of certainty for the new year. A new suggestion has been made just before the end of December that I already know will be a flop. Home gardeners usually buy seeds from their local nursery, and it turns out that many of these seeds from from the vegetable breeding company, Seminis, which is owned by Monsanto. With the discussion of Monsanto and seed monopolies that has recently resurfaced,  I found one blogger  announce that gardeners should boycott any garden seeds that come from Seminis.


I have nothing against Seeds of Change and am at this moment considering buying seeds from them, and to their credit they have pledged to not sell GMO seeds. But, if I was a new gardener concerned about Frankenfoods I;d probably like to know that by buying from them I was supporting a company like Mars, Inc. That information is inexplicably absent from the list of ;safe from Monsanto seeds.; If you are serious about avoiding Monsanto/Seminis seeds in your garden it isn;t as easy as taken what you read on the internet as gospel.   How do you keep your garden safe from seeds produced by Monsanto/Seminis and other companies who are not aligned with your ideology.


Perhaps the first problem is that ;ideology; is taking the front seat. Perhaps if they knew that there are no genetically engineered seeds available in nurseries it would be a big help?


You;re going to have to do research that;s harder than reading lists that have been copied and pasted around the internet.   Step #1  Pick up the phone and call the seed company you want to buy from and ask if Seminis supplies their seeds. If Seminis is their supplier keep looking until you find another seed company.   Step #2  Repeat Step #1 until you find a company that doesn;t. Or at least until you find a seed company that carries the particular seeds you want that aren;t supplied by Seminis. Some companies may only carry certain seeds from Seminis, and you may end up having to make a moral trade-off if you really want to grow a particular, flower, vegetable or fruit.   You should also learn to collect and  save your own seeds  or try buying some  cool heirloom varieties of the veggies you want to grow  . Don;t judge me too badly when you see me at Home Depot buying Burpee seeds, a gardener has to do what a gardener has to do.


And gardeners are going to do what gardeners do ; pick up seeds that they find promising at their local nursery and plant them this year. Very few people will find it worthwhile to spend this much time making sure that their seeds don;t come from a company that also makes genetically engineered seeds.  Plus those commercial seed companies make some pretty amazing modern garden varieties that produce a lot. Like the No GMO Challenge, this is asking people to go to great effort for little percieved personal benefit.


If this was even successful it might even be a bad idea ; wouldn;t that just send the message to Monsanto that they should stop selling their conventional seeds and just make GE crops? In contrast, buying  more  conventional seed would force them to produce more seeds that aren;t genetically engineered. This is more about trying to attack a particular company than to make a statement about genetic engineering. I don;t think this will go anywhere.


So there you have it, my list of past and future GE-related campaign flops. New Years is often a time for optimism, fresh starts, and reflection on past successes ; but it is also about resolving to correct past mistakes. It is my fond hope that people who campaign against genetically engineered crops re-evaluate their goals and strategies, and think about what they are working toward. If a campaign necessitates falsehoods, asks way too much of the public for your own ideological purposes, or lasts barely more than a month after much publicity, wouldn;t you wonder if it is the right thing in the first place?













Document Number: 9628 



 Toward a better agriculture; for everyone 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 12 August 2010 


A recent paper in PLoS concluded:


we reject the organic-conventional dichotomy and emphasize that, in order to optimize environmental sustainability, individual tactics must be evaluated for their environmental impact in the context of an integrated approach, and that policy decisions must be based on empirical data and objective risk-benefit analysis, not arbitrary classifications.


The paper was  Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans  (full text) by  Christine Bahlai  et al  . Long story short, the research showed that some synthetic pesticides were more environmentally benign than some organic pesticides, showing that it;s inaccurate to say that organic pesticides are better for the environment. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.


The paper itself is really great, deserving of its own post (see  Organic pesticides arent necessarily more sustainable than synthetic  by Colby Vorland), but I;d like to talk about the organic-conventional divide. Normally I don;t approve of thoughts in scientific journal articles that aren;t immediately related to the research, too often authors stray into questionable territory. But Christine;s thoughts here are immediately related to her findings, and her results may indicate that big changes are necessary in the way we think about farming.


Separating out ;organic; as  defined by the USDA  may be beneficial in the short term for farmers that have transitioned to certified organic methods who can then charge a premium, but in the long term, the divide is a detriment to farmers, consumers, and the environment. If we really care about farming in a more environmentally friendly fashion, we need an entirely new system.


We all want the same things*:


healthy food that is accessible to everyone regardless of location or income  farmers that can afford to farm and to pay fair wages to their employees  conservation of resources (especially soil!) and protection of ecosystems


We can get those things through three complimentary and often intertwined avenues:


demand  policy  research


Demand driven change seems to be moving along. We see lots about healthy food in popular media, increasing popularity of farmers; markets, talk of adding cooking classes to public schools, and a push to make school lunches healthier, just to name a few. More could be done, but it is happening. We might have different ideas of what exactly constitutes healthy food, but I don;t think anyone;s arguing that more fruits and veggies is a bad idea. Ok, probably  someone  is, but let;s just agree to ignore them.


Policy driven change seems to be moving along as well. Michelle Obama is leading the charge with her  Let;s Move  program that touches many government programs. Kathleen Merrigan is pushing for help for local food systems, even while Tom Vilsack works mostly within the status quo. As demand for healthier food increases, senators and congressmen will be more likely to support policy changes at the federal level, especially if we somehow start electing people with backgrounds other than business. Yes, it would be nice if everything changed faster, but it;s going to take a while to change a system that;s been in place for 40+ years.


With both demand and policy, the important thing is to keep pushing for changes, and over time things will change. Optimistic, simplistic, yes, but true. The alternative is revolution, which would probably suit some people, but is more than a little extreme.


That leaves us with research. Research is what informs both demand and policy ; or at least it should be. Research can provide us with information about which methods are preferable to others, such as which pesticides would have the least impact on farm and off farm ecosystems. Research, if properly applied, can help guide demand and policy to improve human and environmental health, among other things.


Here;s the problem, to borrow from the pesticide comparison paper: not enough ;empirical data and objective risk-benefit analysis; and too much ;arbitrary classification;. When demand and policy are based on arbitrary classifications like ;natural is better; without research to back it up, we end up with demand and policy that are ineffective at best. We also end up with unnecessary divisions that cause efforts to be split, even though we all really want the same thing.


Let;s look at organics as  defined by the USDA  :


;an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity; The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people. (  USDA  National Organic Standards Board definition, April 1995)


or agriculture that does


;respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. (  CFR  Regulatory Text, 7 CFR Part 205, Subpart A  Definitions.  205.2)


Sounds great, right? Except that by separating organic out from the rest of agriculture, we;re implying two things:


that non-organic-certified farmers don;t have these goals in mind  that they don;t have to.


It probably is true that some conventional** farmers don;t care about their soil, don;t conserve resources, etc. But those aren;t going to be very sucessful farmers if their soil is poor and they have to buy way more fertilizer than their neighbors, for example.  If you lined up all of the farmers in the US according to their soil quality, I bet you;d find a bell curve. In each category from bad to great soil, you;d find some conventional and some organic farmers. According to the research, organic methods can be better for soils than conventional methods***, but there is  so  much variation in how farmers actually apply the methods that a one farm to one farm comparison really doesn;t tell the whole story.


There are many conventional farmers that apply integrated pest management, that use rotations to reduce crop-specific pests, that use legume rotations to help reduce the amount of nitrogen that needs to be applied, that use planting methods that decrease soil compaction, and so on. And there are organic farmers that just do the minimum to keep certified. And a whole range between.


Even if we assume that, on average, organically farmed soils are superior in organic matter, microbial activity, etc, we;re still not saying much. ;Certified organic cropland and pasture accounted for about 0.6 percent of U.S. total farmland in 2008;, according to the  USDA  . When we make regulations for such a very small portion of farms, we;re not actually doing anything at all. Consumers should demand environmentally friendly methods from the other 99.4% of farms and policy should be made that includes all of those farms ; and all of it needs to be based on sound research.


Ideally, demand and policy would be based on those methods that have been shown to work. If additional research confirmed that using mineral oil was more harmful to farm ecosystems than one or more synthetic pesticides, then one would hope to see demand and policy encourage use of the insect control strategy that had the least impact instead of arbitrarily choosing the ;natural; method over a synthetic. Right now, there;s little if any research driving demand or policy. Instead, we have ideology.


Infighting over whether organic or not-organic is better, can feed the world, blah blah blah, isn;t actually helping anyone. The reality is that some methods used by some organic farmers are superb and some might not be. Some should be widely adopted, and some might even be more harmful their conventional counterparts (see the study I started this post with). Complicate that with the fact that not all farmers use the same methods and trying to decide whether organic is better becomes completely futile.


The research looks at individual methods, not arbitrary classifications ; which is really the only effective way to look at things. What we really need is a system that rewards farmers for environmentally friendly farming practices****. A farmer that uses legume rotations for nitrogen but still needs to use some synthetic N, P, and K to maintain good soil nutrients should be rewarded or recognized somehow if he uses application methods that have been shown to reduce runoff. A farmer that uses integrated pest management to reduce chemical pesticide application that farmer should be recognized.


Hypothetical label touting E-value of contents.


Perhaps there could be a scoring system where environmentally friendly methods are given a number value and farmers with higher values can seek a higher price from buyers that are interested in such things. I can easily imagine a box of corn flakes labeled ;made from corn with E-values of 100 or higher!; Another option might be to revamp the whole subsidy system to focus on farming practices, where farmers could have a financial incentive to choose environmentally friendly practices, epecially in cases where a change from one method to another would have an initial capital cost (like new tilling equipment) or when the change might reduce yields or income.  .


Let;s put aside the petty squabbling and focus on the research that has the potential to guide 100% of farms toward more sustainable methods. Not enough research? Let;s demand better federal funding for relevant projects. Let;s demand policy that helps all farmers and all land, not just some.


So, farmers organic and conventional, advocates of various farming methods, consumers, economists, policy analysts, everyone; What sorts of incentive systems might work? Would you spend a little more for a product that you knew was made with ingredients that were sustainable grown? Would this whole crazy idea be just too expensive to implement? Would the cost be mitigated by the benefits?


Bahlai CA, Xue Y, McCreary CM, Schaafsma AW, &amp; Hallett RH (2010). Choosing organic pesticides over synthetic pesticides may not effectively mitigate environmental risk in soybeans.  PloS one, 5  (6) PMID:  20582315


.


* Yes, agribusiness wants something else ; money. But I;m talking about people, not corporations here. And if you think organic agribusiness cares any less about money than other companies, you are simply naive.


** I really don;t like the word conventional, but it;s better than saying ;non-organic-certified; every time I want to mention farmers that aren;t organic certified.


*** To name one recent study that shows healthier soil under organic methods: Moeskops B, et al. 2010. Soil microbial communities and activities under intensive organic and conventional vegetable farming in West Java, Indonesia. Applied soil ecology 45(2)112-120. Within the confines of this particular study, organic soils are closer to local forest soils, but I bet there are farms which would show the opposite to be true. As with all studies, we have to be careful to remember that the findings apply within the conditions of the study and may or may not apply elsewhere.


****I;m not advocating a dissolution of the certified organic system. It;s not perfect, but it;s all we;ve got at the moment. I;m just saying we can have a system that actually works to improve all farms, and organic can keep doing whatever its adherents want.













Document Number: 6521 



 Transgenic corn;s resistance to pests has benefited even non-transgenic corn 


 by  David Tribe  on 8 October 2010 


Genetically modified crop resistance to pests benefits non-modified crop, U of Minnesota study finds


Areawide suppression dramatically reduced the estimated $1 billion in annual losses caused by European corn borer


Transgenic corn;s resistance to pests has&nbsp;benefited&nbsp;even non-transgenic corn, a new study led by scientists from the University of Minnesota shows.


The study, published in the Oct. 8 edition of the journal Science, found that widespread planting of genetically modified Bt corn throughout the Upper Midwest has suppressed populations of the European corn borer, historically one of corn;s primary pests. This areawide suppression has dramatically reduced the estimated $1 billion in annual losses caused by the European corn borer, even on non-genetically modified corn. Bt corn, introduced in 1996, is so named because it has been bred to produce a toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that kills insect pests.


Corn borer moths cannot distinguish between Bt and non-Bt corn, so females lay eggs in both kinds of fields, said the study;s chief author, University of Minnesota entomology professor William Hutchison. Once eggs hatch in Bt corn, young borer larvae feed and die within 24 to 48 hours. Because it is effective at controlling corn borers and other pests, Bt corn has been adopted on about 63 percent of all U.S. corn acres. As a result, corn borer numbers have also declined in neighboring non-Bt fields by 28 percent to 73 percent in Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin, depending on historical pest abundance and level of Bt-corn adoption. The study also documents similar declines of the pest in Iowa and Nebraska. This is the first study to show a direct association between Bt corn use and an areawide reduction in corn borer abundance.


Economic benefits of this areawide pest suppression have totaled $6.9 billion over the past 14 years for the 5-state region. Surprisingly, non-Bt corn acres accounted for $4.3 billion (62 percent of this total benefit.) The primary benefit of Bt corn is reduced yield losses, and Bt acres received this benefit after the growers paid Bt corn technology fees. But as a result of areawide pest suppression, non-Bt acres also experienced yield savings without the cost of Bt technology fees, and thus received more than half of the benefits from growing Bt corn in the region.


Paul Mitchell, an agricultural economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a co-author of the study, emphasized that ;previous cost-benefit analyses focused directly on transgenic crop acres. This study is the first to include the value of areawide pest suppression and the subsequent benefits to growers of non-transgenic crops. In this case, the value of the indirect yield benefits for non-Bt corn acres exceeded the net value of direct benefits to the Bt corn acres.; The authors note that their analysis does not consider benefits for other important Midwestern crops affected by European corn borer, such as sweet corn, potatoes and green beans. Hutchison observed however, ;that additional environmental benefits from corn borer suppression are likely occurring, such as less insecticide use, but these benefits have yet to be documented.;  The authors were able to document the suppression of European corn borer in Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin because state entomologists have monitored pest populations for more than 45 years in those states. Pest suppression and similar benefits to adopters and non-adopters alike may be occurring as a result of the widespread use of transgenic insect-resistant crops in other parts of the United States and the world, but those benefits cannot be documented without adequate data.


Finally, the authors emphasize that sustaining the economic and environmental benefits of Bt corn and other transgenic crops for adopters and non-adopters alike depends on the continued stewardship of these technologies. Farmers, industry, and regulators need to remain committed to planting non-Bt corn refuges to minimize the risk that corn borers will develop resistance to Bt corn. The Science magazine study shows that Bt corn is more valuable to society than originally realized, which makes maintaining its effectiveness even more important.


Contact: Patty Mattern  mattern@umn.edu  University of Minnesota  Press release


See BBC Item:  8 October 2010 Last updated at 08:06 GMT Share this pageFacebookTwitterShareEmailPrint   GM crops bring cash harvest to non-GM varieties  By Richard Black  Environment correspondent, BBC News


Insect pest control by genetically-modified crops can raise yields and profits from non-GM varieties grown nearby, a study from the US indicates.


Researchers looked at maize grown in five US states, where plants are affected by the European corn borer.


They found fewer borers ; and higher profits ; in GM fields, and in neighbouring non-GM fields.


Writing in the journal Science, they say this is the first time that a wider impact on profits has been shown; contd at link.


and also


REPORTS  Suppression of Cotton Bollworm in Multiple Crops in China in Areas with Bt ToxinContaining Cotton  Kong-Ming Wu, Yan-Hui Lu, Hong-Qiang Feng, Yu-Ying Jiang, Jian-Zhou Zhao*  Transgenic cotton that has been engineered to produce insecticidal toxins from  Bacillus thuringiensis  (Bt) and so to resist the pest cotton bollworm  (Helicoverpa armigera  ) has been widely planted in Asia. Analysis of the population dynamics of  H. armigera  from 1992 to 2007 in China indicated that a marked decrease in regional outbreaks of this pest in multiple crops was associated with the planting of Bt cotton. The study area included six provinces in northern China with an annual total of 3 million hectares of cotton and 22 million hectares of other crops (corn, peanuts, soybeans, and vegetables) grown by more than 10 million resource-poor farmers. Our data suggest that Bt cotton not only controls  H. armigera  on transgenic cotton designed to resist this pest but also may reduce its presence on other host crops and may decrease the need for insecticide sprays in general.


Science 19 September 2008:  Vol. 321. no. 5896, pp. 1676 ; 1678  DOI: 10.1126/science.1160550













Document Number: 4927 



 Transgenics as solution to malnutrition 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 6 December 2007 


The review article  Transgenic strategies for the nutritional enhancement of plants  (to be published in vol 12, issue 12 of Trends in Plant Science) discusses each of the methods used to improve nutrition for human populations that depend on one grain as their primary food source (the conclusions of the paper are after the cut). Simply introducing a varied diet, fortified foods, or supplements would solve malnutrition, but these are not options for poor populations in areas with unstable governments. They need a self sustaining way to improve the food that is available to them (i.e. that doesnt need additional monetary input).


The simplest or most obvious way to solve malnutrition, then, would be to improve the crops that the people eat. For those people who eat only maize or rice, a change in the nutritional profile of the grain would have a huge effect. Traditional breeding has been less than successful, and can take decades before a noticeable difference is achieved. Some improvements are not even possible with traditional breeding, if the desired trait does not exist in the gene pool of the species.


Enter genetic engineering. Humans now have the capability to improve the nutritional profile of a plant by adding genes that code for the desired trait. One example is the famed golden rice. Rice contains no beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of blindness in children, and leaves the children susceptible to disease such as malaria and measles (  UNICEF  ).


While the regulatory hurdles of getting golden rice into the bowls of those who need it are enough to fill a whole series of blog posts, the important part is that the levels of beta-carotene in this rice has been improved to high enough levels that the recommended daily value can be fulfilled by consuming a typical days servings of rice (  goldenrice.org  ).


Imagine that: millions of children who are no longer suffering from the lack of this important vitamin.


The only work to be done is to plant and harvest the rice. Across the world, malnourished children have little chance to better their situation. The lack of nutrients is a barrier to proper brain and body development. We can not expect so-called third-world nations to improve until they have enough people with strong minds and bodies to improve them. In the quest to solve world hunger, the development and deployment of crops with improved nutrients should be our primary concern.


Malnutrition is a significant challenge, particularly in the developing world, where measures that are commonplace in developed countries (varied diet, fortification schemes and dietary supplements) are largely absent. Transgenic biofortification strategies could help to alleviate malnutrition although further work is required to identify and manipulate relevant metabolic pathways and to improve the degree of nutritional improvement that can be achieved. Other nutrients could also be targeted, such as B vitamins, and minerals, such as magnesium and calcium.  Future goals include the combination of multiple nutritional improvements into elite crop varieties without disrupting endogenous metabolic pathways required for plant growth (e.g. amino acid synthesis); this should be achieved in such a way as to ensure transgene and expression stability from generation to generation. This would best be achieved through the direct integration of multiple genes into a single, permissive transgenic locus. There are also regulatory and public perception issues to overcome, such as the current negative perception of GM food in some parts of the world. These should be addressed purely through science-based analysis and divorced from socio-political and regional economic interests, for example, through the oversight of independent, NGO-sponsored panels. Most importantly, nutritionally enhanced crops should be available to those most in need without intellectual property constraints and licensing restrictions, which are often in place for commercial use in the West. Genetic engineering on its own will not eliminate malnutrition, but it can provide a significant component of integrated approaches, which include conventional plant breeding, improved agricultural practices, and efforts to eliminate poverty and improve the welfare of the poorest people in the world, to address what has become one of our most pressing public health issues.


Thanks to my major professor for sending me a link to this article.


Zhu, C., Naqvi, S., Gomez-Galera, S., Pelacho, A., Capell, T., &amp; Christou, P. (2007). Transgenic strategies for the nutritional enhancement of plants  Trends in Plant Science, 12  (12), 548-555 DOI:  10.1016/j.tplants.2007.09.007













Document Number: 8131 



 Transgenics in Peru and Honduras 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 21 April 2009 


Luigi at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog  links  to a pretty good, balanced article about GE crops in both Peru and Honduras. Travis Lupik interviewed a bunch of people, including farmers, to write  Doctored crops stir Latin American debate  , published at Straight. Take a read.


There were a couple slight problems, such as how the article was framed at the beginning ; assuming that banning GE crops protects biodiversity. But this is partly addressed later in the article. This was my favorite passage:


When the Straight arrived on a hot day in February, Mara Mercedes Roca, a professor of biotechnology and an outspoken advocate for GM crops, immediately launched into a defence of GM crops with an attack on conventional farming practices.  Managing diseases the way we have done for the last four or five decades with chemical pesticides doesnt work because we are creating resistance to chemicals, she argued. For Roca, GM crops are an environmentally friendly technology that humans can use to meet growing demands for food.  A former member of Greenpeace and now serving on Hondurass National Committee for Biosafety, Roca said that Zamorano has conducted biosafety trials for Monsanto. She maintained that risks associated with GM crops have been greatly exaggerated. As an example, she showed the Straight a Honduran newspaper clipping that quoted a member of parliament who claimed that GM maize grown in Honduras was linked to the spread of HIV.  Walking Zamoranos fields, Roca listed opponents concerns about GM crops and then quickly explained why she has concluded that each one is baseless.  The risk of cross-pollination is nothing new to agriculture and has been dealt with for hundreds of years, she explained. At Zamorano, crops are planted at different times, fields growing different crops are separated by a minimum of 20 metres, and four-metre-high walls of king grass separate fields to catch seeds travelling in the wind.  Health and environmental concerns related to Bt-modified crops are equally unfounded, Roca continued, making no effort to hide her frustration. After more than a decade of scientific research and commercial production in the U.S., there is no evidence that suggests that transgenic crops are worse for the environment or worse for human health than their conventional counterparts, she claimed.  Roca conceded that the relatively high cost of GM seeds is prohibitive for many poor farmers. But she noted that nobody is forcing anybody to grow GM crops.  For subsistence farmers who dont have access to high-quality soil, fertilizer, and irrigation, GM crops often dont make sense, Roca said. On the other hand, if you even have the bare minimum, it pays. And if you are an industrial producer, it makes every sense.


A former member of Greenpeace, too! Interesting.













Document Number: 5449 



 Transition to Organic 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 22 July 2008 


The  Rodale Institute  , major proponent of organic agriculture, is offering a free online at-your-own-pace  course  that focuses on the transition from conventional to organic farming. They also have a calculator that farmers can use to find how much more (or less, I suppose) their farm can make if they transition to organic, given their specific situation. If you take the course, let me know what you think.  The Rodale Institute does a lot of good work, although I am frustrated by their nonscience views on quite a few topics, including raw milk and genetic engineering. The whole technology-is-evil schtick is less than productive, but many organic techniques are productive. I used to have a very negative view of organic because of their rejection of science, but  Tomorrow;s Table  by Pamela Ronald changed my views. She explains that reduction of chemical inputs and impact on the environment can be best achieved with a combination of organic techniques and careful application of genetic engineering. Buying organic doesn;t necessarily mean ;I think GMOs are evil; but it does mean ;I don;t want to eat pesticides, and am looking for a change.;  Thanks to  Dr. Cornelia Butler Flora  of  NCRCRD  for pointing this course out to ISU;s  Sustainable Agriculture  students.  The course overall is a good introduction to what organic is and its benefits. Not unexpectedly, I do have a few critiques (as well as compliments);


The course includes a too brief history of organic farming that focuses overmuch on the institute itself. I think the not-so-subtle  demonization  of  Norm Borlaug  ;s work is inappropriate, especially considering that his efforts have saved more lives than anything else in history. Yes, some of the fertilizers and pesticides used today do have origins in the chemical industry of WWII and Vietnam, but I think it;s rather a stretch to say that the authors of the Green Revolution intended to hurt people. They just wanted to produce more food, and they did. No one considered the effects of these new farming methods (among other things) on the environment until Rachel Carson realized changes happening around her. We face the challenge of continuing high yields while also protecting the environment. Organic is one answer, but it;s not the only one.


.


The Rodale Institute;s first  definition  of organic farming is: ;Minimal use of external, off-farm inputs coupled with the exclusion of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers as well as growth hormones and antibiotics for livestock;. The key word here is  synthetic  ; because quite a few pesticides are used in organic farming, although they are required to be from natural sources unless there is no other alternative (see  The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances  ). It;s also good that they  clarify  : ;Organic farming is not simply the substitution of approved input materials. It is the replacement of a treatment approach with a process approach to create a balanced system of plant and animal interactions.;


.


One idea left out of the course is that many of the organic ideals can be integrated into conventional farming. I think this is a serious  oversight  , as small changes made by many farms (even conventional ones) can add up quickly for the environment. An example: ;Organic farmers break pest and disease cycles by interspersing crop plots and by not planting the same crop year after year on the same piece of land but instead  rotating them  [original emphasis].; Conventional farmers obviously can and do rotate their crops, although they might not realize the many benefits. On the same page, the course advocates tilling as weed control, even though more than enough research has shown that tilling is bad for the soil and releases greenhouse gasses.


.


A link to the picture heavy  Organic  Center  review  Nutritional Superiority of Organic Foods  is included in the  course  as evidence of why organic is better. The review includes some good information, but I think should be taken with a grain of salt. As I;ve said before on this blog ; we have to consider that some sources have an agenda that may color how they collect and present information. This review, however, seems to be well researched, with only high-quality (as defined by the reviewers) articles selected for inclusion.  EDIT  : There seems to be more to this story, I;ll post on it as soon as I can. In the mean time, check out the  rebuttal  by Dr. Joseph Rosen, ;emeritus professor of food science at Rutgers University and a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health;. Both of these reports are funded by organizations that some say have a vested interest in the results ; which isn;t very helpful for those of us who want to find the truth.


.


The rest of the course gets a  little  deeper into what organic farming actually is in practice, but I get the feeling that it;s not enough. If I was a farmer considering going organic, I;d want more cost-benefit analysis, less vague tree-hugging. I;ll let you finish the rest of the course yourself, or you can comment with questions.













Document Number: 813 



 Transposons, Browsers, and Annotation, oh my! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 16 March 2009 


Friday was the first full day of the  51st Maize Genetics Conference  , and it was filled with all kinds of genetic fun. When I saw the program, I knew I would be up for the first talks of the morning at 8 am, because they were about transposons. The rest of the day was filled with poster presentations, talks about online genetic resources, and a discussion of gene annotation. Anastasia was there with me, and she;ll have all sorts of good stuff to talk about as we give the 51st MGC the exposure it deserves!


Transposons are really neat. Also known as Mobile Genetic Elements, Transposable Elements, or just ;jumping genes,; they are sequences of DNA that are capable of popping out of a chromosome and inserting themselves into another. The most well known kind of transposon contains a gene that encodes for an enzyme called Transposase, which physically chops the transposon out of the DNA strand it is in, and puts it in another. The result is a gene that does not remain in a fixed location, and ;jumps; around the genome from Chromosome to chromosome, turning other genes on and off if it inserts in them or near them. Transposons were first described in Maize, by the famous Cornell biologist Barbara McClintock, and are thought of as some of the source of genetic variations that fuel evolution. Sometimes they can incorporate bits of other genes and move them around, causing all sorts of genetic modifications.


The morning talks were full of transpositional goodness.  We had one talk about using transposons to help in genetic studies where you try to connect genotypes to phenotypes, and one on studying the relationships between different transposons. One very interesting one described a pair of transposons near each other, that could actually pull an entire gene out (between them) to move them somewhere else. Titled Paired Transposons: Natural genetic engineers ; it really makes you wonder what the difference is between genes moved around by the plants themselves or by people intending to move them around?


One transposon talk was truly the highlight of the day for me. It described a newer, quite interesting kind of transposon called a Helitron. It sounds cool, and it is. Helitrons are transposons that have sequence that complements part of itself near one of its ends. What this does is forms a couple ;hairpin loops,; which look like little twisty knots that stick out of the DNA strand. Here is a picture of a Helitron (with an ear of corn behind it).


Helitron superimposed over an ear of maize


Helitrons are a little different from other transposons in how they operate. Rather than being snipped out of a chromosome by transposase and re-incorporated elsewhere, they actually ;roll; into another strand, making a copy of themselves (Leaving a copy behind as well.) It;s called ;Rolling Circle; replication, and here;s a picture of how it works.


Pretty neat, huh? Helitrons have been found with all sorts of pieces of genes inside them. Genes are made up of coding  Exons  and non-coding  Introns  that are spliced out of the mRNA before it is used to make a protein. Helitrons have been found carrying one or more Exons that they captured from other genes. We don;t know at this point whether they can contain entire large genes, but they demonstrate a clear mechanism by which parts of genes get shuffled around the genome, providing more mutational fuel for natural selection.


In Maize, Helitrons make up 1.4% of the genome. It;s already half transposon as it is, but just imagine that every 70th bite of sweet corn you;re eating a mouthful of helitron DNA. Mmm, delicious.


David Tribe has also talked about Helitrons  before at the GMO Pundit  .


It is clear that genomes engineer themselves. Not in a purposeful fashion, mind you, but the random moving and shuffling of genes that has constantly occurred in the evolution of our crops plants makes tweaking or adding one or two genes sound like nothing at all. The analogy between mobile genetic elements and human genetic engineers is not only getting stronger, but was also reflected in the titles of some of these talks.


After lunch, we had the first poster session, displaying grad student posters on topics everywhere from more transposons, to carotenoids (Vitamin A precursors) in maize, database resources, chromosomal variations, outreach efforts, and even a few on switchgrass. Unfortunately for you, the reader, we couldn;t take pictures of the cool posters, because it represents unpublished ongoing research being conducted by grad students, undergrads, and their research groups. But we have heard that poster presenters have the option of submitting their posters to be published online, and when that happens we;ll point out some of the good ones.


This year, I did not have a poster to present, as I already showed off my corn videos last year, and I didn;t have enough evidence in my research to submit an abstract by the deadline in January. (Oh, I will have a lot of sweet sugar enhanced evidence for next year;s conference!) So I had a lot of time to read other posters and get the zeitgeist of maize genetics research. A few techniques here, some strategies there, and I;ve got a few more ideas for my own research goals.


Anastasia, however, did have a poster at the conference, on her research with Maize Zein proteins. Here she is showing off her research; who is that posing with her in the picture? I;m sure she;ll be telling us all more about her project in the near future.


After the poster sessions, it was time to jump back into the lecture hall to learn about some new genetic resources on the web for scientists. One really cool one, called  TARGeT  , allows anyone to take the sequence of a gene, search for similar gene sequences to find related genes, and then also assemble an evolutionary tree from those sequences. I have been wondering (for years) where I could do this without buying a proprietary program, and rest assured I;ll be trying this out soon. It appears that TARGeT, (originally named TERT in the conference abstract book) was intended as a teaching tool for high schools and college classes, but has since morphed into a research platform as well. If you make it easy to assemble genes in a tree based on sequence similarity, you;ll find scientists flocking to it.


There were also some improvements to  MaizeGDB  ,  MaizeSequence.org  , and some other resources that maize geneticists use to do their research.


After dinner, we listened to a talk by Pam Johnson, Chair of the Research and Business Development Action Team of the  National Corn Growers Association  . I will talk about her presentation in a separate post.


Finally, we come to the last event of the day, a panel discussion about Community Gene Annotation. Here;s the problem: We have the sequence of the corn genome in-hand, and there may be upwards of 50,000 genes in it. We have evidence of these genes through sequence analysis, expressed genes discovered through research, and more. But our computer gene-processing algorithms aren;t very good at annotating them, and well-assembled genes in the database will be very helpful for future research.


So the panel discussion set out to get input from the Maize Genetics community. They wanted to Wikify it, allowing researchers to log in, edit, and have their annotations proof-read by others. Bit by bit, with hundreds of people contributing a little, we could complete this task in a few years.


Well, that;s what the panel set out to do, but in my opinion, it was an unsuccessful exercise. The conversation happened between two panelists on the right side, and a member of the audience. More time was spent discussing minor details about how it would work in a technical sense, and those on the left hand side hardly had a chance to contribute. Maybe the one or two scientists in the audience who dominated the discussion should have been on the panel, and the panel should have had a little more direction.


When it came to how to encourage scientists to voluntarily contribute to the maize gene annotation semi-wiki, the emphasis was on the stick rather than the carrot. I felt like going to the microphone to suggest ;fabulous prizes; or ;fame and glory in the community; for top annotation editors, if I didn;t feel so bored and annoyed. It also went on too long.


Later, I talked to my roommate from Oregon about it and my experience with wikis such as the Davis Wiki. And in a tight-knit-enough community, the social incentive to be a [top] contributor was a pretty powerful motivator that built over 10,000 pages. The Maize Genetics community is pretty tight-knit, and that seems like a good starting point for a massively collaborative project like this. Perhaps with prizes, recognition at the meeting, or dangling other carrots (rather than thwacking potential annotators with sticks), it could get done. Wikis are a ground-up kind of community, and I don;t think top-down requirements will be as helpful. Truth be told, I think I had a better chat with my roommate about the issue than the panel did. There, I said it.


I;m looking forward to being able to contribute to the annotation process, as in my own research I have assembled a few candidate genes for my own gene, only to find out that they were excluded by my latest mapping data. That information is lost and would have to be re-done by someone else, so I plan to enter it in this system when it is ready. This kind of system will be good, because there;s nothing that a few hundred knowledgeable and experienced geneticists can;t do with the maize genome.


At 9:30, we broke for some casual socializing, poster viewing, with a few free drinks sprinkled in. Anastasia and I both had some good conversations with researchers, including one very fortuitous meeting, where we got a lot of good info about resources to look up. We also had a chance to promote the Biofortified blog and make plans for the next day at the Maize Genetics Conference. Stay tuned for more!













Document Number: 2709 



 True food? Maybe, but its proponents are spreading lies. 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 5 December 2008 


What follows is the second in my series of responses to Greenpeace;s True Food Guide  Questions and Answers  . This one focuses on question number 6: ;How do GE crops affect the environment?;


As you read this, it might seem that I am turning the facts around. Please remember that I;m just trying to fill in the other half of the story. If I was to write a paper on the possible effects of GM crops, I would include information on both positive and negative effects. I understand that it isn;t Greenpeace;s goal to provide both sides of the story, but they really should, if they want to help consumers make good decisions. Instead, they are only providing half of the story, as well as half truths and some outright lies, and effectively telling people what to think, instead of responsibly spreading information. No matter your views, this is just wrong! If you;d like to know more details about any of these points, or if you would like to see some peer-reviewed research to back anything up, just let me know in a comment.


On to the response!


There is growing scientific evidence that GE crops are harmful to biodiversity and the environment.


Where is this evidence? Strangely, no specific examples are given.


Furthermore, once GE crops are released into the environment they cannot be recalled. As living organisms they can reproduce and pollute indefinitely.


I can only imagine that they are referring to gene flow from transgenic plants to non-transgenic plants. This is actually a rather complex subject, because we every GM crop is not the same. Some GM plants are a lot easier to contain than others, and some need less containment than others. Variables include the new traits they contain, inherent traits in the species, the location, and the farming situation. To give you an idea of the wide range of individual situations, here are a few real world examples of GM plants that are either already available or in various phases of research, plus a little speculation about related situations that have not yet arisen.


Consider  poplar trees  engineered with a gene from rabbits to pick up toxins like trichloroethylene from contaminated soil then metabolize them into harmless compounds. Since poplar trees don;t flower until they are about 5 years old, they can be harvested after 4 years, before they even have a chance to produce pollen. What if a tree was allowed to flower, and pollen spread onto nearby poplars? This gene has no benefit for natural plants, so it won;t be selected for in future generations, and will simply remain in the population at low levels. It won;t cause any problems for plants that happen to end up with the gene, and nearby soils will actually be improved, not harmed. In the case of genes such as these, that benefit the environment, we might actually consider letting the gene spread into the natural population on purpose. Some candidate traits for intended release would be resistance to insects or disease in cases where the natural plant population would be wiped out without human intervention (such as with Whitebark Pine and Emerald Ash Borer).


Consider  banana plants  engineered to produce an antigen that will be used for edible vaccinations against Hepatitis B. Banana trees actually don;t reproduce sexually, instead propagating vegetatively, so there is no gene flow with other plants. Like the poplars, plants that do have the gene don;t have any benefits over plants that do not, but the gene does not harm the plants or nearby environment either. If the antibody was proposed to be put into a plant that does reproduce sexually, then we would need to consider ways to prevent unintended pollination, such as only growing the plants in greenhouses, or emasculating the flowers of the plants so the pollen could not spread. Some crops that do reproduce sexually, such as potato, are actually grown from tubers so ;contamination; of seed would not be a problem unless there were wild relatives nearby.


Consider corn engineered with the Bt toxin as protection against certain herbivorous insects (for details on how the Bt toxin works, please see  The Butterfly Affected  from Canada;s  Virtual Science Fair  ). Corn, unlike bananas, does reproduce sexually with copious amounts of pollen. Unlike poplars, corn is harvested after  pollination. The Bt gene does confer an advantage to plants, so would be selected for in future generations. This presents a big problem, especially if the gene spreads to weedy relatives of corn like tripsacum or to other corn fields, but there are quite a few different ways to solve it. I;ve written about some of these ways in a post titled  Gene Flow, IP, and the Terminator  . To summarize, though, corn pollen is really heavy so doesn;t travel far. It can be contained by simply planting a border of another type of corn around it to ;soak up; pollen, by planting it a certain distance away from other corn fields or native populations, or by using plants that produce sterile pollen. Because of the possibility of pollen flow, however small it might actually be, corn really isn;t a good choice for production of certain compounds like pharmaceuticals ; plants that have limited or no sexual reproduction are much better, for the reasons discussed above.


There is one more important detail regarding gene flow that few people are talking about. We should be worried not about transgenes, but gene flow from all domestic crops to wild populations of that crop or relatives of the crop. I wrote about this in some detail in a post called  Contaminated  . To summarize, wild populations have a much greater degree of genetic diversity than domestic fields. They have lots of genes that allow the population to react over time to things like disease and drought. These wild populations are a resource for plant breeders and genetic engineers who might be looking for beneficial traits. When domesticated pollen fertilizes wild relatives, that genetic diversity becomes diluted. If this was a one time event, then the population would recover ; the hybrid plants usually won;t be at an advantage over their 100% wild neighbors. However, when the wild population is fertilized with domestic pollen year after year, the population dynamics can change quickly, especially for annuals. I;m not saying that we shouldn;t have domesticated crops, but we might want to rethink growing any domestic crops without safeguards near wild populations.


The introduction of herbicide-tolerant GE crops to the US has resulted in a huge increase in both herbicide use, and the incidence of herbicide-resistant weeds.


Nope. The introduction of herbicide resistant crops has decreased overall herbicide use, and more importantly, has decreased the use of more toxic herbicides like atrazine (deadly to bees and fish) in favor of the relatively benign glyphosate, which binds tightly to soil then degrades. Herbicide resistant crops have also allowed farmers to avoid tilling their fields (a physical weed control method), decreasing the release of greenhouse gases from the soil and decreasing removal of topsoil by water and wind. Fields of herbicide resistant crops have lower levels of pesticide in their runoff than conventional crops, according to a February 2008  study  done by the USDA. However, even though it is comparatively better than other herbicides, glyphosate (and its typical additives) does have its own issues (see paragraphs on toxicity below).


All herbicides (whether used in conjunction with resistant crops or not) have increased probabilities of weed resistance developing the longer that they are used. Ideally, farmers would use complex rotation patterns, switching herbicides (and crops, and insecticides, and;) each year to prevent resistance from developing. Even better, they could integrate some natural weed control methods, such as planting grass between rows of crops, or moving away from they typical annual crops of corn and soy (and to a lesser extent, canola), although I see this as less likely. Regardless of how they are using


Roundup, the herbicide sold by Monsanto in conjunction with its Roundup Ready GE crops, has been shown to be a potential endocrine disrupter ; that is, it could interfere with our hormones. It is also toxic to certain wildlife, such as tadpoles.


As I said above, glyphosate is a relatively benign herbicide. It very well could be an endocrine disruptor (there haven;t been enough studies yet to prove this), but again, it;s far far better than other herbicides. If these chemicals are indeed bad, then we need to restrict the use of the chemicals. It has nothing to do with genetic engineering, and everything to do with farming methods.


The introduction of GE canola has been shown to have serious biodiversity impacts. For example, a UK government study found there were 24% fewer butterflies in the margins of GE canola fields because there were fewer weed flowers (and hence nectar) for them to feed on. In addition, there were fewer seeds for birds.


This quote is presumably referring to herbicide resistant canola, and it makes a lot of sense. Less weeds producing fewer flowers producing nectar and fewer weeds producing seed for fewer butterflies and fewer weed seed eating birds. I haven;t seen the study, but I bet they compared a field sprayed with herbicide to one that was not sprayed with herbicide. The decrease in biodiversity has nothing to do with genetic engineering and everything to do with herbicide. To me, this speaks more against certain farming methods than against GM crops. These farming methods were developed to produce copious amounts of grain, which is used to feed animals. It;s really simple ; if you want to improve biodiversity, fight against conventional farming methods by avoiding grain fed meat and animal products. Again, for emphasis, this has nothing to do with genetic engineering and everything to do with factory farming!


The use of Roundup on GE soy has also been shown to have an adverse impact on soil health, leading to reduced amounts of beneficial nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.


Sure, some soil bacteria are affected by herbicides, while a few types survive, which can reduce biodiversity. This is a problem, but again ; not a genetic engineering issue (see above).


Insect-resistant GE crops (termed Bt crops) have been shown to be toxic to ;non-target; organisms (such as butterflies) and beneficial insects (such as green lacewings).


This is true ; sort of. If, in carefully controlled laboratory settings, you force feed a butterfly large amounts of pollen from a transgenic plant expressing Bt from a constitutive promoter, then yes, the butterfly will die. However, butterflies don;t eat pollen, and generally aren;t even near corn field when they are shedding pollen (again, see  The Butterfly Affected  ). Neither do lacewings. Both butterflies and lacewings, along with a host of other beneficial insects, are certainly susceptible to broad spectrum insecticides, which Bt can and does decrease use of. There are more beneficial insects in number and in diversity in Bt fields than in conventional non-Bt fields. And, using tissue specific promoters solves the problem of Bt in pollen.


They also threaten soil and water ecosystems, since many Bt crops secrete Bt toxins from the root into the soil.


Some Bt crops are designed to express Bt in the roots, but do not ;secrete Bt toxins; ; it stays in the roots. Root expression of Bt is specifically used in corn to combat root borer, which can devastate fields. The amount of Bt toxin that ends up in the soil and subsequently in the water is virtually nothing, especially when we compare it to regular insecticide run off.


Agricultural wastes from Bt maize have been identified entering water courses.


Plant matter from all sorts of crops has ;been identified entering water courses;. But this essentially means nothing, except that maybe we should harvest these waste materials for biofuels (see the second half of my post  Even scientists make mistakes  for more). There is no evidence that Bt leaches from these residues.


Bt crops are intended to prevent the need for three applications of insecticide.


Bt crops do prevent the need for insecticide applications that are needed for the particular insect pest that is susceptible to the particular version of the Bt toxin that is used. They aren;t a silver bullet and should be used in conjunction with a Integrated Pest Management plan (and preferably crop rotations and non-Bt refuges to prevent insect resistance).


Yet Bt maize varieties continuously release a toxin into the environment in quantities 3000-5000 times higher than the sprays used for non-GM farming.


Bt crops do not ;continuously release a toxin into the environment;. Instead, they keep the toxin safely locked away in plant tissues, where it can only affect insects that try to eat the plants. This is very much preferred to insect control methods that do not discriminate.


In 1935, some 3000 imported cane toads were introduced in north Queensland to control native cane beetle populations. Today, cane toad numbers exceed 200 million, spreading into neighbouring states and threatening local biodiversity.


In 1935, we made a lot of bad decisions. We just didn;t have the experience we do now.


We learnt an important lesson from this ; playing around with natural ecosystems can have unpredictable effects which are extremely difficult to undo. This is just as true for the genetic engineering of crops.


I understand the point that they are trying to make here. Unfortunately, we have been ;playing around with natural ecosystems; intentionally and unintentionally for a long time. The biggest instance of our ;playing around; is the number of humans on the earth. We will not be able to feed every person with existing farming methods, even if we assume perfect distribution. We are failing to satisfy the daily nutritional needs of every person even today! As the number of people on the planet increases, the disparity will only get worse. I refuse to accept a scenario which includes a large human die off or to write off human suffering. If a GM crop like drought tolerant rice or Bt eggplant can keep people from starving, with little or no negative impact on the environment, then we have a moral imperative to make sure that they have them. This might seem a little off topic, but this point is worthy of consideration. It;s easy for a well-fed (or over-fed) American, European, or Australian to put their nose up at this technology, but it;s not about us. We can not make the decision for the developing world, or even for the developed world. We need to stop the conceit and deceit of claims that genetic engineering is worse than all of the other things we do. Farming itself (no matter how organic or biointensive) is unnatural and irreparably changes the landscape, but very few people are calling for the end of farming. We need to move ahead responsibly, which we can best do through cooperation and level headedness.


In fact, the risks associated with GE crops may be greater ; pollination through open air exacerbates the potential for contamination and hampers containment.


I covered this at the beginning of this post.


To date no assessments of the environmental impacts of GE crops have been undertaken in Australia. However, one thing is certain ; once harmful effects become apparent, it will already be too late.


Why isn;t Greenpeace funding studies to assess the environmental impacts? As soon as there was good data (from sound, peer-reviewed research) showing problems with any particular GM crop, deregulation of that crop would be denied. They could put their money where their mouth is. Instead, they make vague claims.













Document Number: 4144 



 Tuesday at BIO 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 21 May 2009 


Although half of my day was spent traveling to the BIO convention There was still plenty for me to see starting at lunchtime. During Tuesday;s lunch, they gave awards to high school students for biotech-related research, and the Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue gave a speech positioning Georgia as a future center for biotech research.


It was his state of Georgia, however where those infamous stickers disparaging evolution could be found ; Cobb County to be precise. In 2004, his statement  for a ;balanced; approach  to teaching evolution ; where it is not taught as ;fact.; Apparently he wants the benefits of a thriving biotechnology industry in his state without supporting the bedrock of modern biology in his state;s high school science classrooms. It seems that  Florida  is not the only state where the living is contradictory!


The star of the lunchtime diversion from our food, however, was Elton John.  With music awards too numerous to list, and a prominent role in the fight against HIV and AIDS, he delivered an impassioned speech in which he said that we are losing. Not only have we not been able to completely stop the spread of the disease on a biological level, but the primary ground that we are losing on is the social level. Although his speech was not about plants, it was excellent and I would like to share a portion of it:


I recorded the last ten minutes of his speech, which I will post later on my  blog  . Elton John;s speech was emphatic, moving, and a real treat to witness.


The first panel discussion that I attended was called Saving Harvests, Lives &amp; Livelihoods: Breakthroughs in Plant Stress Tolerance Technologies. This was certainly the most science-heavy talk that I went to during the convention. Luckily, I had just completed my plant physiology course one week ago, so when the speakers talked about sodium transport proteins and Abscisic Acid sensitivity and how manipulating them may help modify plants to endure environmental stresses, it was very digestible. The research content of the panel was partly due to the fact that two of the four panelists were university professors.


They talked about drought tolerance, salt tolerance, adaptations to a world with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which was all good. But more than just describing possibilities, one panelist had pictures of corn and tomatoes modified with the same gene, demonstrating drought tolerance with adding a single gene. (I;ll see if I can get those pictures.) The most surprising thing I learned was that it is estimated that we get less than a quarter of the full genetic potential of the crop that we grow ; and with 70% of the losses due to abiotic stress, you can easily see the potential to increase crop yields by preventing those losses. Losses which might get worse as our climate continues to change.


I wrote the whole thing up, which you can read on the AgBiotech@Bio blog:  Saving Plants from Stress  .


Then finally, I hurried out to sit in the audience of a ;  Think &amp; Drink  .; Although I didn;t get a drink myself, there was a pretty good crowd of people listening in on a conversation between several members of academia and industry, relaxing with various forms of ethanol delivery mechanisms. The discussion was titled,  Industry Is from Mars, Academia Is from Venus  , and it was moderated by the Editor of Nature Biotechnology, Andrew Marshall. When I got there they seemed to be wrapping up a discussion about how the two kinds of researchers differ in their approaches and interactions. The rest of the discussion mainly focused on the hairy issues of public-private partnerships, and there were some good points made about conflicts of interest. (And a brief discussion about patents)


I particularly liked some of the comments made by Christopher Scott, from the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. He drew some important distinctions between the kinds of conflicts of interest that arise in public-private partnerships in basic research, versus clinical trials. The latter, of course, is extremely problematic because it involves testing things on  people  . While also discussing the degree to which researchers can get vested in these arrangements, he also joked about how many deals stem cell researcher  Irving Weissman  has coming his direction all the time.


When it came to the discussion about these partnerships, I noticed that none of the panelists were particularly critical of the concept itself ; I think the discussion would have been improved if there was someone who was a little more wary of such interactions. (Part of why I thought Chris;s contributions to the discussion were so valuable.) Not that I;m particularly wary of such interactions myself, but discussions are better if the viewpoints are a little more widely distributed.


After the panel discussion, I also had a good conversation with Chris about stem cell research, a little politics, and the need to continue to study embryonic stem cells. We discussed the methods that some researchers are using to try to generate ES cells from adult cells, which often comes up in political discussions as an ;alternative; to ES cell research ; ignoring the fact that in order to know if you have reverted an adult cell to an embryonic state, you need to be studying ES cells in the first place!


I snagged Andrew Marshall for a moment to say hi and tell him about Biofortified. Hey, how often do you get to meet the editor of a scientific journal? (Ok twice so far, that I have been aware of ; they;re nondescript.) Although I was tired from getting up at 4 am that morning for my flight, I did my best to cogently explain what I hope to accomplish with the blog. Wouldn;t it be great to have us profiled in a journal article? It is not a new thing for science blogs. Let that be a prod to my fellow bloggers.


Tuesday was a fairly light day, and as I wound down the evening I didn;t realize how busy I was going to be on Wednesday; to be continued.


Full Disclosure: My trip to the BIO convention is courtesy of the Council for Biotechnology Information. I am also not getting paid for anything I write about the convention.


P.S. If you see any pictures from the BIO convention with someone wearing a bright orange pumpkin-print shirt, let me know because I know I was in the line-of-sight of some snapping cameras Tuesday!













Document Number: 5814 



 Union of Concerned Scientists: GE crops have NOT decreased yields 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 16 April 2009 


The  Union of Concerned Scientists  , a progressive political science-activism organization, just released a report Tuesday on GE crops and yield. Written by Doug Gurian-Sherman, the new report is titled Failure to Yield. You can read the  whole thing here  , and the  press release is here  .


Of course, as the title of the report suggests, Gurian-Sherman did not explicitly conclude that GE crops have not decreased yields ; he concluded that GE crops did not  increase  yields significantly. At face value, it seems like a reasonable conclusion, one that follows from my understanding of the GE traits that are currently grown: mostly herbicide tolerance and pest resistance. In the case of herbicide tolerance in corn and soy, Gurian-Sherman concluded that the trait did not increase yields, while progress in plant breeding continues to do so.


Also fairly reasonable-sounding is his conclusion that pest resistance from Bt crops did increase yield slightly ; increasing yield by about 3-4% since its introduction in 1996. I have yet to delve into how he makes these determinations, you can expect another post from me on this report down the road. (Especially since Gurian-Sherman has been  saying elsewher  e that Bt contributed 4-5% ; which is it?) But as far as the press release is concerned, it is leaving out crucial information ; Bt corn has allowed (slightly) higher yields to be grown  with fewer pesticides  . That;s the point of a pest resistance trait such as Bt.


A very important point worth mentioning is that Gurian-Sherman only studied two traits in two crops ; three combinations in total. This doesn;t support the sweeping conclusion that is made about the future contributions of this technology to yields. In fact, to be exact, the reports findings would lead to the conclusion that herbicide tolerance and Bt traits in corn and soy don;t contribute significantly to yields overall.


And this paragraph in the press release appears to be false:


The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but  Failure to Yield  documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.


At GMO Pundit, David Tribe  saved an article  about a yield-increasing biotechnology trait that increases soybean yields by 6 to 7 percent, tested in 56 field environments. This hasn;t been published in a peer-reviewed journal as far as I know, but Gurian-Sherman should have been aware of this ; it was published over three months ago.


At the Council for Biotechnology Information;s new BIO convention blog, they  posted  a few reactions to Failure to Yield. One, by Wayne Parrot at the University of Georgia:


The report is at odds with the results from the experience of farmers around the world. At the very least, the current biotech crops are preventing yield losses to pests. In the end, it is not just about yield- it is about the ability to practice no-till farming (thus saving fossil fuels and preventing soil erosion); it is about the ability to use less insecticides, it is about the ability to make farming easier and more profitable and sustainable. So even if there were no yield advantage, there are plenty of other reasons to use biotech crops.


Anyway, take a look at the report and let me know what you think. When I have a little time I;ll give it a thorough read. But it will be interesting to see what people find in the analysis.


To bring it back to the title of this post ; I would like to mention how many anti-GE activists claim that genetic engineering has  decreased  yields. Those same organizations are now clamoring with joy, but if they accept the conclusions of this paper, they must also accept that genetic engineering did not decrease yields. If the UCS found any hint of that in the literature, you know that would be the headline!













Document Number: 4944 



 USDA Organic-Biotech report pulled 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 18 September 2009 


The USDA Report by Cyndi Barmore,    The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production  , has recently been pulled from the USDA website. This is the USDA;s  explanation  :


;   On May 26, 2009, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) posted a Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN) report titled, The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production. This report should have been accompanied by a clear statement that the report does not represent the policy of the United States Government, and given this, the report has been removed from the agencys Web site. It should be noted that USDAs National Organic Program regulations exclude the use of genetically engineered organisms in organic production. Additionally, FAS has no role in the administration of the National Organic Program.  ;


It turns out that there was a resounding negative response from certain organizations that do not like genetic engineering ; and the very thought of organic + biotech is disconcerting. It led to a pile of emails sent in the USDA;s direction.


The  Organic Consumer;s Association  told a whopper when they first heard about it:


This USDA report attempting to make the case for ;organic genetically engineering; is part of a well-funded campaign coordinated by Monsanto and their governmental, corporate, and non-profit partners to legitimize a dangerous and untested technology.


First of all, USDA employees are very careful about their contacts. Secondly, according to GE opponents, Monsanto is all about the chemicalz. So why would they be interested in GE organic crops, when they can;t sell their roundup herbicide to those farmers? Finally, the OCA has no evidence that the few people promoting the Organic-Biotech partnership, such as Pam Ronald, are funded by Monsanto in any way. No research in her laboratory is funded by any company, for example. This is a cynical attempt at poisoning the well. If they can prevent fans of organic from considering the arguments, then they have accomplished their goal.


The  Grassroots Netroots Alliance  issued a call to action, which may have been the source of the deluge of emails:


Please use the form below to tell the USDA that you (1) oppose their cynical attempt to promote genetic engineering as potentially organic


One wonders why they are so resistant to this possibility. If Organic agriculture is all about moving toward a more sustainable, biological way of farming, genetically engineered traits that can help that would be an ideal tool to include in that system. The GNA, however, tells us the reason for the opposition:


One reason consumers shop for things that are certified organic is to avoid the ubiquitous and unlabeled  genetically engineered  and  nanotech  products that have filled stores in recent years.   After so many years of beating back attempts to contaminate organic with untested technologies, it is very discouraging to learn that the  USDA under Obama  , just like under Clinton and Bush, is still trying to help industry destroy organic.


What would be ;destroyed; is the perception that organic is a  refuge  for people with food fears. Without that psychological assurance, they fear that they will lose some customers. In my humble opinion, I think organic should be a positive vision of what agriculture should be, not a negative vision of what it shouldn;t.


Jill Richardson of La Vida Locavore  says  that putting the report up on the web in the first place was a no-no, but I think the knee-jerk closed-minded response of some people to this possibility is the real no-no. The signal they have sent to the USDA is  ;don;t think about how to make agriculture better ; just satisfy our predispositions.  ;


The Fanatic Cook  noticed the report, and did give it some thought, for a millisecond:


;Organic-Biotech.; If ever there was an oxymoron.


Well I suppose you could use an ox in organic ag, but what about the moron? Tee hee. This is one of the problems that genetic engineering in organic agriculture faces ; because of how the political lines were drawn early on in the history of organic standards, now people are just defending the standards as-is, without going back to what is the real basis for the exclusion. In other words, they are defending a historical contingency ; something that people decided in the past before understanding how genetic engineering could be used to help organic production. And so the status quo is assumed to be the right way, without any thoughtful analysis whatsoever.


Indeed, if Bix at The Fanatic Cook thought about the meaning of  Biotechnology  , they would realize that organic  is  biotechnology. A technology using biology, from inserting genes with a gene gun, to making cheese with enzymes and fungi, is a bio-technology. Using cover crops, rotations, beneficial insects, and Bt-toxin producing bacteria are all biotechnologies ; Organic is a term that refers to a specific set of biotechnology. The question is, will the organic system and its adherents be open to one more bio-technology in that system, or will we need to look elsewhere for a rational, scientific approach to growing crops?


In the meantime, I have uploaded the  USDA report here  so that you can still download and read it. The USDA should have never pulled the report form the site ; a clarification that the agency is not taking a position on the issue, but is allowing discussion to take place would have been the proper response. Looks like it;s not just the organic folks that are too sensitive to the boat being rocked.













Document Number: 5630 



 USDA Report on Organic + Biotech 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 3 August 2009 


(Hat tip to  Southest Farm Press  )


Cyndi Barmore authored a report for the USDA;s Foreign Agricultural Service titled  The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production  . It was published on May 26, 2009, but I just heard about it now. Here;s the introduction:


The organic movement rejects biotechnology as inherently contradictory to its fundamental goal of promoting environmental protection in agriculture. European organic promoters in particular stress respect for nature over yield maximization, campaigning for a return to traditional production methods and inputs. [1] In reality, the divide between organics and biotechnology is an artificial construction maintained by ideology rather than science. A governmental decision to change organic regulations to permit the use of biotechnology could have far-reaching policy implications for global agriculture. Allowing producers to gain organic certification for biotech crops could encourage the development of a new type of environmentally sustainable agricultural production with greater benefits for the consumer.


The report talks about several biotech traits that could benefit organic growing systems, including  salt and drought tolerance, insect and disease resistance, and other losses that biotechnology could address. Barmore also talks briefly about the history of the organic movement, and how many of its goals are in line with the goals of biotechnology. What does she conclude should be done about it?


Governments should change their regulations to allow producers to gain organic certification for biotech crops grown with organic methods. Such a system would better achieve the organic movements stated goals of environmental sustainability and the promotion of human health. At the very least, regulations should not include different standards for the unintentional addition of conventional and biotech ingredients in organic products. Doing so unnecessarily increases the stigma of biotechnology, stifling global technological development without scientific justification.


She argues that what is needed are governments to change organic to include biotech. The other option that is not mentioned is to incorporate organic growing methods into a new agricultural standard that also includes some genetically engineered crops. The best name I have heard for this is ;Or  gen  ic;.


Interestingly, the report makes no mention of Tomorrow;s Table by Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, including in its references. Perhaps Barmore didn;t know about the book, but if so, it would have been good to include it so people who are curious could read about it in more depth.













Document Number: 6754 



 User Profiles and more 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 28 September 2010 


Lately, discussion at Biofortified has been going strong.  One post  passed 100 comments, and  another  is about to do the same. People have started using the forum again, and registrations have also been coming in. Heck, immediately after our discussion with Jeffrey Smith, a few more people signed up to comment! Last week, we passed the 2,000 comment mark, in far less time than it took to get to the first kilo-comment. Let;s keep it going!


One of the things that we hope to build here is a community of people of all stripes, spots, and other allelic combinations who feel comfortable discussing issues in genetics and agriculture despite their disagreements. And hopefully coming out of that we may find that we have fewer disagreements than we started with. We try to put a face and words to the people who run and write the blog, and those who send in contributions ; but there hasn;t been much of an opportunity to learn more about our regular readers and commentators, and for you to learn about each other. One of the things that makes this blog different is that we  want  people to discuss what we write about, and discuss what  they  want to write about, too. Just as we try to show how multidimensional we are, so too is everyone who sticks around on this blog. So to expand our possibilities, I;m happy to announce that very soon we will have a custom user profile system in place, and by very soon, I mean the end of the week.


WordPress is a great blog platform because of the innumerable combinations of functions that it can do with the right plugins. There isn;t much of a built-in user profile, what there is when you login to your dashboard only shows up in your profile page within the forum. I have identified two plugins that are really going to help us out in this regard, and figured out how to make them work together. One will give everyone a public profile page, and the other will fill it with custom information that we can pre-define and you can fill out about yourselves. Both will allow you to upload pictures of yourself or your favorite plant to customize your comment avatars or have around for the heck of it. Before we can implement this super-awesome suite of community capabilities, however, we need some input from all of you. What would you like to see in a profile page?


Here is a short list of some things that I plan to include in the profile options:


Links to social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, what other ones do you use?)  An extended profile window for telling the world about yourself.   Other contact information, such as email, phone (if you dare), and  home address  (just kidding)   A text box where you can list your favorite posts or discussions on this blog with links  Pick your favorite posts that will automatically assemble into a list on your profile  More fields for entering your websites (lab website, blog 1, blog 2;  Uploading images to a gallery for avatar icons and more  One or two sections that you can name yourself and put what you want in them.


What would you like to learn about other users? What would you like to tell them about yourselves? Want a special section for hobbies? Or what about a box where you can describe your overall opinion and approach to genetic engineering? Please let me know so I can add it to the system. You have until this weekend, the beginning of October to make suggestions, otherwise it will be set in stone forever! (Actually no, it will be easy to add more sections in the future, but I would rather put it all together at once.)


We are hoping that this will encourage more people to register for the blog and build the kind of community that we hope to have at Biofortified. And as an incentive to fill out those profiles, in preparation for our first Biennial celebration on the 31st, we will have several chances to win some fabulous blog  schwag  by being a part of the discussion ; and you will have to have a profile to win. More details later, so first let me know what you think would be good to include in the new user profile pages.













Document Number: 1863 



 Vedic businesses use clever advertising to implant beliefs about &quot;Natural Law&quot; in consumers psyches 


 by  David Tribe  on 10 December 2010 


Over at  ; Consider Icarus;;  Cami Ryan had posted this on:


Genetic ID and its questionable connections;


By gathering information and data points through a review of publically available online information (journal articles and web pages), I generated a network on Genetic ID and the firm;s connections to a complexity of actors and institutions. The resulting network outlines what is clearly a convoluted network of bias ; both politically and theologically ; against GE and GMO. With the recent Triffid issue,Genetic ID has stood to reap significant financial benefits through testing revenues (I should qualify this ; - ; the company is ;presumed; to have gained financially).


Updated network diagram. Connections between Genetic ID and other organisations involved in anti-GMO activity or related food industry activities. Diagram by Cami Ryan, click for larger image.


Please note, Jeffrey Smith of ;Seeds of Deception; fame is at the centre of this network. Also, the Maharashi (Transcendental Meditation ;TM; yogi) and his affiliated interests and institutions are also central. Most of the organizations and several of the individuals are from Fairfield, Iowa where the Maharashi University is centred. The Maharashi is a proponent of Vedic Science (look it up, weird stuff) and established the Natural Law Party whose platform revolves around the Vedic Science and TM. The  Natural Law Party  has branches in the US and in New Zealand.


This work is preliminary. What are your thoughts on this?


Update. 11/12/2010 1.02 PM Melbourne time


Cami has just posted an extra to this story of Maharishi goings-on with a celebrity kicker to the story line ; Dr Oz is part of the network.


Here is a slab of that posting, (but why not go to  Consider Icarus  to get the full story):  The Wizardry of Oz  a peek behind the curtain of the anti-GM movement  Consider Icarus blog post (11/12/2010)


Last year when the whole Triffid (flax) issue came to light, I did some research on Genetic ID, the lab/firm behind the discovery of Triffid in the EU food supply chain. The main question that I had was ; what;s the incentive for this particular lab to sniff out GM? (in addition to generating rents, of course)


Earlier this year, I took the initiative to mine some publicly available information on the internet and uncovered some interesting linkages amongst Genetic ID, the Maharishi Institute, the Natural Law Party and other anti-GM/GE individuals, organizations and firms. See the network below. The connections illustrated within the network represent a variety of linkages from board positions, organizational memberships, funding connections, fiscal interests in firms/companies, attendance at common events or like-sponsorship activities. This data set, and the network, is  by no means  complete. But the graph certainly sheds an interesting light on the interconnectedness amongst actors in this anti-GM/GE context.


[See Network image above]


Genetic ID is at the centre of the network but I would like to draw your attention to another node: Jeffrey Smith. You will recall that Smith got the lions share of airtime and the accolades (relative to Dr. Pam Ronald) on the Dr. Oz episode earlier this week on Genetic Engineering and GM Food. Jeffrey Smith is the VP of Communications for Genetic ID. He also has close connections to the Natural Law Party and, although I was unable to find a documented or direct connection to it, the Maharishi Institute. The Maharishi  a Transcendental Meditation ;TM; yogi  and his legacy of affiliated interests and institutions are also central. Most of the organizations and several of the individuals are from Fairfield, Iowa where the Maharishi University is centered. The Maharishi is a proponent of Vedic Science (look it up, weird stuff) who established the Natural Law Party. The NLPs platform revolves around the Vedic Science and TM (Jeffrey Smith ran for US senate in 1998 in Iowa for the NLP). The Natural Law Party has branches in both the US and in New Zealand. (check out Smith practicing yogic flying on:  Academics Review  ).


Now, if that wasnt peculiar enough, heres the real kicker. I decided to check into celebrity links with the Maharishi Institute (why not?). There are numerous celebrities connected to the Maharishi Institute through fundraising events and sponsorship. These include Ringo Starr, Clint Eastwood, Russell Brand, Katy Perrythe list goes on and on. David Lynch is also one of them. He established the  David Lynch Foundation  to support the teaching of TM.


But, interestingly enough, guess who is also part of this celebrity network? Yep ; Dr Oz. Apparently, Lynch, Oz and some other celebrities, including Clint Eastwood and George Lucas, got together for a fundraiser in late November in an effort to  bring Transcendental Meditation to veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder  . And if you happen to be in NYC on Monday night, you might even want to take in the David Lynch Foundation  ;Change Begins Within; Benefit Event  at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Dr. Oz will be there;.


The Pundit;s Response


I;m sure we can add Australian examples to the connections between the Maharishi organisations and followers and opposition to genetic modification. In Australia the   Natural Law Party  participated in the several election campaigns of the late 90s and often campaigned on the basis of opposition to genetic modification in agriculture, and the links between the  Natural Law Party  and the Maharishi followers are numerous. For example, Adelaide businessman Peter Fenwick, and teacher-consultant Vladimir Lorentzon were candidates in those elections. Both  Fenwick and Lorentz are involved in activities  associated with the  Maharishi cult  .


The policy of the  Natural Law Party  of Australia (now apparently defunct) was to oppose the use of genetic engineering in agriculture but we can  still read about these policies in the archived websites  of the party at the National Library of Australia. Peter Fenwick has remained active in networking and lobbying against genetic modification for many year,s and several results of his lobbying appear on the public record in government agencies in Australia, accessible by Google searching.


Editor;s note: Some of the links in this post weren;t formatted correctly. They were fixed on 11 Dec 10.













Document Number: 5940 



 Veterans in Science and Engineering 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 5 June 2008 


Last month, 8 veterans who are students in science and engineering were interviewed for  Science Careers  , a publication of AAAS. I was lucky to be included. Alan Kotok, managing editor of Science Careers, conducted my interview over the phone. The series is called  Student Veterans Come Marching Home  . He wrote two articles:  Their Return to Studies  and  A New GI Bill for Scientists  . The interviews are in the first, while the second discusses the ;21st Century GI Bill;. Beryl Benderly wrote  Taken for Granted: Over Here  , an article that suggests that science careers might be appropriate for veterans. The article and companion  podcast  do a good job of explaining how difficult the transition to student from service can be. I;m pleased with the article and especially tickled that Mr. Kotok included a link to Genetic Maize. I am bashful to have been quoted on quite a few subjects, including the closing statement. I;ve posted the text of the article below the cut, but you may want to visit the website to view pictures of the veterans.


Student-Veterans Come Marching Home: Their Return to Studies


Alan Kotok United States 6 June 2008


F  ive years ago, Sgt. Sarah Neyer was serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq. In the fall, she;ll start a Ph.D. program in mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


Neyer is one of many veterans of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan coming back on campus, many of them to study science or engineering. According to the  Department of Veterans Affairs  , more than 270,000 of the 1.65 million veterans of U.S. armed conflicts since 11 September 2001 have claimed education benefits for degree programs, including more than 13,000 graduate students.


In many respects, these veteran students are much like their nonmilitary peers. Yet military service has left many of them facing not just the usual academic challenges but also the emotional scars of battle, semesters lost to continuing service obligations, and veteran;s benefits that don;t cover their educational and living expenses.


But it isn;t all bad; quite the contrary. Military service has imbued many of these veterans with valuable practical and technical skills and with qualities of focus, discipline, motivation, and maturity often lacking in students with less worldly experience.


Meet the student-veterans


Nathan Arroyo  is an undergraduate majoring in  chemical and biomolecular engineering  at Ohio State University in Columbus. Arroyo first attended Ohio State in 1998, right after high school. He worked a job during his first seven quarters and, he says, his grades suffered. He decided in 2000 to join the Army for a 4-year enlistment. During that time, he was deployed twice to Iraq, the first time during the invasion in 2003. During his second deployment, in 2005, Arroyo received a  stop-loss order  &ndash;-an involuntary enlistment extension;that kept him in Iraq until 2006. He still has about 2 years to go before he gets his degree, and while he is thinking about a career in industry, he is also considering getting a graduate degree or attending law school. He still keeps in touch with his old Army unit, now on its third Iraq deployment, and sends a goody box occasionally.


Anastasia Bodnar  is a  Ph.D. candidate in genetics  at Iowa State University in Ames. Bodnar graduated from high school in 1997 and attended the University of South Florida in Tampa for 2 years. ;I decided I needed to grow up a little bit,; says Bodnar, ;so I joined the Army Reserve in 1999.; After 9/11, Bodnar volunteered for active duty and was sent not to Iraq or Afghanistan but to Korea. During her active Army duty, Bodnar continued her undergraduate studies at the University of Maryland;s University College, which offers  distance-learning courses for military personnel  . Later, while still on active duty, she completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Maryland;s College Park campus. Bodnar was accepted into Iowa State;s graduate school and moved to Iowa in May 2006, where she joined the Iowa National Guard. Her Guard unit was activated and deployed to Iraq in February 2007. However, a knee injury sustained previously on active duty disqualified her from further combat assignments. Bodnar helped start the student-veteran organization on the Iowa State campus.  Her blog  describes her research in genetically modified maize.


;Brian;  is an Air Force reservist and a Ph.D. candidate in sociology. Because his unit is involved in sensitive duties and is subject to recall, we use a pseudonym. Brian was an engineering major as an undergraduate and in the ROTC. The year before he expected to graduate, Brian;s grandfather died, which forced him to miss 2 weeks of classes. This pushed back graduation by a semester, imperiling his Air Force scholarship and commission. Brian checked with other academic departments on campus and discovered that he could get a degree in sociology on schedule. So he dropped engineering and took sociology courses during the remainder of his undergraduate work. He enjoyed his studies and did well. Following graduation, Brian served in the Air Force on active duty from 1996 to 2002. After that, he was a reservist. Brian;s reserve unit was activated ;eight or nine times,; including two deployments during Operation Iraqi Freedom, in 2003 and 2004. Brian;s Ph.D. research is in military sociology and social psychology. He would like to stay in the academic world, but he is aware of the limited job market and will consider employment with think tanks, government agencies, and government contractors. He is a single father of two children, ages 10 and 6.


Jessica Kilgore  will complete her undergraduate degree in  civil and environmental engineering  at the University of Iowa in Iowa City in December 2008. Kilgore wants a career in public health, combining her engineering interest with the hands-on medical experience she gained as a medic in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 while on duty with the Iowa National Guard. Kilgore was deployed to Iraq almost immediately after her husband, also in the service, returned from his Iraq tour. Unsurprisingly, she found the extended separation difficult. But, she says, having a spouse at home who knew what she experienced both in Iraq and during the transition back to civilian life turned out to be an advantage. Kilgore plans to attend graduate school in engineering at the University of Iowa. She has re-enlisted in the Iowa National Guard.


John Moldovan  served 9 years of active duty in the Air Force, including an 8-month deployment in 2002 and 2003 as a  C-130 Hercules  navigator. Based in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, he supported American and allied forces in Afghanistan. Moldovan earned a bachelor;s degree in biology from Kalamazoo College in Michigan, worked 2 years as a lab technician at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, and then joined the Air Force in 1993. ;I was just a young guy; who wanted to explore some other career options, Moldovan says. ;I wanted to fly and do some traveling.; When he left the Air Force in 2005, he enrolled in a master;s degree program in basic medical science at Wayne State University in Detroit, which he finished in May 2008. In the fall, he begins work on his Ph.D. in  biomedical science  s at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.


Sarah Neyer  joined the Army right after high school in 2000 because she didn;t have any firm career plans;plus, she says that she ;wanted to experience the world, right off the bat.; Neyer served 3 years of active duty, including a deployment to Iraq that started in May 2003. Her deployment was scheduled to end in September of that year, but a stop-loss order kept her in Iraq until December. Neyer says the Army is ;a good place to get experienced in engineering;; she was, she says, able to get hands-on work with a wide assortment of equipment. After leaving the Army, she enrolled at California State University, Fullerton, but later transferred to CMU. Neyer completed her bachelor;s degree in engineering in May 2008 and will enter a Ph.D. program in  mechanical engineering  at CMU in the fall. Neyer plans to work in the school;s  Particle Flow and Tribology Lab  .


Jeremiah Peterson  is a senior majoring in  chemistry at the University of Minnesota  , Minneapolis. Although his dream is to become a doctor, he says that the class ;that got me most thinking; was chemistry. Peterson joined the Minnesota National Guard right after high school and spent a year at the University of Minnesota before his Guard unit was activated and deployed to Iraq. Peterson was in Iraq from November 2003 to March 2005. After Iraq, he returned to the University of Minnesota. Helping veterans transition back to school is one of Peterson;s intense interests. He is active in student government and his local neighborhood association. He has one more semester to go for his bachelor;s degree and plans to apply to medical schools in June. Peterson has re-enlisted in the National Guard.


Cody Waters  (pictured at the top) completed his bachelor;s degree in  civil engineering  in May at the University of Missouri, Columbia. His father, a Vietnam veteran, studied engineering and encouraged Waters to do the same. Plus, ;I;m a farmer and I love being outside and love working with things,; says Waters. ;I always loved working with machinery.; After high school, Waters joined the Illinois National Guard, and after his initial Guard training in 2002, he started classes at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. During his freshman year in 2003&ndash;04, his Guard unit was activated and deployed to Iraq. Waters returned from Iraq in July 2004 and transferred to the University of Missouri. While there,  he joined ROTC  and received his second lieutenant;s commission and helped start a student-veteran organization. Waters has accepted an engineering job with a company specializing in railroad bridge construction in nearby Fulton, Missouri. His wife, a biomedical engineer, is working on a master;s degree, and they have a 3-year-old son.


Peace is hell, sometimes


Forgetting what they knew before the war


For students who started classes before they were called up for active duty, time spent in a combat zone, even if not under direct fire, disrupted academic progress. During their time away from studies, memories of former classes faded. Perhaps this was due merely to the passage of time, or perhaps this was due to a mild form of traumatic brain injury for which  memory loss is a common symptom  . A recent  Rand Corp. study  found that nearly one in five Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have some form of traumatic brain injury.


Several of the veterans who returned to a university campus ran into adjustment problems caused by the hiatus and the experience of battle. Peterson, the chemistry student at the University of Minnesota, says that when he returned to the university, he struggled with remembering what he had known before and with motivation. ;It was hard to find the importance of sitting down and studying,; Peterson says, ;when you come from a place where what;s really important is that your life is on the line.;


Kilgore, the University of Iowa civil engineering student, missed three semesters during her 2005&ndash;06 deployment in Iraq. When she returned, she says, she had forgotten much of what she knew before the war. She had to relearn even simple skills, such as how to use spreadsheet software.


Arroyo, who interrupted his engineering studies at Ohio State to join the Army in 2001, served through two Iraq deployments. By the time he left the army in 2006 and returned to Ohio State, he says, he had forgotten much of the math he learned before joining up. He also found he had to reacquaint himself with the campus after 5 years;the physical layout and campus life;a process that took longer than he had anticipated.


Leaving the warrior behind


One of the most serious challenges facing returning veterans is the  psychological toll  inflicted by combat. Although none of the students we interviewed reported suffering from combat-related psychological problems that require treatment;many others do;some did report high levels of stress upon returning to civilian life as students.


Waters, the engineering major at the University of Missouri, Columbia, who served in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, describes a ;constant stress that never goes away.; Although recognizing that education is an enormous opportunity, Waters says that it comes with an intense pressure to achieve: ;You can always be doing something to better yourself.;


Compounding the stress is the need to leave behind the behaviors that serve the veterans well in a combat zone. The high state of alert may be needed in battle, or in ;a combat zone where your intensity level is so high all the time,; but back in civilian life, such intensity can cause problems if recalled by stress, Waters says.


Greedy institutions


The demands of rigorous scientific or engineering studies can conflict with continuing military obligations. Brian, the Air Force reservist and sociology Ph.D. candidate, calls the military and graduate school ;greedy institutions, in terms of time requirements, energy level, multitasking;teaching and research;and everything else.; Brian;s reserve unit has been called up for frequent short-term duty, in addition to two combat deployments, during his graduate studies. Fortunately, his research team and department have been able to accommodate the interruptions.


National Guard members and reservists are required to train with their units on occasional weekends and during the summer, which caused problems for Bodnar;s lab work. Bodnar, the Ph.D. candidate in genetics at Iowa State University, says that her research on maize took a hit during her summer National Guard training. ;I think the hardest part was when they arranged the annual summer training during pollination season, and I;m working on corn so I had to pollinate my experimental plot. Luckily, we had enough people from the lab that were able to pick up my slack. But I felt terrible that I had to depend on other people to take care of my plants, my experiments.; Eventually, Bodnar;s Guard unit gave her a day off to catch up on her research.


Finding the money


Student-veterans learn quickly that serving under fire  does not guarantee  that Uncle Sam will pay for all, or even most, of their educational costs. After it was passed during World War II, the GI Bill became one of the U.S. government;s great success stories, educating a generation and paving the way for prosperity. But the value of the benefits offered by the GI Bill has declined over time. The most recent version of the legislation, called the  Montgomery GI Bill  , provides a fixed monthly stipend based on length of service, deployment in a combat zone, and whether the service member was in the regular ranks or the reserves. A companion article,  &ldquo;A New GI Bill for Scientists,&rdquo;  describes legislation just passed but not yet signed into law that would emulate the World War II-era GI Bill.


Most of the vets contacted by  Science  Careers qualify for the GI Bill, but they say the benefits don;t cover all their expenses. Moldovan, who served in the Air Force in Kyrgyzstan in 2002 and 2003, says he funded his master;s degree at Wayne State largely with GI Bill benefits. But, he says, he still needed to draw on his savings to cover his living costs. Brian, a single father raising two children, ages 10 and 6, also gets GI Bill benefits. He supplements his income with a teaching assistantship from his university and part-time work on a research project.


For the undergraduates in our group, the GI Bill is merely a supplement and not a primary source of funding. Arroyo and Neyer receive financial aid from their universities, whereas the National Guard members receive tuition assistance from their state governments. ;The GI Bill is basically paying for my books and maybe for some booze on the weekend,; Peterson says.


Their next mission: A science career


Bands of brothers and sisters


Despite the obstacles these student-veterans faced on returning to campus, they all say they benefit enormously from their military experience and that they routinely apply the skills learned and attitudes developed in the military to their studies and to the larger community.


Accustomed to strong support from their military peers, many vets find themselves alone upon returning to college. ;In the military,; says Bodnar, ;we have this very strong team culture, the buddy system, where we always have someone watching our back. ; In civilian life, that doesn;t exist.; Even students returning to the campus they left behind found themselves largely on their own in unfamiliar settings. ;I no longer had the friends in classes that I could ask questions if I felt dumb,; Peterson recalls.


Several of the veterans we interviewed sought out fellow veterans on their campuses for mutual support. The most important function of such connections, they say, is empathy and shared experience. Bodnar, Waters, and Brian each helped start student-veteran groups on their campuses that provide benefits counseling, mentoring, tutoring, and occasional social functions. Peterson was instrumental in founding a  veterans transition center  at the University of Minnesota.


For all of the ;greediness; of the military and academic institutions, some of our veterans were able to enjoy the support of nonveterans on campus. Bodnar discovered a strong team ethic among her peers when her National Guard training coincided with her genetics research. Brian, likewise, found his research team and department accommodating of his many activations while in grad school. Kilgore reports that her fellow students and professors were willing to help her when she returned to the Iowa campus and had to relearn a lot of the routines that she had forgotten.


Attitude and skills to match


Before joining the Army, Neyer says: ;I highly doubt that I would have been as motivated. ; After I came back, I was so very determined.; After returning from his deployment, Peterson says that he ;was highly motivated to get my degree; I had confidence oozing out of my ears.; Arroyo says that when he returned from Iraq and got reacquainted with the campus he left 5 years earlier, he had more discipline, could handle stress better, and could get more done than before.


The veterans also learned skills during their service that they apply in their academic training. Both Brian and Moldovan credit the training they received in classroom teaching, and the experience gained as military instructors, with their decisions to pursue Ph.D. degrees, which both hope will lead to university teaching positions. Both also say they learned interpersonal and cross-cultural skills as a result of their military experience.


Five of the eight veterans are in graduate school or have been accepted into Ph.D. programs. Two of the undergraduates have plans to continue their educations either for graduate or professional degrees. And three of the veterans have re-enlisted in the National Guard to continue their military careers.


Advice to fellow veterans


The student-veterans we interviewed offered advice to service members considering getting a degree: Do it and enjoy it. ;If you;re going to college, take the new mission of integrating back into civilian life just as a regular mission,; Peterson says. ;This is the easy part. Try to not be stressed about it.;


;Get back in it slowly,; Arroyo says. ;Just come back, relax, and enjoy yourself.;


Neyer encourages fellow veterans to get an early start on the practicalities, such as applying for GI Bill benefits, which should be arranged well before leaving the service, because getting the paperwork completed can sometimes take a few months.


Bodnar urges fellow veterans to reach out for help if they need it. ;I;ve seen some of these young soldiers come back, and they don;t know anyone in their classes, and friendships don;t come as easily in the civilian world as they do in the military. And there;s the additional problem [that] no one really understands what you;ve been through. ; There are people out there who can help explain things and get things done. That;s the most important thing: Don;t let yourself get isolated.;













Document Number: 731 



 Vilsack looks for solution on coexistence 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 20 January 2011 


Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has some pretty complicated problems facing his Department. On the one hand, he has biotech companies developing products that have been determined by science to be safe and many farmers who wish to use them. On the other hand, he has a small but growing group of organic farmers who claim that biotech crops will ;destroy their ability to farm organically;. He;s looking for  coexistence  between both types of farmers.


At this time, coexistence between organic and conventional farms is worked out individually by neighbors. On a national scale, organic groups have initiated multiple lawsuits against the USDA in what some say are blatant attempts to prevent biotech crops from being grown at all (  sugar beets  ,  alfalfa  ).


In an effort to solve the problem, a creative potential solution has been devised ; partial deregulation of biotech alfalfa. This would ;include isolation standards from other crops, set geographic restrictions on where the crop is grown, spell out harvest periods and regulate equipment use,; writes Charles Abbott on  Check Biotech  . One problem with this plan is that the USDA might be overstepping its  regulatory authority  . The USDA is charged with determining the potential pest status of any biotech crops submitted for deregulation, but doesn;t have requirements or authority to say what farmers can and can not do with a crop once it is deregulated.


Today, this issue is being debated in the  House Agriculture Committee  .


For more about the debate in real time, follow  Philip Brasher  ,  Chris Clayton  , and  Sara Wyant  on Twitter, among others.


Edit: while researching for the post  What the heck is alfalfa, anyway?  I found the document where the specific conditions for  conditional deregulation  are laid out. The recommendations aren;t as bad as I thought they would be. They should be more than enough to satisfy anyone who knows even a little about alfalfa biology.


Combined Isolation Distances and Geographic Restrictions on the Production of GT Alfalfa


Alternative 3 (Isolation/Geographic Restrictions Alternative) describes a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on hay and seed production to address and resolve coexistence issues and concerns about risks of cross pollination and other potential impacts to conventional, and organic alfalfa producers while allowing the commercialization of GT alfalfa. This third alternative would impose management practices for the planting, harvesting, use or sale of GT alfalfa seed and in some locations hay. This alternative could be implemented by an APHIS decision to deregulate in part, or through a Federal/industry partnership arrangement. Under this alternative, the developer (marketer) of GT alfalfa would ensure that end users are using the required management practices. They might choose to do this through contracts or licenses, or by other means. A training component would also be part of the program to educate producers about the required stewardship practices. Reporting requirements for the developer (marketer) subject to verification would be used to ensure compliance with the terms of the program. Under this alternative, failure to comply with the requirements may result in penalties to the developer (marketer). The required management practices would undergo periodic reviews to determine if modifications were warranted. Changes to the management practices would be approved based on available data on their effectiveness in supporting coexistence.


The following is a description of the very specific management practices that would be included in the requirements described above for GT alfalfa.


GT Alfalfa Production


GT alfalfa forage fields may not be harvested for seed. The only GT alfalfa seed fields would be in the geographically restricted areas, described below, that are designated for GT alfalfa seed.  GT alfalfa seed bag labeling and seed identification (e.g., a unique seed colorant) would be required. These product identity mechanisms would be designed to notify all GT alfalfa forage growers of the presence of the GT alfalfa trait and the geographic limitations for product use.  An annual report would be submitted to the USDA summarizing activities in education and training, monitoring, and compliance with the conditions of this license agreement. The USDA or a designated third party could audit the petitioners records to determine compliance with the conditions of this license or otherwise investigate potential noncompliance with these conditions.  Develop an education program and provide training to ensure that all growers, distributers and handlers of GT alfalfa are aware of the management practices, geographic restrictions and the isolation distance set forth in this licensing.


GT Alfalfa Forage


In Tier I states there are no restrictions on planting GT alfalfa for forage production. Tier I states are those states in which commercial alfalfa seed is not produced. The 2007 Census of Agriculture identifies these states as: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Alaska, and Hawaii.  Tier II states are those states that produce some seed, but seed production is limited to less than one percent of the total U.S. seed production. States in Tier II are: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.  In Tier II states, GT alfalfa planted within 165 ft of a seed field must be harvested at or before ten percent bloom.  Tier III states produce more than 1 percent of the U.S. alfalfa seed. These states are: Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  In Tier III states GT alfalfa for forage cannot be planted in counties where seed is grown (based on the 2007 Census of Agriculture). If a GT alfalfa forage field is located within 165 ft of a conventional alfalfa seed field (which may occur on the border of a county), the GT alfalfa grower must harvest forage at or before ten percent bloom. All GT alfalfa forage growers are required to report GPS coordinates of all GT alfalfa forage field locations. GPS field location information will be made available to the supervising program and seed certifying agencies for monitoring and for enforcing the planting restrictions applicable to GT alfalfa forage fields.


GT alfalfa seed production


GT alfalfa seed production will be limited to the geographic areas in Tiers II and III where the grower can maintain isolation distances of 5 miles between GT alfalfa and conventional alfalfa.  Field locations will be identified by GPS and will be included in the annual report to USDA. Location data will be made available to official seed certifying agencies upon request.  Equipment will be used only for GT alfalfa seed production or cleaned by an appropriate protocol to remove GT alfalfa from the equipment before use on other (not GT alfalfa) crops.  GT alfalfa seed will be handled and stored in a way to prevent comingling with other agricultural products.













Document Number: 3026 



 Vote for Biofortified! 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 17 October 2009 


Biofortified is in the running to win the Ashoka Changemakers contest, GMO Risk or Rescue. But we need your help, dear readers. The contest entries close on October 21, and the voting will continue to the 28th. The grand prize is a $1500 grant and a conversation with Michael Pollan ; both of which are sure to make this site better than ever. If you read Biofortified and have enjoyed some of the stuff we have written and want to see bigger and better things, please take a couple minutes to register for changemakers and enter your vote.


I heard that their site was a little awkward and people were having trouble navigating around and voting, so let me show you how to do it step-by-step!


1. First, go to the  changemakers registration page  . (Try opening the link in a new window or a new tab with a right click so you can refer back to here.) Fill out your name, email, and username. If you are concerned about getting unwanted emails in your inbox, check the box on the right and you won;t be bothered by any. Finally, enter the words you see in the ;captcha; box on the bottom ; if they look too confusing just click on the little circle of arrows and it will give you another one.


2. You are now registered for the site, and you will get an email in your inbox. In this email will be a random password and a link that takes you back to the changemakers site. Click on it. When you get there, there will be a login button that will automatically log you into the site. The first place it will take you after you click on it is your profile page where you can change your password to something you can remember more easily. Feel free to change it, but if you are just quickly registering to vote it won;t matter. Leave the window open and come back here.


(If you accidentally click off the site, the auto-login link will not work again, so you;ll have to use the username and password sent to your email to login again.)


3. Now that you are registered and logged in, open the  Biofortified contest entry page  in another window like you did before. (If you go to this page without logging in first you will not be able to vote.) On the right hand side is a Thumb;s Up that shows how many votes we have. Click on it and watch your vote be tallied up!


4. You are done! Wasn;t that easy? Pat yourself on the back for helping us out. Or leave a comment on this post saying you voted so we can pat you on your back, too!


Thank you for your vote, from the center of my pithy stalk. Check back before the 28th to see how well we are doing, and don;t forget to tell your friends!













Document Number: 1341 



 We won! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 4 November 2009 


Ladies and gentlemen,  plants  and animals, I am pleased to announce that Biofortified  has been certified  as  the winner  of the Ashoka Changemakers  GMO Risk or Rescue?  contest!


We have won a $1500 grant which  we will use  to bring  more good stuff  to the site, a conversation with Michael Pollan which will be sure to be  enlightening for all  , and an enhanced social media training session. Specific details of the last two have yet to be worked out, but what  was conjecture  last week is truly official now!


We will also be featured in a one-page ad in the  Stanford Social Innovation Review  magazine. Start the presses!


The runners-up were the  Non-GMO Project  and  ;The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America.;  Although vote totals are not visible on the site, our unofficial count put us at over 800 votes, more than twice the number of votes of each of these two entries. The most-voted Latin American entry,  Healthy Kids, Healthy Forests  , has also won a round-trip ticket to anywhere in South America.


In what was a phenomenally exciting final few days of the contest, science bloggers and more came out of the woodwork to support us, and we would like to  thank each and every one of you  again for your help in promoting us and voting for us. A lot of people should deservedly share in this victory.


Not only is it a victory for  science  communication, but  also  for  dialogue  ,  honesty  , and  independence  . There are a lot of vested interests on  both  sides  of the debate over genetic engineering, and it is heartening to see that an independent group blog such as ours could muster support from the blogosphere and get people talking about the genetics of food like never before. I would like to see this continue, through the posts we will continue to write, more guest commentaries, interviews, videos, and conversations with each other in the new  forum  . We;ve been getting suggestions for new ideas, and we welcome more.


I would like to commend the Non-GMO Project and in particular their Executive Director Megan Westgate for supporting honest dialogue when things got a little ugly and accusations were flying around. And the Ashoka Changemakers people behind the scenes had to sift through almost two thousand votes to certify the contest ; not a small feat so pat them on the back. I would like to thank them for hosting this contest and helping to facilitate more discussion on this important topic.


We;re now Change-Makers, so lets go out there and make some real change in the discussion about changes in the genetics of our plants. I hope you will stick around here awhile longer and help make a few changes yourselves. Let;s make our second year blogging here better than  the first  !













Document Number: 7797 



 Weather takes a toll everywhere 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 June 2008 


Farmers have always been subject to ever changing weather, but this year seems especially bad. I  wrote  last week about the problems local farmers (and researchers) have been facing. The NY Times has an  article  showing that the weather hasn;t been much friendlier elsewhere. Farms in places as diverse as Australia and the Philippines aren;t off to a good start.  The most sobering quote from the article:


Last year, the rice crop in Arkansas yielded a record 160 bushels an acre. This year, experts there say, 150 bushels will be an achievement.


Theres no doubt about it, were not going to have the rice to export, said Carl Frein of Farmers Marketing Service in Brinkley, Ark. Poor countries like Haiti, I dont know what theyre going to do.


Randy Kron (photo from  NY Times  ) is an Indiana corn and soy farmer who won;t be able to plant this year. The article follows his story of fields that are too wet to plant. He concludes I dont know if this is the worst year weve ever had, but its moving up the list pretty quick.;  A lot of the comments on the post are typical: too many people don;t research or think before typing. One, though, had a different perspective. I really like reading what real farmers think, especially because they tend to be more optimistic and solution oriented than the doom and gloom Malthusians. One  commenter  who farms less than 80 miles from the farm in the article writes:


First, the use of corn for ethanol has had almost NO impact on rising food costs. Studies by USDA, by Informa Economics, and by others have proven this. Ethanol has impacted overall food cost increases by less than 3%. Secondly, corn-based ethanol is by no means THE answer to energy problems, bit is AN answer. It;s the most (really, only) biofuels alternative that;s practical right now. Cellulosic ethanol is still unproven, and sugarcane ethanol generates huge amounts of essentailly toxic waste. In contrast, 1/3 of the corn used for ethanol actually remains after processing; this is a protein-rich, very palatable livestock feed especially well-suited for poultry and cattle (and which can be used in small amounts for hogs). Secondly, corn ethanol is energy positive. New processes, as well as dramatically increased corn yields, are responsible for this. ON our farm, we last year produced enough corn to make 301,000 gallons of ethanol AND 35,000 bushels of distillers grains while only using 1,500 gallons of petroleum inputs. (Granted, this does not include energy used to distill the ethanol ; but the point remains, it;s still a net-positive process. And keep in mind, this is fuel grown and made in the United STates, where 100% of the money stays here, and does not go to support corrupt regimes in Saudi or Nigeria or wherever;)


If you want to find the true sources of rising food prices, look to China, first, where a huge population now has the means and the desire to not starve. Or at least starve less. China;s use of corn, soybeans and other grain crops is by far the largest contributor to rising prices. 1A is India, where the same phenomenon is taking place. Second, energy costs. Third, widespread drought (esp in Australia), which hammered the world wheat supplies over the last few years. The last place to be putting blame is on bioenergy policies or US farm policy; to the contrary, we American farmers are consistently increasing our productivity and exporting more than every before to feed the world.


Thanks to Sue Jarnagin, Prof of Sociology at ISU, for finding the NY Times article.













Document Number: 5478 



 Weather takes a toll on midwest farms 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 5 June 2008 


I usually shy away from pessimism, but if you think food prices are high now, wait until the harvest in 2008.  Flooding caused by unrelenting rain has been hard on Iowa;s corn and soy fields ; and the summer is just beginning.  After all this rain, late summer droughts are predicted (just when the grain and beans will be maturing). A lot of farmers planted late or still haven;t planted. By the time the corn is silking, corn rootworm beetles will be ready to eat the silks, decreasing pollination and thus yield (in good years, silking is already in progress when rootworm reaches adulthood). The crops could be hit by toxin-producing fungus, rendering the grain poisonous even for feed (perhaps it could still be used for biofuels?).  This is a big problem for me personally, since I have 7000 corn seeds that still need to be hand planted. It was too cold and now it;s too wet. We;re in the process of making contingency plans for the growing season, knowing that we;ll have a lot of pests to deal with. If I loose these plants, my experiments could be set back multiple years. Other graduate students here haven;t been able to get to their fields to take measurements or samples for a variety of experiments.  The complaints of graduate students are small compared to those of farmers. I can;t even imagine what it must feel like to watch your seedlings drown. According to  ISU Extension  , corn seedlings may withstand two to 4 days of submergence, but plants that survive will be at increased risk for disease and pests. Yields of stressed plants may be lower without additional nitrogen. So, even if their plants make it, they;ll have to spend more on pesticide and fertilizer than expected (plus fuel and time). I suppose this is what crop insurance and subsides are for.  The Iowa Farmer Today  CropWatch Blog  has some advice for farmers considering a replant, which is typically soy over a failed corn planting. They have some other information that I hadn;t even thought of. In addition to rain, we got a lot of hail. It pummels young plants, which are then more susceptible to disease and pests. Saturated soils mean not enough air in the soil for proper root growth, weeds are growing furiously in conditions that slow crop growth, and black cutworms have already been reported in several places.  Then, there are tornadoes. The devastation in  Parkersburg  , Iowa has been covered in national news, but they forgot one detail ; the fields. David Correll, graduate student in  Sustainable Agriculture  at ISU, writes:


As you know, at 5pm on Sunday, 25 June, an EF-5 tornado struck Parkersburg, Iowa, killing eight and injuring 50. The storm destroyed homes, businesses, City Hall, municipal sewer and water lines and even the local high school in this little town of only 1,800 people.


In addition to this carnage, surrounding farms have been littered with debris. Besides the regular flotsam and jetsam of modern American life, farmers have found entire vehicles and utility poles strewn across corn and soybean fields. This super-natural littering comes at an especially inopportune time in agriculture. Within weeks, corn plants are expected to poke high enough through the dirt to cover this debris in a canopy of green. This hidden wreckage will make fields inaccessible for later field work and harvesting, thus prolonging the Parkersburg tragedy into fall, when anxious growers may have to watch their crop whither for fear of entering their own mine-strewn acres.


I can;t beleive how oblivious I was to farming. Prior to moving to Iowa in 2006, I had only driven past farms ; orange groves in Florida, Asian pear groves in Korea, some grains in Maryland and Pennsylvania. I had this idyllic vision of the gentle life of a farmer. What a fool I was.













Document Number: 4360 



 Webcast Tomorrow: Now Serving 9 Billion 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 11 February 2010 


I just received word* that a special webcast will be happening tomorrow, Friday the 12th, called  Now Serving 9 Billion: Global Dialogue on Meeting Food Needs for the Next Generation  . The webcast will occur from 10 am-12 pm U.S. Eastern Standard Time (-5 GMT), which will be 9-11 am in the U.S. Central time zone where I am. Here are the panelists that will be appearing in the webcast:


Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff;  Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to the Administrator of USAID Rajiv Shah. Author of ;  Mendel In The Kitchen  ; Bio  here  .   Dr. Robert Paarlberg  , Wellesley College. He is the Betty Freyhof Johnson Class of 1944 Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. Author of:  Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out Of Africa  . Bio  here  .   Dr. Calestous Juma  , Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Professor of the Practice of International Development. Director, Science, Technology, Globalization Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Bio  here  .   Mark Cantley  , former Advisory in the Directorate for Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food, of the Directorate-General for Research of the European Commission, and formerly head of the OECD;s Biotechnology Unit. Bio  here  .   Frank Sesno,  moderator, Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University, Emmy-award winning journalist, and host and creator of Planet Forward, a ground-breaking web-to-television show seen on PBS. Bio  here  .   Dr. Gale Buchanan  , CAST report lead author; College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, Tifton Campus; former USDA Under-Secretary for Research, Education and Economics. Bio  here  .


The webcast is sponsored by:


CropLife International,   Council on Agriculture Science and Technology, and   Biotechnology Industry Organization


I know I will be watching this. I am familiar with Fedoroff and Paarlberg, but the other participants will be new to me. Frank will be following it on Twitter, and he tells me that anyone else using twitter can follow the discussion using the #agCAST hashtag (#agchat too), and you can also ask questions on the website  here  or in twitter by sending them to  @CropLifeEvent  . (  Facebook too  .) The event says that you have to register whether you are showing up in person in Washington D.C. or whether you  watch it online  . I sent an email to the organizers and I heard back that registration is not necessary for you to watch the webcast, and there will be a video available online after the event.


Whats neat about this is it is a live webcast that links viewers around the world who can discuss it together through social media, and even ask questions that may reach the panelists from 1000;s of miles away. ;Town Hall 2.0;? I hope to see a lot of you joining in the discussion! Feel free to use the comments section of this post to talk about the webcast as it plays out.


*First time my adviser suggested a  media distraction  for me to check out! I know. Whoa.













Document Number: 1022 



 Welcome to Biofortified 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 31 October 2008 


Our lives and our futures depend upon past, current, and future advances in science &amp; technology. Historically, these advances have come at a slow pace, slow and simple enough for many people to grasp them and figure out how these changes will affect their lives. Scientific discoveries such as the electron, genetics, the age of the Earth, and technologies from the steam engine to the hand-held computer have changed and improved our lives and where we see ourselves in the Universe.


But as scientist continue to shine light into the dark corners of the world in search of basic truths and their application to our lives, they are sometimes met with resistance. And as research accelerates and discoveries are made at a rapid pace, it can seem like an insurmountable deluge of information.


Change is an important part of this process. New ideas, approaches, and discoveries change the way we look at things. New technologies change the way we do things. And fear of change is often a major reason why the culture pushes back against science and its achievements. But there are many more factors involved, such as perceived benefits, whether these changes require altering deep-seated emotional or philosophical factors, and campaigns to support or oppose them. But one final important factor is knowledge ; it is easy to fear something if you do not understand it.


There are many contentious areas of science today, some are more culturally contentious than scientific, but to put together a short list we have:


Evolution  Stem Cell Research  Global Warming and Climate Change  Nanotechnology  Genetic Engineering


What do these topics have in common?


The first and most obvious is that they are complicated. Think about piecing together the evolution of billions of organisms from trillions of dead organisms with only millions of dollars in your budget ; and at the same time trying to figure out how to break it down simply for those who aren;t very science-savvy to begin with? How about trying to explain how climate scientists tease apart the tiny details of slow changes in a very large, uncontrollable climate system? Or the ways that pieces of DNA are pieced together and spliced into a cell to produce a protein that alters a plant;s metabolism to produce more of a specific vitamin? It practically takes a Ph.D. just to begin to understand these topics!


Another common element is that they are new. (Well, evolution has been around for almost 150 years, but it is still new to many people and keeps getting re-newed as new discoveries are made, or teaching it gets challenged in public schools;) Stem Cell research holds promise but hasn;t produced any therapies yet, Nanotechnology is already here but most people don;t know how it affects their lives, and genetic engineering has only been around for a couple decades. Like a fall lineup on cable TV, how are we to know what;s good and what isn;t when we;ve only just started watching?


Third, many of these are tied up in politics. Save perhaps this presidential election, opposing evolution has been politically-expedient, and although there have been improvements in the last couple of years, political motivations underlie attempts to undermine the acceptance of climate change. Stem Cell research has been picked up in recent political discussions as a lightning-rod to motivate certain groups of voters, and genetic engineering also comes up, particularly in international politics.


Fourth, every single one of these affects how we view ourselves, at a deep philosophical level. The idea that human beings evolved from single-celled organisms and were not dumped here as-is says a lot about who we are as a species. Considerations about when a single-celled organism becomes a person matter both in how we define ourselves as persons but also whether we can take some of those cells to study or treat diseases that affect us. The idea that human beings are affecting the climate of their home planet in a negative way has profound implications for our future, and approaching our world from a microscopic scale makes you wonder how we can think to comprehend our common-sense view of the world when at scales of nanometers there can be so much going on? Finally, we have the technology to know how we have been changing the basic biology of life itself, and can more precisely direct changes in new directions, at a level never before realized. If we could even directly change our own genetics, what are we then?


Sometimes the staunchest opposition to the developments in these fields can be traced to unwillingness to consider, or re-consider some of these basic philosophical elements of our existence.


Fifth, they are all important. there;s no need to explain the significance of climate change, and perhaps not the potential medical benefits coming out of stem cell research. But the others may not be so obvious. Evolution matters a great deal in medicine ; understanding how our species evolved to resist diseases, or became prone to other maladies, can directly benefit from discoveries about our own evolution. Knowing how viruses and bacterial pathogens evolve in response to our defenses and our medicines is of even greater importance. Nanotechnology may benefit manufacturing, medicine, building stronger materials, faster computers, and many more areas. Genetic engineering in agriculture can help alleviate hunger, malnutrition, reduce dependence on pesticides, and help agriculture become more sustainable. In other areas it may have untold more benefits.


Sixth, as with all new things, there are risks involved. If global warming science is faulty, there could be economic hardship for little to no reason, or if nanotechnology gets out of hand the surface of the world could be turned into grey goo. (Just kidding) In the case of genetic engineering, what unforeseen consequences could there be from changing the genetics of the plants that we grow, or even ourselves? The potential risks involved in these topics contribute to their controversial nature. But in many of these cases, many of the objections raised have been answered, and risks are comparable or even favorable to the status quo? Sometimes the risk of inaction can be worse than the risks of action.


With new internet communications technologies such as blogs, podcasts, and more, science has gained a new way to reach people. Many scientist bloggers have joined together to form group blogs that have become quite successful in fostering discussion:


The Panda;s Thumb  is a world-class resource for discussing new research in evolutionary biology and responding to anti-evolutionary political movements. From creationist quote-mines to new fossils, for some science enthusiasts it is a daily read.


A group of climate scientists also banded together to form  Real Climate  , where climate myths are flayed and temperature graphs are made readable. Any and all questions about global warming research can be asked here.


Recently, a cadre of medical doctors joined together to respond to medical myths, ;medicine; that could practically be called mythological, and discuss other issues related to medicine. They may only talk a little about stem cell research, but  Science Based Medicine  is another great read.


Another site that is worthy of note isn;t so much a group blog as it is a collective of science blogs, where many of the above topics are discussed. Check out  ScienceBlogs.com


But one topic is conspicuously missing from the larger discussion ; Genetic Engineering. It gets discussed briefly here or there, but until today there has been no equivalent home for talking about this expanding area of research and development. Until today, that is.


Biofortified is a new group blog devoted to educating the public about genetic engineering, and discussing how it intersects many aspects of our lives. From politics to cultural issues, from genes that affect farmers to those that affect your lunch, there;s going to be a lot to talk about. On the science side, there;s a lot more than genetic engineering itself to discuss, and we;ve got a small but growing group of professors and graduate students who are eager to bring the bring the science behind what;s on your dinner table into your dinnertime conversation.


The name Biofortified comes from biofortification, which is when the bioavailable nutritional content of a food crop is enhanced. Literally,  strengthened through biology  . Like fortifying foods with vitamins, biofortification through breeding or genetic engineering can allow the plants to produce the nutrients that people need on their own. This can be good for people in industrialized nations, but a boon for developing countries. It is also a topic that several of our authors find personally very interesting!


One by one, our bloggers will introduce themselves to you and then we;ll get this blog going. Over time, we will add more scientists to our ranks, but to start with we have four bloggers. We;ll let them tell you more about themselves, but here they are by name:


Karl Haro von Mogel  Anastasia Bodnar  Pamela Ronald, Ph.D.  David Tribe, Ph.D.


We will also invite guest experts to write about topics that they are close to, and if you want to write something too, do let us know! We hope that you will stick around and fortify your brains with some food for thought on this increasingly important and expanding aspect of agriculture. Welcome to Biofortified!













Document Number: 8923 



 What does GMO really mean? 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 16 March 2009 


For years, journalists, television producers and newspaper reporters that write about genetically engineered crops, have used the term GMO (genetically modified organism) to describe these new crop varieties. The marketing industry has taken to writing GMO-free on their products, as a way to increase sales to consumers fearful of the genetic engineering process.


The problem is that the term GMO is misused and misunderstood.


Take, for example,  a recent story on Voice of America  about a new rice variety my laboratory and collaborators recently developed that is tolerant of flooding. The producer made a valiant effort to explain how we generated the new variety:


The new strain is genetically improved, but not genetically modified, so is not subject to tight controls on genetically modified foods.


Does anyone know what is he talking about? I do, so please let me explain.


Breeders have a 8000 year history of genetic modification (also called genetic improvement or conventional breeding)- that is, they have modified the genome of crop species in a number of ways. Such conventional breeding methods include hybridization (transfer of pollen from one plant variety to another to generate new seed with genes from both parents), mutagenesis (in which chemicals or irradiation are used to induce random mutations in DNA) and embryo rescue (where plant or animal embryos produced from interspecies gene transfer are placed in a tissue culture environment to complete development). Today, everything we eat has been genetically modified in some way.


Genetic engineering, in contrast, uses a direct method to introduce new genes into a crop. Because the transfer is not limited by the relatedness of the parental varieties, any gene, even a gene from another species can be introduced into a crop plant. A  committee established by the National Academy of Sciences  to look carefully at the GE process has concluded that the process of genetic engineering is not inherently hazardous. However, as with every other technology used for genetic modification, GE carries the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes. It depends on what gene is introduced or modified. For example, a new celery variety developed through conventional breeding that carried improved resistance to pests caused some farm workers to develop a rash on their hands when harvesting. In contrast, after 1billion acres of GE crops grown over 10 years, there has not been a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.


The method that we used to develop flood tolerant rice is called precision breeding, which is a sort of hybrid between genetic engineering and conventional genetic modification. Precision breeding (also called marker assisted selection) uses DNA technology to detect the inheritance of a desired gene to a seedling resulting from a genetic cross between two parent varieties. The result is the precise introduction of one to several novel genes from closely related species. For example, our flood tolerant rice was developed from a cross of a low-yielding rice variety that carried a rare gene for tolerance with modern, locally adapted modern varieties. The resulting seedlings were screened using precision breeding to develop new varieties with the taste and yield favored by consumers with the flood tolerant trait. The rice is now being grown by farmers in Bangladesh and India, where 4 million tons of rice are lost each year to flooding, enough to feed 30 million people.


Many anti-GE activists reject GE but do accept precision breeding (even though both processes can introduce novel genes that have not previously been tested in modern varieties). Thus, varieties developed through precision breeding are subject only to standard seed certification and not to the strict regulatory approval process required for GE crops.


We need to look at the broader goals of sustainability and food security before ruling out a particular process of crop modification. Each new variety needs to be looked at on a case-by case basis.


To restart the dialog, lets start using the term GE crops rather than GMO so the consumer will have some idea of what the debate is all about.













Document Number: 1014 



 What Everyone Needs to Know about the Economics and Politics of Food, and Even More 


 by  David Tribe  on 30 November 2010 


The Economics of Food: How Feeding and Fuelling the Planet Effects Food Prices.(Link to Amazon entry)  Patrick Westhoff. FT Press ( Financial Times, Pearson Education Ltd), New Jersey 2010.  ISBN  10: 0  13  700610  1  ISBN  13: 978  0  13  700610  6


Patrick Westhoff is an experienced agricultural economist who has provided a reasonable book about the complex topic of food economics. It makes a change from heated discussions of food politics and the often one-sided discussion in many books about genetically manipulated food. Most of the book will be of interest to readers of GM Pundit. It covers topics such as the 2008 biofuel boom, the links between water availability and grain prices, and financial&nbsp; speculation on food commodity prices.


Taken together with another book ;   Food Politics  by Robert Paarlberg  ; we now have a reasonable accessible scholarly discussion of the whole context surrounding the debate about genetically manipulated foods. A brief quote below shows the style of the Patrick Westhoff text and it;s accessibility:


The 2005-2009 Experience  The growth in biofuel production between 2005 and the middle of 2008 was nothing short of amazing. In the United States, for example, ethanol production more than doubled in less than three years (Figure 1.1). A rapidly increasing share of the U.S. corn crop was devoted to ethanol production, and this limited the amount of grain available to provide food to people and feed to livestock around the world. At the same time, Brazil was rapidly increasing its production of ethanol from sugar. The European Union was increasing its production of biodiesel from rapeseed oil, and biodiesel production from other vegetable oils was rising rapidly in the United States and other countries.  Food prices also increased sharply between 2005 and the middle of 2008. FAO;s index of world food prices rose 85 percent between September 2005 and its peak in June 2008 (Figure 1.2). The simultaneous increase in ethanol production and food prices led many to conclude that increased ethanol production was the cause of higher food prices.  When the price of tortillas rose in Mexico, people blamed the expansion of ethanol production in the United States. When vegetable oil prices rose around the world, people blamed the expansion of biodiesel production. The fundamental point of biofuel critics is valid: When corn, sugar, and vegetable oils are used to make biofuels, the immediate and direct effect is to reduce food availability, and the result is higher food prices. While the direction of the effect is clear, the size of the effect is not.  The critical question, then, is just how important the increase in biofuel production was in the context of all the other factors that were pushing up food prices between 2005 and the middle of 2008. The question remains controversial, not just because powerful interests on all sides of the debate cannot afford to cede the argument, but because the facts themselves are complex and open to alternative explanations.  Start with the simple question: How large was the impact of increased ethanol production on world cereal markets between 2005 and 2008? To examine that question, consider what happened to world cereal consumption between the 2005/2006 and 2007/2008 marketing years (Table 1.1).2 Depending on how one chooses to tell the story, the role of ethanol can appear relatively small or absolutely critical.


It;s nice see also there is a Kindle edition available through Amazon. It can save readers in Australia about 10 bucks.


Formats  Kindle Edition&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; US$12.59 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  Hardcover &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; US$18.97 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;













Document Number: 3297 



 What if Bt saved human lives? 


 by  MaryM  on 1 March 2010 


When I was in grad school, there was a lab in our department that studied intestinal parasitic roundworms. Although this wasnt related to what I was doing in any wayeveryone who has been to grad school will know that you attend the department seminars for the donuts and/or pizza no matter what the topic is. I have to say, though, that the seminars from this lab made the donuts and pizza a little less appealing.


One of the students of the lab defended his thesis work during this time frame. He was a terrific speaker who made us understand the medical and economic burdens of these parasites on the impoverished communities he studied. Somehow he managed to make the story of sample collection amusing. And the details of the discovery of his own infection (after a very hot curry meal) made that defense one of the most memorable during my career in science  (Figure 1, right. Speaker and his infectious agent)  . But I still remember the scientific point: these infections have real impacts on the humans and the agricultural animals that live in close proximity to them in the developing world. And that there appear to have been separate and distinct infections in humans and in pigs in the  studies they performed  .


Until recently I hadnt thought much about the roundworms. But this week when this paper came across my desk, I was glad to see that there was a potential breakthrough in the treatments for roundworms that could improve the health of millions of children. And how might this be accomplished? Using the Bt protein.


For some people, a great deal of the conflama around genetically-engineered (GE) crops has to do with the presence of a pesticide in the plant materialmainly the  Bacillus thuringiensis  or Bt proteinrather than coating the surface of the plant as organic Bt sprays or chemical-style pesticides would. No matter how many times I explain that there are benefits to this strategy (such as  reduced impact on non-target species  and on  improvements in farm family health  among others), it doesnt seem to help. No matter how many times I explain that pesticides arent the only modification to plants (as we see at  Biofortified  regularly), it doesnt matter to critics of GE. The fact that plants  make their own pesticides  ? Not interested. And no matter how many times I explain  how  the Bt proteins work  only on species that have the specific receptor  for that interactionand therefore does not affect humans as it would the corn borer pestit doesnt seem to have any impact. The misplaced fear continues to be used by the critics.


So when I saw this paper that suggested the Bt protein may be a powerful strategy for improving the lives of impoverished children around the world, all I could do was wonder if that might finally register with those who make unsupported claims of the effects of Bt on humans.


A team from UCSD studies the biology of infectious diseases (  Aroian Lab  ), with the hope of harnessing biological strategies to combat the scourge of the roundworm parasitic infections.  As they describe  , millions of people are affected by this:


These parasites infect the gastrointestinal (GI) tracts of 1 in 3 people in the world and may cause as much morbidity as malaria. STH infections in children result in growth and cognitive stunting and severely impact learning, school attendance, and future income potential. The World Health Assembly (WHA) in 2001 has urged the deworming of 75% at-risk school-aged children (nearly 400 million children). Over 44 million hookworm-infected pregnant women are at increased risk for premature delivery, low birth weight, maternal ill-health, and maternal death.


There have been chemical drugs used to treat the affected individuals. However, these chemicals are losing their effectiveness as resistance builds in the parasites. The UCSD team has sought a natural solution to this problem, and they are making progress toward that goal.


Earlier work  established that the Bt protein may have effectiveness on certain nematodes (Wei and Hale et al, 2003). Further work looked specifically at the effectiveness of Bt protein on an intestinal parasite species that can infect humans (Capello et al, 2006). This new work examines the effectiveness of a Bt protein on a mouse model that more closely mimics a naturally-occurring infection situation in humans.


The experimental details are quite straightforward. Mice were infected with a parasite (under the guidelines for animal use). A Bt protein (Cry5B) was prepared and examined for bioactivity, with appropriate controls. Bt protein solutions or control solutions were given to infected mice in a single dose. The egg levels and worm burdens were determined among the experimental animals. And the data were very clear.


When the researchers counted the levels of nematode eggs in the feces of the infected mice, there was a remarkable reduction in the counts of mice treated with the Bt protein solutiongreater than 95% of eggs were reduced on the first day, and even greater over the next sample days. The adult worm count drop wasnt quite as dramatic (only 67% reduced). The authors suggest that this means the worms that did remain in the intestine were probably severely compromised, and therefore not effective at reproduction.


The effectiveness of the Bt treatment was compared to a current anti-roundworm chemical treatment (tribendimidine). It appeared that the Bt protein treatment was potentially more effective than this compound. And these experiments used Bt protein in solutionwhich is highly degraded by stomach acids, as they demonstrate. The authors suggest that wrapping by the Bt in a coating to bypass the stomach to get to the intestinal environmentcommonly done for medications, it may be that Bt could be even more effective and use quite a low dosage.


This was a small scale pilot experiment in mice, and the work would certainly need to progress to humans to be sure of the efficacy. And like all treatments that we have in the infectious disease arms races, awareness and monitoring of resistance would certainly be an issue. But I suspect it will be harder for the anti-GE factions to use the fear of Bt if it can be shown that Bt has dramatic and remarkable benefits for humans in the developing world. Like the impending launch of many nutritionally-improved GE products, as more people understand the benefits of these strategies for human health, hopefully the fear can recede and the facts can enter the discussion.


You may also want to hear from the research team themselves on thisthey have created a Quicktime movie to tell you more about their work:


To download:  http://aroianlab.ucsd.edu/Wormfreeworld1.mp4


You can ;virtually; meet the researchers who performed this work, and hear more about the historical and current understanding of the effects of the roundworm infections on humans. I would just like to add that the researchers performed this work with funding from the NIAID (National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases), and had no corporate funding in their declaration statement on their paper. I have no relationship with this lab or any relationship to the work performed. I just read the paper and thought it was nifty.


Reference:


Hu, Y., Georghiou, S., Kelleher, A., &amp; Aroian, R. (2010). Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B Protein Is Highly Efficacious as a Single-Dose Therapy against an Intestinal Roundworm Infection in Mice  PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 4  (3) DOI:  10.1371/journal.pntd.0000614


Photo provided by  T. Anderson  , personal communication. Used with permission.


MaryM is Mary Mangan, co-founder of  OpenHelix  , a company that provides training on open-source software in bioinformatics/genomics. PhD in molecular/cell biology, with training in plant + animal systems, she;s the kind of independent scientist people claim they want to hear from, until they dislike the conclusions. She also enjoys hot curry dishes regularly, and not just for their curative properties.













Document Number: 7776 



 What is the meaning and significance of the agricultural biotechnology debate? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 12 September 2008 


Our first assignment in the  Debating Science  program was to write about ;What is the meaning and significance of the agricultural biotechnology debate?; I chose to investigate the controversy and possible ways to move past it. Let me know what you think.


Agricultural biotechnology could encourage so-called factory farming, with its attendant use of chemicals and monoculture, destroying nature beyond the point of recovery. Or, agricultural biotechnology could help lessen the environmental impacts of farming, helping us to feed, fuel, and clothe a growing population while maintaining or even improving the natural world. These opposing scenarios, with their attending cries of horror and exclamations of success, have been the basis for the debate over agricultural biotechnology. The opponents and proponents of agricultural biotechnology are both right, this issue is of grave importance for humanity.  Both sides of the debate can agree that food security is going to be one of the most important issues in the twenty first century. Global population is expected to reach seven billion in 2012, with more than one third of that in the developing world. These areas already see overwhelming hunger and malnutrition, and increasing population will only exacerbate the problem. Allowing this to continue is ethically unacceptable to most people.  In the past, improvements in agriculture, such as the Green Revolution, have increased crop yields enough to keep pace with population, but that may no longer be possible. Many of the techniques used to improve yields have proved to be environmentally unsound. For example, producing synthetic fertilizers releases greenhouse gases and uses fossil fuels. Runoff of excess nitrogen wreaks havoc in river and ocean ecosystems downstream. Producing equivalent yields without synthetic nitrogen is possible, but requires a lot of technical know how to rotate crops and use other methods specific to the soil and conditions in each area. Pesticides have been used to deter insects from consuming the crops and to keep weeds from using up the water and nutrients needed by the crops. Many of these pesticides are damaging to the environment and human health. As with fertilizer, there are non-chemical alternatives, but these methods can be labor intensive and expensive.  Agricultural biotechnology, in the form of genetic engineering, marker assisted selection, and others, can help to bridge the yield gap without the use of additional chemicals. Researchers are developing crops that have enhanced ability to uptake more of the available nitrogen and to use that nitrogen more effectively. Other crops are drought tolerant, flood tolerant, and disease resistant. These developments will be increasingly important as climate change makes weather patterns less predictable and warmer temperatures causes diseases to be more persistent and wide spread. Insect resistant crops containing different varieties of an insecticidal toxin called Bt from bacteria have been on the market from 1995, allowing farmers to reduce insect damage without pesticide sprays. All of these genetically engineered crops have been shown again and again by independent researchers to be safe and effective. Crops that have enhanced nutritional qualities could improve the health of billions of people. Crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical compounds such as vaccines or industrial compounds such as starch could provide a much needed source of revenue to farmers.   One of the biggest problems in the debate is that opponents want to group the diverse products of agricultural biotechnology in the same category, treating them equally. This assessment belies the huge variety of cultural, ethical, environmental, and safety issues presented by the different crops. Each distinct type of genetically engineered food, each individual genetic change, must be considered separately. Some types of GM crops encourage the farming of monocultures on large farms. Others are scale neutral, equally benefiting farmers large and small. Some types of GM crops produce compounds that are inherently food safe, like vitamins and plant oils. Others produce compounds that could be harmful to humans or the environment  if allowed to mix with natural plant populations.  Sadly, the dichotomy of views has prevented any real deliberation on the subject. This has resulted in a combative climate where no one is working to achieve the best possible outcome for all. Misinformation and confusion, often encouraged by opponents of agricultural biotechnology, has caused rampant fear in the regions that most need it. Activists have destroyed research that would help determine the safety of the very crops they fear. Corporations looking to protect their interests and increase profits have looked the other way when their products are not used as directed. Governments have ignored the socio-economic implications of patent protected seed.  Instead of debating the science, opponents should cooperate with proponents to solve these very real problems of farming in the twenty first century. Proponents need to listen to the concerns of opponents and make sure that they are addressed. We need to put aside past mistakes once and for all and work to improve the lives of the millions of people who are literally dying in our inaction.













Document Number: 1529 



 What scares you about GE foods? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 11 November 2008 


In the debate over genetic engineering, there are many emotions in play, such as optimism, anxiety, compassion, greed, joy, and fear. One emotion seems to dominate the anti-GE activists, and that is fear. Fear of corporations, fear of science, and fear of the unknown are wielded as weapons to scare the public into rejecting the use of this technology for crop improvement.


One of the most recognizable terms used to instill fear is the label ;Frankenfood.; Images crop up of a monster that;s not supposed to exist, a mad science experiment gone wrong with parts taken from dead bodies, an abnormal brain, lightning, and the cackling of human hubris echoing in a castle. It lurks in your corn chips, and the pumpkins you use to make your homemade pies. Once humble grains and vegetables, wrested from the Laws of Nature will haunt your supermarket and terrorize your neighborhood!


It sounds heinous. It sounds disgusting. It sounds sensationally inaccurate, in fact one could write a whole book on how mythical this label is when it comes to describing genetic engineering. Actually,  one has  !


Splicing together DNA and inserting it into a plant to achieve a desired trait is nothing akin to reanimating a dead person during an electrical storm. Nevertheless, the word continues to be used merely because it conjures reviling images of human eyeball sandwiches, and carnivorous killer tomatoes on the loose.


(It also has a cute alliterative rhyme to it. ;Island of Dr. Moreau Food; just isn;t as catchy.)


No passion so effectually robs the mind  of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear. ;  Edmund Burke


And so the propaganda takes the place of rational discourse on this issue. If GE foods are to be feared like a slowly advancing zombie, how are you supposed to evaluate the risks and benefits? Gee, should I keep Frankenstein;s Monster around a little while and get to know him before alerting the townspeople? Shall we just follow Gaston and kill the Beast before Beauty can introduce you to him? In such mythical situations we can easily see as outside observers that it is best to calm down and go through the details. But the mythical situation is what they would probably rather have everyone think they;re in.


Besides mythical fears, there are legitimate concerns with GE crops. What about introducing allergens into foods that weren;t there before? Or how about whether the Bt protein introduced to kill insects will affect our health? Will the intellectual property issues turn the world into a few kingdoms ruled by today;s seed companies?


Sadly again, these fears are trumped up as well. For example, we know that large protein molecules that are slow to digest can cause allergies. Some of the more potent allergic proteins are gigantic seed storage proteins such as in the Peanut. The only function of these molecules is to pack in as many amino acids as they can to store up the building blocks for the developing seed. Most proteins degrade in our digestive system pretty rapidly, but some of these larger ones stick around a while longer ; enough time for our immune systems to come in contact with them ; and are fooled into thinking they are pathogens. The swelling, nausea, and pain that follows is an allergic reaction. So are allergens secretly hiding in your corn chips?


No, because in order to get approval for a GE crop, they have to go through several regulatory hurdles. One of these steps is to determine if a protein is an allergen. By finding out the size of the added protein, regulators can determine if the protein is large enough to be a potential allergen. If it is, the next step is to test samples of the protein with pin-prick tests, or go for a full-blown digestion simulation. The risk of introducing an allergen in this process is exceedingly low, probably lower than the risk of accidentally making a crop allergenic through conventional breeding ; where no such tests are required. Who knows what could be lurking in some wild tomato relative?


Hold on! Before you get the idea that I;m trying to make you afraid of conventional breeding ; I want to to know that the risks of unintended consequences  regardless of the method used  are very low! But you should know that no method, whether ancient or modern, is without risk.


Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. ;  Marie Curie


Fear, it seems, breeds in the absence of knowledge. By leaving out factual information and rational comparisons of risk, they can cultivate fear more than if they accurately described it. ;You should be scared of biotech foods because transferring a gene between species is risky, well, not nearly as risky as generating new variation through mutagenesis which we;ve been doing for a long time;; ; That doesn;t quite make you afraid enough to write to your congressperson about banning GE crops, does it?


So I think there is a substantial amount of good that can be done through educating the public about the details of genetic engineering, and explaining why a great many geneticists are not afraid of the changes brought about through genetic engineering. Indeed, many of the changes being made in newer experiments with GE crops involve adding things  that you want  in your food ; like vitamins and antioxidants.  So the patchwork Frankenfood of secret poisons injected into your food is even farther from the truth than it was in the last decade. Instead of a monster, maybe there;s a more fitting way to depict GE foods?


Okay, maybe that;s over the top, too!


(By the way, I;ve got a huge collection of anti-GE ads, some of them border on the bizarre, and others are downright immoral. I;ll be posting them from time to time so we can all see what passes as constructive discourse in some circles.)


There are a few things that scares me about GE food: Uninformed activists and an uninformed public. The first is problematic in many ways. If you take the time to advocate for a particular issue, shouldn;t it be necessary to know a lot about the issue in question? For instance, why would a book author  make obviously wrong statements  in a written interview, while purporting to be an expert on genetic engineering? Did they not do their homework, or do they believe, cynically, that they can convince an unwary audience with falsehoods? Both options are scary if you think about it.


An uninformed public is also particularly troubling. Citizens are being asked to vote on laws concerning genetically engineered crops ; and  most do not know anything about them  . When media coverage is either scant or ill informed, what is left for you to influence your decision making? (Fear) This is where scientists need to step in and reach out to the public to help them understand these issues.


Another thing that scares me about GE crops is what our lives might be like if we didn;t pursue genetic engineering. I;m not talking about doomsday scenarios of a world without food or crackers made from people, but instead the very real and present risks of malnutrition, lack of resources to control pests, uncontrollable crop diseases, and more. Anyone got a non-GE solution to Papaya Ringspot Virus?


Amy here is scarier than the Tomato Guy!


And finally, I;m afraid that our collective food awareness energy will be wasted on empty fears, when they should be directed toward more real threats to our agriculture and health. Infectious disease, animal health, environmental degradation ; there are many constant and pressing dangers in our food supply. Two years ago, some spinach was a tainted with E. coli on a farm in the Salinas Valley, where there have been numerous E.coli outbreaks for the last decade. In the same time period, not one person has  ever  been confirmed to have gotten sick from eating a GE crop. Now that  205 people got sick and 3 died  from eating contaminated spinach, public attention has focused more on this issue. But if the public focus was directed more at this demonstrated threat, could disasters such as this have been avoided?


Now I;d like to turn it to you. What scares you about genetic engineering?













Document Number: 5162 



 What the heck is alfalfa, anyway? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 21 January 2011 


Alfalfa by TwoWings via Wikimedia Commons.


Alfalfa is an awesome plant that is quite unique among field crops. It;s a legume, which means it can fix nitrogen (meaning less nitrogen fertilizer needs to be added) as well as being one of very few perennial crops, which means it can be left in the field to grow year after year and keep being harvested. It;s roots can grow quite deep so it can be very drought tolerant. It produces a high quality forage for animals, and is especially great for dairy cows.


One problem with alfalfa is that, as it is left to grow for multiple years, weeds can accumulate and the alfalfa stand will need to be plowed under. Weeds can be controlled to some degree with harvesting at just the right time (before the weeds make seeds) but at some point that isn;t enough. Enter Roundup Ready alfalfa which can be sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate to control weeds while leaving the alfalfa healthy. It allows farmers to leave their alfalfa stands standing longer.


The sky is falling; ok, not really


Groups like  Food Democracy Now  are urging people to sign petitions against the deregulation of RR alfalfa, claiming it will ;  fundamentally undermine the entire organic industry overnight  ; (emphasis theirs).


These petitions are being promoted by some pretty heavy hitters, including  Michael Pollan  . He tweeted:


Time to weigh in: the USDA is about to rule on GMO alfalfa, a serious threat to organic dairy. [with a link to the petition]


All hyperbole aside, is Roundup Ready alfalfa really such a threat? Does it really have the potential to destroy all that is organic in one fell swoop?


The truth is, no, it;s not and no it can;t. There are some specific facts about the way alfalfa is grown and harvested that actually mean that organic alfalfa production won;t be affected at all, and other organic crops certainly won;t be affected (because they aren;t sexually compatible with alfalfa anyway!).


Jeff Fowle  is a farmer and rancher in California who has been growing alfalfa for 30 years. Here;s what he has to say about it:


For those throwing out arguments against GMO alfalfa, it is very apparent that they have no understanding of the production of the forage. Here are two major points about alfalfa that need to be understood.  First, alfalfa is harvested multiple times each year, called a cutting. Depending on the region it is grown, a farmer can get anywhere from two cuttings in the far north, to twelve cuttings in areas of southern California and Arizona. Alfalfa is cut at the point when its total digestible nutrient (TDN) is at its highest, which occurs at a point when the plant is just starting to bud, or develop its flower. If alfalfa is cut when it has reached full maturity, it has poor feed value, is extremely course, does not retain leaf and is good for little more than bedding.  Second, depending on the region, an alfalfa stand remains productive, yielding at least six tons per acre, per year, for six to eight years and is then rotated out or inter-seeded with grass to maintain forage yield, orchard grass is common in our area. It is not inter-seeded with alfalfa, because by the second year, alfalfa plants release a natural inhibitor in the soil that prevents new alfalfa plants from establishing. It is for this reason that either grass is inter-seeded or the stand is plowed under and rotated to another crop for at least a year.


There;s more alfalfa goodness in his post  Roundup Ready Alfalfa, Understanding Practices  . I hope you;ll check it out!


Seed production has special challenges even without biotech


Now, that doesn;t mean that RR alfalfa doesn;t have any complications at all. As with many biotech crops, seed production is where people must take care. A non-biotech seed production field must be isolated from a biotech seed production field and vice versa. And two non-biotech seed production fields of different varieties must be isolated from each other as well. This is because fields that aren;t isolated from each other will cross pollinate and the resulting seed won;t be ;pure;, meaning it won;t all be of the variety that the seed producer wants and will not be able to be sold for as high of a price.


There are already very strict regulations on how seed is produced, including alfalfa seed. For example, check out the  General rules for seed certification  of the state of Washington. The rules ensure that seed is pure, free of genes from other varieties and free of weed seed.


Land requirements  for the production of alfalfa seed crop are as follows:


Prior to stand establishment an alfalfa seed crop of the same kind must not have been grown or planted on the land for four years for the production of foundation or registered class or one year for the production of certified class; except two years must elapse between the destruction of dissimilar varieties, which are varieties that differ by more than four or more points on a dormancy rating scale as reported by the National Alfalfa Variety Review board.   Reseeding of an alfalfa seed field due to failure or partial failure of the first seeding may be done by referring to the guidelines in WAC  16-302-045  (5).  Ditchbanks, roadways, etc. adjacent to a certified alfalfa seed field must be free of volunteer alfalfa and prohibited noxious weeds.  Volunteer alfalfa plants in the alfalfa seed field may be cause for rejection or reclassification of a seed field.  No manure or other contaminating materials may be applied during the establishment and production period of the alfalfa seed stand.


Isolation requirements  for the production of alfalfa seed crop are as follows:


Alfalfa seed crop for certification must be isolated from all other alfalfa varieties or fields of the same variety not meeting varietal purity requirements for certification as follows:


Fields less than five acres   Fields five acres or more   Foundation  900 feet  600 feet   Registered  450 feet  300 feet   Certified  165 feet  165 feet


Remember, all of these special land and isolation requirements have nothing to do with biotech, they exist to keep one variety of alfalfa from contaminating another. The requirements have been tested and shown to provide ample protection for a seed production field. The same methods would have to be used if RR alfalfa was deregulated by the USDA, but it may be appropriate for longer distances to be required if research showed that pollen could travel greater than 900 feet. In fact, there have been quite a few experiments done to see if additional precautions are needed for biotech alfalfa compared to non-biotech. And the result is that yes, some additional precautions probably need to be taken.


How much distance is enough?


USDA Agricultural Research Service plant geneticist Daniel Z. Skinner in Washington state and Kansas State University alfalfa breeder Paul St. Amand worked together on a  3-year biorisk assessment study  way back in 2001. The goal of the study was to make sure ;that problems don;t arise from the accidental dispersion of transgenic alfalfa pollen to wild populations of alfalfa.; They found that bees can carry alfalfa pollen at least 2/3 of a mile.


The researchers recommend that producers consider changing their seed-production practices. They suggest placing bee colonies in the center of the alfalfa field instead of along the side and surrounding the field with flowering crops like birdsfoot trefoil or sainfoin so that bees would become covered with other pollen and no longer transmit alfalfa pollen if they leave the field. These practices are expected to limit pollen dispersal, but Skinner cautions that more testing will have to be done.


Another  study  from 2001 by researchers from  Forage Genetics  found that a distance of 2000 feet (0.38 miles) reduced transgene flow to 0.05% which is far under the 0.9% required by the  Non-GMO Project  and the European Union. In fact, the 900 feet required under current foundation seed guidelines reduced gene flow to 0.34%, also well under the 0.9% guideline, as shown in this graph.


Other  studies  have found that pollen traveled greater distances, up to 1.7 miles ; the distance likely varies widely by location and climate so recommendations that don;t take location into account (like the  blanket rules  proposed by Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack) could lead to distances that were either too great or too small.


These recommendations, combined with other science-based recommendations about seed production can be used to ensure that the transgene in biotech alfalfa won;t be found in non-biotech alfalfa or in wild alfalfas.


If that 0.05% isn;t enough to satisfy, there always exists the possibility that non-biotech alfalfa seed production areas can be designated by local or state governments, similar to the ban on canola (biotech or not) in Oregon to protect seed production of sexually compatible crops like broccoli as I described in  Sugar beet biology  (in the section Distance as mitigation strategy).


The solution to coexistence between biotech and organic isn;t running around like  Chicken Little  or  crying wolf  . The solution lays, as usual, in sound science guiding seed producers and farmers to make sound decisions.


For further reading on alfalfa and transgene flow, including specific discussion of what Monsanto and Forage Genetics are working on to avoid gene flow, see  Seed production issues for genetically enhanced alfalfa  (2004) by Shannon Mueller, University of California Cooperative Extension. Also see the  Environmental Impact Statement  (2010) the USDA conducted on RR alfalfa as well as other  USDA documents  on the subject.













Document Number: 7093 



 Whats for lunch? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 30 January 2010 


The victory of parents against HFCS in chocolate milk from  Berkeley Farms  in one school district in California rings sadly hollow. The change has no effect on the children;s health, but leads parents to believe that they;ve made a difference. Hopefully, this small change will lead them to fight for larger changes, but if they aren;t fighting for the changes that actually affect the health of their children, do all their efforts do any good?


;The half-pint of nonfat chocolate milk with sucrose served to students at lunch will have 150 calories and 27 grams of sugar ; the same caloric and sugar content as the old formula,; according to  Schools switch sugars in chocolate milk  in the San Fransisco Chronicle. From the same article:


Switching from high-fructose corn syrup to sucrose in the chocolate milk is nonsense, said  Dr. Robert Lustig  , a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF. It;s not how the sugar is made that;s the problem, he said ; it;s that Americans, and especially kids, are eating too much sugar, period.  ;The difference between high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose, molecule for molecule or ounce for ounce, isn;t worth discussing. They are both equally dangerous,; Lustig said.


If you choose not to believe Dr. Lustig, check out Rule # 4 from Michael Pollan;s recent Food Rules, or more importantly, check out the text explaining the rule (emphasis added):


Avoid products that contain high-fructose corn syrup.   Not because high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is any worse for you than sugar, but because it is, like many of the other unfamiliar ingredients in packaged foods, a reliable marker for a food product that has been highly processed. ; don;t fall for the food industry;s latest scam: products reformulated to contain ;no HFCS; or ;real cane sugar.; These claims imply these foods are somehow healthier, but they;re not.  Sugar is sugar.


So, if sugar is sugar, what can actually be done to make school lunches healthier? To me, it seems that the problem is systemic.


In Florida, where I grew up, schools get some amount of funds from the state, but property taxes are the primary source of funding for schools. As far as I know, California;s schools are funded in the same way. California is worse off than Florida, though, after  Prop 13 in 1978  capped property taxes at low levels (I learned about this from a member of  DAMN  while Karl and I were in California). Ideally, schools would be funded differently, but for now we;re stuck trying to do more and more with smaller and smaller budgets. Schools simply have to work within these cost constraints.


Instead of targeting one ingredient, why don;t parents work to find creative ways for schools to feed healthy meals to their children within the budget that exists?


Since their budgets for food are so small, schools can;t afford to pay staff to cook. Instead, they pay staff to reheat. I hadn;t really thought about this before I stumbled upon Mrs. Q;s blog  Fed Up: School Lunch Project  . She;s a teacher, and plans to eat school lunch every day in 2010. Mrs. Q says: ;I think every child no matter how much money their family has deserves to eat quality food at school;, referring to the kids who may only get one meal per day.


Based on her pictures and descriptions, I don;t think I could do it. The one lunch that she;s had so far that really got to me is the one that;s pictured here:  Day 16: peanut butter and jelly sandwich  .


PB&amp;J with fruit and milk is such a perfect lunch, so it;s really sad to see it bastardized into this sugary pre-packaged mess. It seems to me that the parents of this school, and of every school, should find out exactly what their kids are being served and come up with alternatives that still make budget. Can a school buy bread, peanut butter, and jelly and make the sandwiches for the same cost as these pre-packaged PB&amp;J on graham crackers? Can they achieve the same calorie count and  nutritional requirements  with healthier ingredients? I bet the schools can, but maybe they just don;t have the time to find out, or the budget to hire someone to look into it.


There has to be at least one parent in San Fransisco who took time to protest corn syrup who has skills related to accounting. There has to be at least one parent in San Fransisco who took time to protest corn syrup who has skills related to creating menus. Where are these parents, and why aren;t they putting their skills to use? If they don;t have the skills needed, why don;t they contact undergrad and graduate students at local colleges to help them out? What a great resume builder or even thesis for a college student!


The school district employees responsible for nutritional quality of school meals are obviously open to discussion, judging by this quote from the SF Chronicle:


;My job is to provide nutritious meals that the students want to eat and that their parents want them to eat,; said Ed Wilkins, district director of Student Nutrition Services. ;When a group of parents advocate for a particular change and it is feasible with the resources available to us to make that change, I will try to meet their demands.;


I;d be very surprised if most professionals with positions similar to Mr. Wilkins across the country weren;t just as open to discussion, if only they were presented with smart, cost-effective solutions.


I admire these parents in San Fransisco for taking the initiative and working to change the lunches that their children eat. Now, I hope they will take the next step and work for bigger changes that will significantly effect the health of their children.


Correction: Dana Woldow, co-chairwoman of the district;s Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee, is a volunteer, not an employee of the school district. Thanks to Dana for the correction. In the SF Chronicle article, Dana said: ;I;ve never met a parent who has said I want my child to have high-fructose corn syrup, I think it;s helping kids if your concern is high fructose is not a natural product.;













Document Number: 3387 



 What;s in the corn syrup? Guest Post by Renee Dufault 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 4 February 2009 


In  Something tastes bad;  , I questioned IATP;s use of the Env. Health paper  Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar  . The paper described an experiment that took place in 2005. Renee   Dufault, the lead author, described how she obtained samples of high fructose corn syrup and tested them for mercury. When she went back for more samples, her employer (the FDA) asked her to switch to a different project, so no more tests have been conducted. We can only hope that increased funding for the FDA will result from the recent elections and in response to the many recent threats, particularly  peanut butter  !


Renee has offered to discuss her experiment, her interactions with the FDA, and her reaction to the IATP report. I heartily agree with her call for more testing, but extend the call beyond mercury to include other contaminants, chemical and biological. I also agree that removing mercury from our environment should be top priority, but still feel that mercury exposure from coal-burning power plants is far more dangerous due to quantity than mercury from chlor-alkali plants. However, it certainly couldn;t hurt to switch chlor-alkali plants over to newer (non-mercury) technology!


To answer your question, ;Why couldn;t one of them, or one of their grad students, continue the work?; The samples collected under my direction at the FDA were collected by an FDA field investigator directly from the HFCS manufacturers. They were collected carefully with chain-of-custody in tact. My co-authors on the paper did not work at FDA and had no way to obtain the samples. The manufacturers do not want to provide samples unless they are required to provide samples. They were required to provide the samples and cooperate with the FDA field investigator when he was sent out to collect samples. You cannot analyze samples that you are unable to obtain.


I was unable to send another FDA field investigator out to get more samples once the results were in on the preliminary mercury findings. I was instructed not to collect any more samples.


If you read the rebuttal by the CRA, then it should be clear to you that the CRA does not deny that the industry uses or ever used mercury grade chlor-alkali chemicals to manufacture HFCS.


If you have not read the Environmental Health journal article that was peer reviewed, extensively, I would encourage you to do so and take a look at the references that are mostly available on line. It should become clear to you that HFCS is but one food product manufactured with mercury cell chlor-alkali chemicals. There are others;;;and that is most likely one of the reasons why the IATP found mercury in food products in 2008.


I did not see the IATP report until a day or two before it was published. I knew that Dr. Wallinga was doing some follow up but I didn;t know what he was finding. I think that regardless of the flaws of his study, the important thing to know is that there are products in our food supply today that may contain small amounts of mercury. Over time, small amounts of mercury exposure via ingestion may lead to adverse health effects such as genetic variation or chronic disease. We don;t know for sure because there are no long term studies. We cannot say that small doses of mercury (regardless of form) via ingestion over time is safe. We do know, however, that it is not a good idea for pregnant or nursing women to ingest inorganic mercury because it can be passed on to the fetus, or infant in breast milk. And we also know there are sensitive populations that do not metabolize mercury effectively and these populations may easily suffer adverse effects.


And finally, if I;d had the support at FDA to test other food ingredients for mercury (such as citric acid, sodium benzoate;.) I would have done it. As it was, I did all I could in the time frame I had to do it in. I did not single out HFCS, I simply started there because it was the most common ingredient found in food products.


I am certain there are many good people that work in the corn industry and I have no doubt that many if not all of these folks were unaware that the use of mercury cell chlor-alkali product in food manufacturing could lead to mercury exposure in pregnant women, infants, and children. It is time now for everyone to work together and address the issue to make sure that this source of mercury exposure is eliminated. There is no blame here. It is what it is.


I then asked: Do you really think the mercury-cell method of chlorine production is the major source of mercury in food? I don;t know much about the subject, but I was under the impression that burning coal released the majority of mercury we find in the environment. I;d love to hear more about it, both as a scientist and for my personal interest.


To answer your question, yes, I do think mercury cell chlor-alkali chemicals in food processing is a major source of mercury and that is why I fought so hard to publish the paper. Burning coal does release mercury and this does not help the situation of overall environmental mercury exposure. I believe as humans, our overall exposure to mercury from air, water and food is what is leading to the development of a number of adverse neurological effects. I am not the only scientist who thinks this way. Attached are some papers you will find interesting.


The first two articles that Renee mentioned show a correlation (not causation, of course) between autism and mercury in the environment from coal fired power plants. The last article shows that selenium, bound into selenoproteins, may bind up mercury in the body, preventing mercury from reacting with oxygen to create more dangerous compounds. Strangely, none of these have to do with corn syrup.


Palmer, R., Blanchard, S., Stein, Z., Mandell, D., &amp; Miller, C. (2006). Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of Texas  Health &amp; Place, 12  (2), 203-209 DOI:  10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.11.005


Palmer, R., Blanchard, S., &amp; Wood, R. (2009). Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence  Health &amp; Place, 15  (1), 18-24 DOI:  10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.02.001


Chen C, Yu H, Zhao J, Li B, Qu L, Liu S, Zhang P, &amp; Chai Z (2006). The roles of serum selenium and selenoproteins on mercury toxicity in environmental and occupational exposure.  Environmental health perspectives, 114  (2), 297-301 PMID:  16451871













Document Number: 7941 



 Wheat Yield per hectare Reaches its Limit 


 by  David Tribe  on 25 August 2010 


Wheat Reaches its Limit | Economy | English  Wheat Reaches its Limit   Voice of America  August 24, 2010  The world;s population keeps growing, but the amount of wheat farmers worldwide are able to grow per hectare has leveled off.  According to a new study, that;s because breeders and researchers have reached the limit of how much grain the wheat plant can produce.  ;In the 50 years of breeding history, we;ve essentially almost doubled our genetic potential for yield,; says wheat geneticist Bob Graybosch with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the lead author of the new   study in the journal  Crop Science  .  Unfortunately, Graybosch says, ;There;s got to be an upper limit on how much they can do, and it maybe looks like we;re approaching that upper limit.;  ;The farmers that are growing dry-land wheat may see the same yields from now on,; he says. ;They may not see increases in yield under dry-land conditions because we simply are shuffling the same genetic  deck out there.;  Robert A. Graybosch and C. James Peterson   Genetic Improvement in Winter Wheat Yields in the Great Plains of North America, 1959-2008  doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.11.0685 Crop Science 2010 50:1882-1890  Abstract:  Data from USDA-coordinated winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) regional performance nurseries collected over the time period 1959 to 2008 were used to estimate genetic gain (loss) in grain yield, grain volume weight, days to heading, and plant height in winter wheats adapted to the Great Plains of North America. In both the Southern Regional (SRPN) and Northern Regional Performance Nurseries (NRPN), linear regression revealed significant positive relationships between relative grain yields of advanced breeding lines and calendar year of  the nursery trial. The estimated genetic gain in grain yield potential since 1959 was approximately 1.1% (of the control cultivar Kharkof) yr-1 for all entries in the SRPN, and 1.3% yr-1 if only the most productive entry was considered. For the NRPN, the estimates of genetic gain in grain yield were 0.79% yr-1 for all entries, and also 0.79% yr-1 for the most productive entry. Linear regressions of relative grain yields vs. year over the time period 1984 to 2008, however, showed no statistically significant trend in the SRPN. For the same time period in the NRPN, a statistically significant positive slope of 0.83 was observed, though the coefficient of determination (R2) was only 0.28. Relative grain yields of Great Plains hard winter wheats may have peaked in the early to mid-1990s, and further improvement in the genetic potential for grain yield awaits some new technological or biological advance.  Full text: https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/articles/50/5/1882













Document Number: 2181 



 When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad 


 by  David Tribe  on 1 February 2011 


How do individuals face the ethical uncertainties of social life? When under the threat&nbsp;that their next action might be (or appear to be) morally dubious, individuals can derive&nbsp;condence from their past moral behavior, such that an impeccable track record increases&nbsp;their propensity to engage in otherwise suspect actions. Such moral self-licensing (Monin &amp;&nbsp;Miller, 2001) occurs when past moral behavior makes people more likely to do potentially immoral things without worrying about feeling or appearing immoral. We argue&nbsp;that moral self-licensing occurs because good deeds make people feel secure in their&nbsp;moral self-regard. For example, when people are condent that their past behavior demonstrates compassion, generosity, or a lack of prejudice, they are more likely to act in&nbsp;morally dubious ways without fear of feeling heartless, selsh, or bigoted.  In this article, we review the state of research on moral self-licensing, rst by documenting in some detail empirical demonstrations of self-licensing and kindred phenomena, then by analyzing remaining questions about the model, and nally by sketching out&nbsp;directions for future research to cast light on these unresolved issues.


Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad  Anna C. Merritt, Daniel A. Effron, and Benot Monin  Stanford University  Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4/5 (2010): 344357, 10.1111/j.  1751-9004.2010.00263.x













Document Number: 5648 



 When I woke up this morning 


 by  Frank N. Foode  on 8 March 2011 


Howdy How y;all, its your friendly neighborhood genetically modified organism, here, Frank N. Foode. I greet each sunrise with my chloroplast grana revving up their photosystems with the incoming light. Before long I am splitting water and ready to greet the world. Then I check my twitter feed (as all plants should). This morning I was in for a bit of a  shock  ; and I don;t mean from the cold morning air.


Andrew Kimbrell, the dude who runs the Center For Food Safety, just typed up some opinions about genetically engineered crops like me. In  The GMO Reality Check  , and it was published in Organic Connections Magazine. I must say that I was quite shocked at some of the things he said, especially about genetics:


Faulty Science   Theres a very good reason we havent seen these promises come about, Kimbrell explained. The theory behind genetic engineering, which is the understanding of what a gene is and what a gene is not, has changed dramatically over the last decade. The idea that DNAand particularly the part of DNA that we call a gene, which is a little above 1.5 percent of DNAsomehow controls traits is now not scientifically valid. Today most major scientists realize that DNA is not an actor, but is acted  upon  . There are millions of what are called epigenetic markersvarious proteins and chemicalsthat control how DNA is expressed in the cell. This idea that the DNA contains a trait such as drought resistance, size or nutrition is naiveand it was wrong.


Whoa, Nellie! That;s an incredible expression of incredulity about the genetic origin of traits. Now, I know everyone will just love to jump on this one, but the interview touches on some other things that I would like to highlight to give you a flavor of what this lawyer thinks about lil; ole me:


I dont think GMOs should be regulated at all; I think they should be eliminated,


Now I don;t think Kimbrells should be eliminated, but maybe they ought to be regulated.  I think he tells us quite clearly what he (and his organization) are trying to do. But why?


What exactly have these crops done for us? Andrew Kimbrell, founder and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, posed to  Organic Connections  . What has this technology really given anybody? Theres not a single human being on Earth who gets up in the morning wanting to buy genetically engineered food.;


Not being a human being, I thought I would ask some of my human twitter feed followers what they thought about this. Do any of them wake up in the morning and wish that they could buy a genetically engineered food?


Here are some of the answers I got so far:


@_Lucibee:  @franknfoode I;d love to buy #GMO food or even grow it myself ; but the EU won;t let me!


Uh oh, you mean they are denying your right to choose?? :-O


@w1ld3rn3ss:  @franknfoode when can we get GMO blight-resistant potatoes?? And will they taste good with garlic mayo?


I bet they will. Wait, who puts mayo on a potato?


@szintri:  @franknfoode I actually wake up lots of mornings wishing I could have a GFP banana for breakfast!


And that might have the added benefit of helping you find it in the dark ; a win for energy efficiency! Can we get the DOE on it? Go tap on some of those Berkeley biofuel shoulders, James!


So you see, in a very short span of time, already three human beings on this planet say that they do wake up in the morning and want to buy a GMO. I know Andy Kimbrell loves big percentages, so that;s 200% more than is required to prove him wrong. But let;s pile it on, shall we?


&quot;Genes don;t exist, man!&quot;


And here;s why. Regular readers of Biofortified know that there aren;t many traits that directly benefit consumers right now. Maybe no one really wakes up in the morning and thinks, ;Gee, I wish I could buy tofu made from Roundup Ready 2 soybeans,; it doesn;t benefit (or harm) you so why bother? Maybe you;d like to have sweet corn that is not worm-bitten (thankfully as a Bt corn I am relatively worm-free), but again, not too much to get in a stink about. But there are  traits  coming down the pipeline of these various companies and government agencies that people  will  want the benefits from. Folks were just talking about  soybeans with a better oil profile here  , and not to mention  various  biofortification  projects as well. (And what about the surprising excitement over the  non-browning apple?  )  Michael Pollan also told me, Anastasia, and Karl  over dinner that these consumer-oriented traits  will  change public opinion. But Kimbrell is on a mission, you see, to eliminate everything genetically engineered before that has a chance to happen. Call it a husk, I mean hunch, but I think he might be afraid that when these traits become available and more common, that many more people might wake up in the morning and say, ;I want to buy a GMO today.;


So how about it, do you wish that there was a particular GMO that you could buy? Do you actually wake up in the morning and think that you would like to buy something that has been genetically engineered? The trait doesn;t have to exist yet, or be commercialized for that matter. Tell us all about it!


(As for the genetics stuff, don;t worry we;ll have a post to discuss that stuff coming on the blog soon!)













Document Number: 3646 



 When Our Friends Lie 


 by  Kevin Folta  on 19 September 2010 


Last night I woke up in a fog, face down on the couch, fully dressed with my work clothes on. It was 3:44 AM and the artifacts around me described the scene. A partially eaten salad, my glasses crooked on my head, a laptop with an exhausted battery and the television running an infomercial led me to the conclusion that I closed my eyes for a minute while eating dinner and drifted off to sleep.


Fumbling with the remote, I clicked through a few middle-of-the-night stations. Theres a vibrating weight to firm womens arms. Click. A guy with a tie on a news station says that climate change is a hoax. Click. A woman on the next channel lost fifty pounds in a month eating just cookies. Click. A former playboy playmate says that vaccines are dangerous. Another channel has a person claiming evidence that the terrorist attack on 9-11 was an inside job.


I turn off the television, put on my jammies and head off to bed, my dog Stinkie following behind. The claims of kooks go in one ear, rattle around for a moment and then leave out the other.


We are bombarded with junk science, all the time, every day. I dont get mad, I consider the source and let it go. They have an agenda, they have to appeal to viewers, and if subscribing to anti-science or abject untruth is their method then so be it. Financial and political gains are there to be had if you can fool enough people.


Later that day I was writing in my blog and my eyes were attracted to an active link in the browser. It said something about anti-GMO, and being an educator specializing in plant biotechnology I clicked the link. It took me to the website of an organic farm, an organic farm that has substantial market share and products in every supermarket. Ill leave out the name because I dont paint them in a favorable light from this point. Whats the anti-GMO link all about?


I was really disappointed. Reading along in their website reminds me that they too are just another brand of sales pitch, using lies, fear and deceit to sell a product. Their website says:


;there is evidence that GM foods have an increased risk of causing allergic reactions, and uncontrollable cross-pollination depletes crop diversity which has resulted in resistant super-weeds and super-pests. It;s clear that the primary benefits of GM seeds are to the seed and pesticide companies, not to growers or consumers. And many risks are as of yet unknown.;


Wow. Scary huh? Either someone drank the Kool-Aid (undoubtedly Organic Red flavor) or I missed a whole bunch of critical science reports. The same website goes on to say that it is in the mission of the company to fight the use of GMO foods. Just like the goofballs on mid-night television and syndicated radio, they resort to stretching and bending the truth to advance their cause. Rather than rest on the merits of their product, they attack a proven science with bogus assertions to increase sales.


This makes me really sad. I like organic farms and their mission to raise healthy food with fewer agricultural inputs. Im all about the environment and worker health. No problem. Theres a great place for that and its niche is growing. So why taint a good idea by perpetuating boldface lies, attacking science?


For contrast, White Wave, makers of Silk soy products simply states that their products are non-GMO and that they are rigorously screened to ensure NOP standards. Thats fine. They dont attack the sound science of GMO crops, they just say that they dont use them. Sure, the implication is that GMOs are evil and substandard, but they dont come out and say it. Like non-alcoholic beer or decaf, there is a market for products lacking certain ingredients and I think that it is fine to state it that way.


My objection is when a company that wants to do the right thing falls victim to using lies, distortion and hyperbole to sell their products. They dont want to inform the consumer, they want to scare the consumer. It is like when someone doesnt buy the extra ten minutes at the psychic and she says, I cant be responsible if anything bad happens because you left too soon. Those inclined to believe the psychic plunk down ten bucks. The same with the people that dont want to take that GMO chance because many risks are yet unknown. Jenny McCarthy says the same thing about vaccines.


If I sat down with the owners of the organic farm that employs these methods, wed likely find that we have more similarities than differences. Wed probably listen to the same radio stations, vote in similar patterns and subscribe to similar social philosophies. Wed share similar concerns about the environment and sustainable food production. Wed probably trade some CDs and compliment each other on our sandals.


So as their friend, shouldnt I hold them extra accountable for their misgivings? I think so. I can write climate science letters to Glenn Beck all day and never get an answer, but will the kinder, gentler organic farmers want to start a real scientific dialogue? I decided to write a letter to the company. I asked them to substantiate their claim with peer-reviewed science.


To their credit, I received a polite reply from their customer service person, but geez, was she ever duped. She provided non-refereed opinions on the harm of GMO, links to the Huffington Post and at best non-replicated studies in poor-quality journals. Anything she gave me from a legitimate journal was cherry picked and it was clear that she never read the actual article.


We traded emails for a few days (me being gentle and scholarly always) before she stopped responding. Clearly she had made up her mind and didnt want to be bothered by evidence. Certainly evidence stands counter to their non-scientific claims that pander to their consumer, and if they come clean and halt the anti-GMO rhetoric they can lose market share to someone that will. Lies are a part of their advertising.


Im going to continue to monitor websites, parse labels, and hold them accountable for facts. I urge you to do so too. These folks are on my side, I want to support them, and as their ally I owe them the input of my expertise. He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help, it was once said.


Like the late night huckster that sees dollars when he spews half truth, this company too will probably defend their use of distorted facts and lies if it means scaring concerned people into buying their products. Funny, I just buy them because I appreciate their quality and like to support small farms and low-input ag.


You dont have to be a dupe of the anti-GMO machine to share that opinion.













Document Number: 1889 



 Where is the starting point to create a plan for feeding nine billion people 40 years from now? 


 by  David Tribe  on 22 December 2010 


How Are We Going To Double Global Food Production Over The Next 40 Years?&nbsp;  The Farm Gate, University of Illinois  December 22, 2010  Stu Ellis  With the US Census showing more than 308 million people, there is curiosity about how many people there are in the world. The current estimate of 7.5 billion is forecast to grow to nine billion by the middle of the century. They will be hungry and will need to be fed with food that very few of them can produce for themselves. Somewhere, global food production will have to increase 70% to 100% in the next 40 years. You may not have to worry about that but the younger generation on today;s farm;s will be involved with the care and feeding of nine billion hungry people. How are they going to do that?


The number of people expected in the global community is irrelevant, but what is a serious question is how will food production double in the next 40 years, given the challenges to food production that we have today? You are trying to grow corn for livestock, fuel, and export. It is the same for soybeans, and other grains. The challenge that today;s young farmers will have revolves around water, land use, yield increases, environmental regulations, and a myriad of other significant policy issues. Where is the starting point to create a plan for feeding nine billion people 40 years from now?


More than 50 global agricultural thinkers recently gathered in England to identify the top 100 questions that have to be answered to address the food demand in the year 2050. When you look at the list, it indicates a global effort was made, since only 7 were from the US, and the others came from every continent. Their effort generated 618 very significant questions that needed to be answered, and were distilled into the top 100, in which ;The aim is to use sound scientific evidence to inform decision making and guide policy makers in the future direction of agricultural research priorities and policy support.;


Their report indicates that the goal of agriculture is not just to maximize productivity, ;but to optimize across a far more complex landscape of production, rural development, environmental, social justice and food consumption outcomes.; And the agricultural thinkers say there are national and international challenges to development of the policies that will allow food to be produced in sufficient quality and quantity.


Their 100 questions were categorized in 14 areas, such as water supply, energy, pest management, livestock production, food supply chains, genetic improvement for crops, and several others. Without the space to list all of the questions, which are in the report, here are a dozen samples of the types of questions that will need to be answered:


Section 1: Natural resource inputs:&nbsp;


1. What are the predicted critical impacts of climate change (e.g. changes in temperature, wind speed, humidity and water availability, storm intensity, crop water requirements, snowmelt and seasonal runoff, pests, water-logging, agro-ecosystem shifts, human migration) on agricultural yields, cropping practices, crop disease spread, disease resistance and irrigation development?


14. What are the world;s mobilizable stocks and reserves of phosphate, and are they sufficient to support adequate levels of food production globally for the next century?


22. Can payments for ecosystem services (e.g. carbon sequestration, green water credits, biodiversity enrichment) lead to adoption of recommended land-use and management practices by resource-poor farmers in developing countries?


Section 2: Agronomic practice:&nbsp;


34. What are the benefits and risks of embracing the different types of agricultural biotechnology (environmental impacts; sensitivity/resistance to environmental stressors such as heat, drought, salinity; dependence on/independence from inputs; risks of accelerated resistance; food safety, human health and nutrition; economic, social and cultural impacts)?


37. What is the long-term capacity of fossil fuels and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer stocks to support intensive production systems globally?


45. What is the efficiency of different ways to genetically improve the nutrient-use efficiency of crops and simultaneously increase yield?


47. What evidence exists to indicate that climate change will change pest and disease incidence?


57. What are the best means to encourage the economic growth of regional livestock markets, while limiting the effects of global climate change, and what can industrialized countries do to improve the carbon footprint of its livestock sector?


Section 3: Agricultural development:&nbsp;


60. How much can agricultural education, extension, farmer mobilization and empowerment be achieved by the new opportunities afforded by mobile phone and web-based technologies?


72. Who will be farming in 2050, and what will be their land relationships (farm ownership, rental or management)?


Section 4: Markets and consumption:


80. Where is food waste greatest in food chains of industrialized and developing countries and what measures can be taken significantly to reduce these levels of food waste?


89. As energy prices rise, how can agriculture increase its efficiency and use fewer inputs and fertilizers to become economically sustainable and environmentally sensitive, yet still feed a growing population?


Who is going to answer these questions? The answers will not only come from high tech laboratories, but from local farm group meetings, coffee shops, and the Halls of Congress, as well as from global farmers who do not speak English.


Summary:&nbsp;


Doubling global food output over the next 40 years will require numerous scientific advancements, but many governmental policy shifts, and societal change. Just identifying what information needs to be developed is the first step, and major headway has been made to create a list of questions that will need to be answered as the world prepares to feed future hungry mouths.













Document Number: 9730 



 Where the superpowers of superweeds come from 


 by  James Schnable  on 14 May 2010 


Superman had the yellow sun of earth, spiderman had a radioactive spider-bite, but what about  superweeds  , where does their super power (surviving application of Round-up/glyphosate) come from?


To understand how superweeds survive, we first have to understand why normal weeds (the Jimmy Olsens and Lois Lanes of the plant world) die. &lt;; last superhero reference of this post I promise.


Plants are not like people. The list of differences goes on and on, but today the difference we;re concerned about is where amino acids come from. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, the same way Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G) and Cytosine (C) are the building blocks of DNA. Both our bodies and plants (and  almost  every other living thing) use the same twenty amino acids to build proteins. Our bodies can make ~12 of the twenty animo acids for themselves, but there are at least eight amino acids that the human body cannot produce (called essential amino acids). Our only source of these amino acids is from protein in our food.


It;s all well and good for us to get amino acids from our food, but plants don;t eat. They;re made of pretty much nothing more than water, sunlight and air. And trust me, none of those things are a good source of protein.


Unlike us, plants have to be able to make all twenty amino acids from scratch. That means they need whole biochemical pathways* that aren;t found in animals. But a biochemical pathway is like an assembly line. Break one of the steps in the middle and the whole thing falls apart. That;s what glyphosate/round-up does.


This part of the story starts with an enzyme called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (or EPSPS for short). Do you don;t have to understand what EPSPS does specifically**, what is important is that its job is an important step in making the three amino acids Tryptophan, Phenylalanine, and Tyrosine***. When EPSPS can;t do its job, the next protein in the biochemical pathway won;t get the parts it needs to do its job, and in short order the whole pipeline shuts down, none of those three amino acids get produced, and the plant dies.


How does glyphosate keep EPSPS from doing it;s job? It imitates one of the the chemical building blocks EPSPS normally works with, so EPSPS proteins will bind to it like they would to the actual chemical compound. But since glyphosate isn;t the compound EPSPS actually work with, it sticks in the protein. If it helps you can think of this as feeding the wrong sort of paper into a printer, causing a paper jam. Lots of individual molecules of glyphosate get into each plant cell. They stick in EPSPS proteins floating within the cell, which keeps EPSPS from doing its job, and once EPSPS stops working, the plant cell can;t make the amino acids it needs to survive, and dies.


Glyphosate is very good at doing what it does: killing plants. And as weed-killers go, it;s a lot less nasty for animals since it works by breaking a protein animals don;t need or even have. But there is one problem. Some weeds are becoming less effected by the herbicide, able to survive larger and large doses. There are a number of ways plants can evolve to survive large doses of glyphosate. Let;s talk about three:


The first, and probably most obvious, is to change the shape of the EPSPS protein so glyphosate can no longer jam the mechanism. As it turns out mutations that change which amino acid is used at one specific point can produce a version of the EPSPS gene that is less likely to be broken by glyphosate. Think of it as changing the design of a print so paper that would jam the mechanism either won;t fit in the printer at all or passes through harmlessly. This method of getting ;superweed; powers has been used by malaysian goose-grass and and australian ryegrass.  A second way for plants to become superweeds is to stop transporting glyphosate around the plant. I don;t have a good printer metaphor for this one. Cells in the leaves of plants are mostly completely grown and don;t need to make as many new proteins as the rapidly dividing cells in meristems and newly developing leaves. When a farmer sprays glyphosate it will mostly land on the mature leaves of the plant. If plants can keep the herbicide in those leaves and keep it from traveling throughout the rest of the plants, they stand a better chance of survival, and that;s exactly what has been found in resistant stiffstalk rye and pigweed.   The first two methods are all well and good, but I probably wouldn;t have bother to write this post if it wasn;t for the method of resistance discovered in  Amaranthus palmeri  (one of the many species that share the common name pigweed). Palmer amaranth;s approach to resisting glyphosate is charming in its brute force. Resistant plants have duplicated the gene for EPSPS many times (up to 160 copies in some plants!). All those extra genes mean the plants produce a lot more EPSPS protein, so no matter how many individual EPSPSs get jammed by glyphosate molecules, there are still plenty more working EPSPSs to keep doing the job, and the biochemical pathway never stops. Sure a problem with paper jams can be fixed by more advanced printers, or more strict controls on what kind of paper is allowed into the building; but Palmer amaranth;s solution was simply to build a lot more printers.


Potentially there;s potentially a fourth way to develop glyphosate resistance, which would be for the resistant version of the EPSPS protein engineered into glyphosate resistant crops**** to be introgressed into wild relatives allowing those wild crop relatives to become herbicide resistant ;super weeds;. This gets talked about a lot and clearly the risk is going to depend on a lot of factors*****. In researching this post I couldn;t find any papers describing herbicide resistant weeds that owe their resistance to a gene from an herbicide resistant crop. And given how much ink has been spilled on the subject, I would expect any such papers to makes a big splash.


*Biochemical pathways are just a bunch of steps needed to get from some molecule an organism already has, to some other molecule the organism wants. Usually each individual chemical change is performed by some specific protein, like workers on an assembly line. (Sometimes its even arranged like an assembly line with intermediate molecules being passed directly from one protein to another, although it isn;t always that way)


**Although if you;re interested you can read more about the details of the EPSPS protein  here  .


***The first two are certainly essential amino acids. Our bodies can produce our own tyrosine, but all we do is modify phenylalanine. We can;t make it from scratch.


****Weeds that resist glyphosate are ;super weeds;, but I can;t imagine ever hearing the crops that resist the exact same herbicide called ;super crops;  .


*****How the crop reproduces, whether its being grown near any wild ancestors, how weedy those wild ancestors are to begin with, which crop alleles are in close linkage with the resistance gene (crop-like traits tend to make weeds much less successful).


Gaines, T., Zhang, W., Wang, D., Bukun, B., Chisholm, S., Shaner, D., Nissen, S., Patzoldt, W., Tranel, P., Culpepper, A., Grey, T., Webster, T., Vencill, W., Sammons, R., Jiang, J., Preston, C., Leach, J., &amp; Westra, P. (2009). Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107  (3), 1029-1034 DOI:  10.1073/pnas.0906649107


POWLES, S., &amp; PRESTON, C. (2006). Evolved Glyphosate Resistance in Plants: Biochemical and Genetic Basis of Resistance  Weed Technology, 20  (2), 282-289 DOI:  10.1614/WT-04-142R.1


This story was  originally posted at James and the Giant Corn  .













Document Number: 6131 



 Where;s the doomsday animal vault? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 4 February 2008 


Ankole-Holstein hybrid taken by Sarah McCans in Uganda, 18 July 2006, via Flickr.


In the NY Times article   A Dying Breed  , some people fear that African Ankole cattle will disappear, to be replaced by Holsteins. The hardy Ankole can endure heat and drought, have tasty lean meat, but produce little milk. Holsteins can be rather fragile, but are milk factories. Who can blame some African farmers for trying to increase milk production by breeding the two together, producing hybrid Ankole-Holsteins? With careful breeding strategies, the goal can be a stronger cow that can produce a lot of milk on a diet of grass. I think it would be in the interest of all farmers to get some Ankole blood into their herds, with the possibility of warming temperatures looming.


All over the world, farmers are trading in their traditional herds for modern breeds that produce more bigger faster. It is good, in a way, because it helps the people feed their families and even make a little profit. The problem comes when the lines are lost forever. As the Times article states: The Food and Agriculture Organization, an agency of the  United Nations  , recently reported that at least 20 percent of the worlds estimated 7,600 livestock breeds are in danger of extinction. Experts are warning of a potential meltdown in global genetic diversity.


Despite the threat of a genetic diversity meltdown, I dont think we can ethically expect poor farmers to stay poor with their well-adapted but slow-producing herds and flocks. So, I propose a Doomsday Animal Vault (see the  Svalbard Global Seed Vault  ). Of course, its a bit more difficult than keeping seeds, but eggs and sperm from many animals can be frozen, while a number of government or UN sponsored locations keep breeding herds in a number of various climates. Population and quantitative geneticists can calculate exactly how many animals are needed in the starting population and the best crosses to keep the highest levels of genetic diversity in a herd. At least part of the operating costs could be paid by people who want to buy sperm for their herds.













Document Number: 1390 



 Who makes GE crops? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 11 November 2009 


When it comes to genetic engineering in agriculture,  most of the attention  on the web and in films  focuses on Monsanto  when there are several other big companies (and a lot of little ones) that also work in this area. Reuters has  just published a list  of the big six, for your perusal:


Monsanto Co (   MON.N  ) ; Based in St. Louis, the company posted record net sales of $11.7 billion and net income of $2.1 billion for fiscal 2009. Among its key products are corn, soybeans and cotton that tolerate weed-killing treatments and resist pests.   Pioneer Hi-Bred ; Subsidiary of DuPont (   DD.N  ) based in Johnston, Iowa. Produces, markets and sells hybrid seed in nearly 70 countries worldwide and is the closest rival to Monsanto for market share in U.S. biotech corn seed market. Revenue totaled $4 billion in 2008.   Syngenta AG (   SYNN.VX  ) ; The Basel, Switzerland-based company operates in 90 countries and generated 2008 sales of $11.6 billion. Collaborating with International Rice Research Institute to improve rice.   Dow AgroSciences ; Subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co (   DOW.N  ) based in Indianapolis, Indiana. With global sales of $4.5 billion, company offers insect-protected corn and cotton, among other seed products, and is expanding its research into wheat.   BASF (   BASF.DE  ) ; Based in Ludwigshafen, Germany, this leading global chemical company is increasingly focusing its health and nutrition division on plant biotechnology to increase crop yields. Like its rivals, BASF is working on a drought-tolerant corn seed. Revenue in its agricultural division totaled 3.4 billion euros in 2008.   Bayer CropScience AG ; The unit of Bayer AG (   BAYGn.DE  ), had 2008 sales of 6.4 billion euros and operates in 120 countries. The company is pursuing 56 ;bioscience; research projects involving six crops.


Hopefully people will come to know that there is more to the private sector than just Monsanto. Lists of the big ones are easy to make, though, what about a profile of the little companies? Start-ups in Africa, South America? What about China?


This brings up another point. The perception is often that genetic engineering is a ;corporate technology,; which is a nonsensical term. Technologies are not ;corporate; or not, but they can be used by corporations, or not. Is Organic Ag a ;corporate technology?; Corporations do use it, and market it. Biodynamic Agriculture is literally owned by  Demeter  , what does that make it?


Part of this perception that genetic engineering is a ;corporate; thing, as opposed to a ;democratic; thing is that most people know that private companies commercialize GE crops, even if they know know the name of Monsanto. However there are numerous government labs and agencies, university research labs and groups, and non-profit organizations that also do research on genetic engineering, some of them have even developed and released (or will soon release) GE cultivars. For example, Papaya;s resistant to the Ringspot Virus were developed by the University of Hawaii and Cornell among others. The  Donald Danforth Plant Science Center  in St. Louis is working on cassava breeding and engineering for protein, mineral, and pro-Vitamin A content as well as disease resistance and resistance to post-harvest degradation and reduced cyanide poisoning for African countries. The  BioCassava Plus  project is part of the  HarvestPlus  program, which includes many other similar projects such as  Golden Rice  .


What are some others?


I imagine that not every academic lab wants to cry out ;Hey we;re making GMOs!; when their research can be a target for vandalism. When I came to UC Davis in the fall of 1999,  some fields and a field building were destroyed  as a protest against genetic engineering ; which destroyed  no  GE plants, just a grad student;s years of work. The same year, a research building in Michigan was burnt to the ground, and members of the Earth Liberation Front were  caught and sentenced  just last year. (While I worked in one academic lab some years later that was studying drought tolerance in tomatoes, a broken window pane in the greenhouse was cause for brief alarm while we made sure that no one broke in.)


Although the research environment in the US is  a lot more calm  today than at the turn of the milennium, and few cases of vandalism happen here (unlike, say, Germany or the UK), there is probably still reluctance on the part of academic labs to broadcast their work related to genetic engineering outside the scientific literature.


I once covered a protest that happened at UC Davis over the  Dendrome Project  , (  article available here  ) a mere database of tree genome research, so you can see that even the suggestion of what might be going on in university labs can spark angry responses.


Nevertheless, there are many publicly-funded labs in the US and beyond that are doing work on genetic engineering, from making  virus-resistant grapes  to  phytoremediation at UC Berkeley  , and the public doesn;t really know about them. What public labs or research programs do you know about that are doing work on genetic engineering, from basic science to applied?


Any smaller companies working on GE crops? I know of one,  Mendel Biotechnology  , which has been  mentioned  here before. Then there;s  Ventria Bioscience  as well.


Let;s make a list so that maybe we could help people understand the full scope of who works in this field, and what they work on.


Reuters asks  Is Monsanto the answer or the problem  ? Maybe part of the problem is that the media isn;t doing much to help people hear about anything other than Monsanto;s latest stock prices? Let;s help them out.













Document Number: 2846 



 Why do people opposes technology? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 17 April 2009 


In the genetic engineering discussion, within the opposition there emerges a general dislike for ;technology.; Usually, when people say technology they mean things that are made of metal, plastic, uses electricity, has protruding hypodermic needles, and is usually shiny. The opposite of things that are natural or organic, technology is entirely human-derived and artificial-looking.


Of course, what this obscures is what a technology really is, and that is  applied knowledge  . According to  Wikipedia  ,


Technology is a broad concept that deals with an animal species; usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects an animal species; ability to control and adapt to its environment.


Certainly GE crops are a form of technology. But some other things in agriculture that count as technologies include: Organic growing methods, biologically-derived pesticides, manure, and using animals to plow fields. Heck, the horse-drawn plow itself was a technological breakthrough for its time!


Our lives are interwoven with technology ; and I;m not just talking about people who can;t go anywhere without their iPods. People are born, live, eat, drink, breathe, and cheat death for years because of technology. Without it, there would be very few people on this planet. And although many, including myself, like to take vacations away from most of our technology to relax, very few want to actually be stranded in the wilderness for the rest of their lives without it.


And if we are to feed the growing number of people on this planet, we are going to need all manner of technologies.


Why then, do people oppose specific new technologies, is it a fear of how it may change their lives (or that it might end their lives)?  Kevin Kelly, who helped found Wired Magazine,  wants to understand why  . He has compiled a short list of four general reasons why:


Contrary to Nature.  Technology is in opposition to nature. It is produced at the expense of nature because it destroys ecological habitats. Its steel is mined from the earth; its lumber is taken by cutting down forests; its rare metals dug from the ground; its plastics sucked from oil and then burned into the air. Its factories pave over wetlands or meadows. Worse this destruction of natural habitat can extinguish species, an act which cannot be undone (at least not yet). Even if technology halted the destruction of natural habitat, the fact that we consume large amounts of energy causes a disruption in the atmosphere, which alters the climate. The scale of technology is simply so large that almost no matter how environmentally benign it may seem, its sheer size overwhelms natural cycles.   Contrary to Humans.  Technology erodes human character. It separates us from nature, which diminishes our natural self. Out of touch with nature, we behave selfishly, stupidly. We become consumers instead of receivers. We become artificial. At the extreme we behave like machines. Technology makes us greedy, unhappy, impatient, insensitive and full of hubris.   Contrary to Technology Itself.  Technology proceeds so fast it is going to self-destruct. It is no longer regulated by nature, or humans, and cannot control itself. Self-replicating technologies such as robotics, nanotech, genetic engineering are self-accelerating at such a rate that they can veer off in unexpected, unmanageable directions at any moment. The Fermi Paradox suggests that none, or very few civilizations, escape the self-destroying capacity of technology.   Contrary to God.  Technology has all the hallmarks of an evil force. The worst injuries to ourselves and our species come at the hand of technology: atomic bombs, guns everywhere, toxins in water, mind drugs, dams that fail, marketplace bombs, persistent radiation, automobile crashes, not to mention the technologies of war  tanks, predator drones, land mines, etc  which have been designed with only ONE purpose: to kill as many humans as possible. Technologies amplify violence, and this violence is systemic, part of the agenda, built into the nature of these systems. Like an evil force.


I believe that some aspects of these are different sides of the same coin, particularly when it comes to genetic engineering. I have noticed that many opponents of genetic engineering regard Nature (with a capital ;N;) as equivalent to God (with a capital G). The equation of Nature=Good and Human=Bad is identical to the Contrary to God argument above. I have even noted that when they find out that certain GE traits can also evolve naturally, they say ;That;s Evolution!; Theologizing a scientific concept ; wonderful.


But notice one thing. As a human creation, our technology under the Nature and God arguments above is seen as Bad or necessarily destructive, even when it is used for good. But under the Humanist argument ; that technology goes against human nature ; notice the contradiction?


The crucial angle here is that the Nature/God arguments are implicitly anti-human because human technology is necessarily bad, while the humanistic argument is pro-human while painting the technology as anti-human. One can form a humanistic argument in favor of technology that recognizes the potential of technology to be destructive, allow for evil, and dehumanize, but by guiding that technology with pro-human and pro-natural principles we can defuse the other arguments.


Did Kevin miss any major anti-technological themes? It will be interesting to read down the road what his arguments against these anti-technological arguments become.













Document Number: 3640 



 Why is ecology important to agriculture? Ask the Plataspids. 


 by  Joe Ballenger  on 12 December 2010 


Before moving to the southern US, I lived in Iowa. If there;s one thing Iowa;s known for, it;s known for our row crops. Everywhere in the summer is green and pretty and filled with all sorts of farmland and not much visible biodiversity outside of that.


If you live in certain areas of the south, it;s really actually very similar. There are lots of rowcrops; peanuts and soybeans instead of corn and soybeans but still a similar concept. Lots of crops. Everything;s green and pretty without a whole lot of biodiversity. There;s one other major difference, though;lots of areas look like this:


Image courtesy of Wikipedia Commons


The green curtain draped over everything? Kudzu.


Kudzu was a vine originally  planted to control erosion  which grew out of control. It grows quickly, is hard to kill and covers everything with a green blanket and crowds everything out by keeping sunlight from reaching the plants. The trees under that green carpet are all dead.


So; how can things get worse?


Simple, really; just introduce something which lives on kudzu.


In 2009, a graduate student at the University of Georgia;s department of entomology found a very odd insect which resembled a beetle, but wasn;t. It had sucking mouthparts and a bunch of other features which landed it in a group of insects called the Heteroptera. The problem is that the insect wasn;t able to be identified with any of the keys available for the US. It was a new family which hadn;t been recorded in the New World before. The insect was eventually identified by another group of researchers as belonging to the family Plataspidae, and the species found was  Megacopta cribraria  , which lives on Kudzu but also on beans.


Megacopta  species are known pests of various beans, including soybeans. From a   recent review of  Megacopta  biology  :


A number of authors report that Megacopta spp. are pests of soybeans. Soybean yield loss ranged from 1-50% depending on density of the bugs. The reported pest status ranges from minor to severe. As an introduced species, this bug appears to have potential to be a pest of legume crops in the United States.


They also invade houses during the fall while looking for a place to overwinter and can be smelled from some distance away, so they;re an urban pest as well.


The pest status of this species isn;t really certain; experimental crops infested with the species showed no apparent damage, I can;t find any information about thresholds for this species in particular and a lot of the information out there seems to be for the genus level and not this particular species so I can;t tell how well it;s been studied in it;s native range. There just simply isn;t enough information at this time to say if it;ll be apocalyptic, a flash-in-the-pan concern or something in between which is dependent on region, weather and/or biotype.


However, it;s considered a pest species in most of it;s range and this still presents a serious potential problem for soybean growers in the south because we now have a species that quickly reproduces, can grow to huge populations and which has a refuge which quite literally covers the entire south.


D. R. Suiter,1 J. E. Eger, Jr.,2 W. A. Gardner, R. C. Kemerait,3 J. N. All,4 P. M. Roberts,5 J. K. Greene,6 L. M. Ames,, &amp; G. D. Buntin, T. M. Jenkins, and G. K. Douce5 (2010). Discovery and Distribution of Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Plataspidae) in Northeast Georgia  Journal of Integrated Pest Management













Document Number: 2407 



 Why is it so hard to achieve Energy Efficiency? 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 27 July 2010 


More live blogging from The  Aspen Environment Forum  , sponsored by the National Geographic and the Aspen Institute. Panelist include:  Brian Keane  ,  Amory Lovins  ,  Will Wynn  , with moderator Jack Riggs.


Brian: Each one of us can and must be part of the energy efficient solution. It is the small little simple things that we do everyday that will make a difference.


Amory: Given the political fault lines in our society, we need to be careful about our language and the motivations that we convey. Eg. auditing, property assessment, and so on. No one wants these things.  When we talk to others about saving energy, lets not insist that they do it for the same reasons. Lets focus on outcomes not motives. Eg some people may care more about national security rather than environmental sustainability.


Will: We spend $45 a month on electricity for a $900K house. Many of his friends pay $600/month. Do I want to keep his money and pay off the mortgage? It is an outstanding savings if you can put pretax dollars back into your home. An easy way to do it is to pay less in monthly energy bills. People need to think about housing affordability. If they realize the wasted costs on electrical, they will change.


Lovins pointed out that Will pays 10x fold more than him!


I couldnt miss this one because I read Amory Lovins when I was in college and still have his book. I will attempt to get his autograph.













Document Number: 5145 



 Why Parents Fear the Needle (and the gene) 


 by  Pamela Ronald  on 22 January 2011 


DESPITE overwhelming evidence to the contrary, roughly one in five Americans believes that vaccines cause autism ; a disturbing fact that will probably hold true even after the publication this month, in a British medical journal, of a report thoroughly debunking the 1998 paper that began the vaccine-autism scare. says  Michael Willrich, a professor of history at Brandeis University in todays NYT


Similarly, according to Dr Oz, the TV host, papaya genetically engineered with a snippet of a mild strain of a virus to make it disease free, causes infertility. This in face of overwhelming evidence from peer-reviewed studies that the papayas, which have been consumed for 15 years and have been embraced by farmers as the most appropriate method to control the deadly papaya ringspot virus, are safe to eat. In contrast, to GE papaya that carry trace amounts of a mild strain of the virus, conventional or organic papaya are chalkfull of the virus. How should such papaya be labeled?


It is the same story for GE cotton, a cotton engineered with a certified organic insect control agent called BT. The GE cotton is thriving with half the amount of insecticide, yet many still view it with suspicion. And vitamin A fortified rice has yet to reach the poor who need it because of concerns that the fortification was added with genes rather than synthetic chemicals that has been the norm for many years.  The non-profit  Golden Humanitarian Board  has launched research and education programs to assist parents in understanding the dangers of vitamin A deficiency, which causes some 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind every year. More than half of those children also die within a year of becoming blind.


As Willrich points out, the clear benefits to children; s health is often obscured by the public;s deep and underlying fear of vaccines and genes. ;Until officials realize that, and learn how to counter such deep-seated concerns, the paranoia ; and the public-health risk it poses ; will remain;.


The evidence against the original article of the vaccine-autism scare and its author, a British medical researcher named Andrew Wakefield, is damning. Among other things, he is said to have received payment for his research from a lawyer involved in a suit against a vaccine manufacturer; in response, Britain;s General Medical Council struck him from the medical register last May. As the journal;s editor put it, the assertion that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine caused autism ;was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud.;


In the same vein, Oz and associates uses anecdotes to suggest that genetic engineering is dangerous, even though such stories  are contradicted by a vast body of data and scientific experience  and like Wakefield are  riddled with undisclosed potential conflicts of interest  .


But public fear of vaccines and genes did not originate with Dr. Wakefield;s paper or Smiths stories. Rather, their claims tapped into a reservoir of doubt and resentment toward these life-saving, but never risk-free, technologies.


;Vaccines have had to fight against public skepticism from the beginning. In 1802, after Edward Jenner published his first results claiming that scratching cowpox pus into the arms of healthy children could protect them against smallpox, a political cartoon appeared showing newly vaccinated people with hooves and horns;.


When iodized salt was first promoted in Kazahastan, it was thought to be a government plot to poison people. SImilarly, many view Golden rice (to be released through non-profit channels, with seed to be saved and replanted by farmers) with suspicion.


Nevertheless, during the 19th century vaccines became central to public-health efforts in England, Europe and the Americas, and several countries began to require vaccinations. Similarly, following an education campaign, iodized salt was eventually accepted today Kazakhstan is 94% free of iodine deficiency disorders.


Many people saw mandatory vaccinations and iodized salt as an invasion of their personal liberty. An antivaccine movement began to build and, though vilified by the mainstream medical profession, soon boasted a substantial popular base and several prominent supporters, including Frederick Douglass, Leo Tolstoy and George Bernard Shaw, who called vaccinations ;a peculiarly filthy piece of witchcraft.;


Willrich goes on to describe the history of the vaccination movement:


;In America, popular opposition peaked during the smallpox epidemic at the turn of the 20th century. Health officials ordered vaccinations in public schools, in factories and on the nation;s railroads; club-wielding New York City policemen enforced vaccinations in crowded immigrant tenements, while Texas Rangers and the United States Cavalry provided muscle for vaccinators along the Mexican border;.


Public resistance was immediate, from riots and school strikes to lobbying and a groundswell of litigation that eventually reached the Supreme Court. Newspapers, notably this one, dismissed antivaccinationists as ;benighted and deranged; and ;hopeless cranks.; In the case of GE crops, research fields are destroyed in France and even when the vandals are caught, they are let go.


These kinds of opposition movements reflect ;complex attitudes toward medicine and the government. Many African-Americans, long neglected or mistreated by the white medical profession, doubted the vaccinators; motives. Christian Scientists protested the laws as an assault on religious liberty. And workers feared, with good reason, that vaccines would inflame their arms and cost them several days; wages.;


Understandably, advocates for universal immunization then and now have tended to see only the harm done by their critics. But in retrospect, such wariness was justified: at the time, health officials ordered vaccinations without ensuring the vaccines were safe and effective. Lack of public confidence in government regulatory polices is one of the reasons that some consumers fear the process of GE.


;Public confidence in vaccines collapsed in the fall of 1901 when newspapers linked the deaths of nine schoolchildren in Camden, N.J., to a commercial vaccine allegedly tainted with tetanus. In St. Louis, 13 more schoolchildren died of tetanus after treatment with the diphtheria antitoxin. It was decades before many Americans were willing to submit to public vaccination campaigns again.;


;Nevertheless, the vaccination controversy of the last century did leave a positive legacy. Seeking to restore confidence after the deaths in Camden and St. Louis, Congress enacted the Biologics Control Act of 1902, establishing the first federal regulation of the nation;s growing vaccine industry. Confronted with numerous antivaccination lawsuits, state and federal courts established new standards that balanced public health and civil liberties;. Regulation of GE crops so far seems to be working. So far, not a single instance of harm to human health or the environment has been documented.


Most important, popular resistance taught government officials that when it comes to public health, education can be more effective than brute force. By midcentury, awareness efforts had proven critical to the polio and smallpox vaccination efforts, both of which were huge successes. For GE crops, the story is not so clear. Although the GE crops on the market, especially GE cotton and GE papaya have had clear economic and environmental benefits, much of the public is unaware of these successes.


;One would think such education efforts would no longer be necessary. After all, today;s vaccines are safer, subject to extensive regulatory controls. And shots are far more numerous: as of 2010, the Centers for Disease Control recommended that every child receive 10 different vaccinations. For most Americans, vaccines are a fact of life.


Still, according to a 2010 C.D.C. report, 40 percent of American parents with young children have delayed or refused one or more vaccines for their child. That;s in part because vaccines have been so successful that any risk associated with their use, however statistically small, takes on an elevated significance.


It also doesn;t help that, thanks to the Internet, a bottomless archive of misinformation, including Dr. Wakefield;s debunked work, is just a few keystrokes away. All of which means the public health and agricultural communities must work even harder to spread the positive news about vaccines and disease resistant papaya.


Health officials (and scientists!) often get frustrated with public misconceptions about vaccines (and genes); at the turn of the last century, one frustrated Kentucky health officer pined for the arrival of ;the fool-killer; ; an outbreak of smallpox devastating enough to convince his skeptical rural constituency of the value of vaccination.; Hawaiian farmers embraced GE papaya precisely because it was so effective against a disease that could not be controlled using other methods (organic or conventional).


Willrich points out:


;But that;s no way to run a health [or agricultural] system. Our public health leaders would do far better to adopt the strategy used by one forward-thinking federal health official from the early 20th century, C. P. Wertenbaker of the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service.


;As smallpox raged across the American South, Wertenbaker journeyed to small communities and delivered speech after speech on vaccinations before swelling audiences of townsfolk, farmers and families. He listened and replied to people;s fears. He told them about the horrors of smallpox. He candidly presented the latest scientific information about the benefits and risks of vaccination. And he urged his audiences to protect themselves and one another by taking the vaccine. By the time he was done, many of his listeners were already rolling up their sleeves. [cant say scientists that talk about GE have always had such success]


America;s public health leaders and scientists need to do the same, to reclaim the town square with a candid national conversation about the real risks of vaccines and GE crops, which are minuscule compared with their benefits. Why waste another breath vilifying the antivaccination and anti GE minority when steps can be taken to expand the pro-vaccine majority and we can demonstrate that GE crops have reduced insecticide use?


;Obstetricians, midwives, pediatricians [and agricultural scientists] should present the facts about vaccines [and insect and viral resistant crops as well as the soon to be released vitamin A fortified rice] and the nasty diseases they prevent early and often to expectant parents [and other consumers]. Health agencies should mobilize local parents; organizations to publicize, in realistic terms, the hazards that unvaccinated children can pose to everyone else in their communities [and the advantages of vitamin fortification and reduced applications of insecticides]. And health [and agricultural] officials must redouble their efforts to harness the power of the Internet and spread the good word about vaccines [and even some GE crops].


You can bet that Wertenbaker would have done the same thing;.













Document Number: 3678 



 Why plant breeding is incompatible with Organic Agriculture 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 8 May 2010 


This is part I of a three-part series on Orgenic* Backlash. How is the organic sector handling the argument in favor of integrating of genetically engineered crops into organic agricultural systems?


When I read the news a few weeks ago I was at first puzzled, and then inspired. Jim Riddle, Organic Outreach Coordinator for the University of Minnesota, wrote an article for the Rodale Institute outlining  10 reasons why genetic engineering is incompatible with organic agriculture  . This is one of the issues that we tackle quite often here at Biofortified. So here are his ten reasons:


1. Basic science.  Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.  2. Ecological impact.  Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cows milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.   3. Control vs harmony.  Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite ; an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level ; the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.   4. Unpredictable consequences.  Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach ; know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.   5. Transparency.  Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial genetic engineering is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary genetic patents for corporate profits. The ;substantial equivalence; regulatory framework has allowed the GMO industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public;s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.   6. Accountability.  Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances, including genetically engineered seeds and pollen. Genetically engineered crops do not respect property lines and cause harm to organic and non-GMO producers through genetic trespass, with no required containment or accountability.   7. Unnecessary.  It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, recombinant genetic modification has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as genetic engineering, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.   8. Genetic diversity.  Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Genetic modification has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping GMO varieties.   9. Not profitable.  According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of GMO varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.   10. No consumer demand.  Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be genetically engineered. In fact, over 275,000 people said no GMOs in organic, in response to the first proposed organic rule in 1997. Organic is the only federally regulated food label, which prohibits the use of genetic engineering. By genetically engineering organic foods, consumer choice would be eliminated, in the absence of mandatory labeling of all GMO foods.


Convinced? I considered that maybe he is right. Furthermore, as I continued to think about it, I could only conclude that   plant breeding  itself  is incompatible with Organics as well. You know, rubbing two flowers together. I will now outline 10 good reasons why plant breeding is incompatible with Organic Agriculture. You might notice some similarities.


1. Basic science.  Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. Bred crops and foods are comprised of novel mutations and combinations of genes which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food.


2. Ecological impact.  Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of genetics-based plant breeding, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between monocultures and colony collapse in honeybees. Crop residues have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems.


3. Control vs harmony.  Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Plant breeding is based on the exact opposite ; an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level ; the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature. Every time a breeder makes a cross between two plants he or she is creating an organism that has never before existed.


4. Unpredictable consequences.  Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach ; know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, breeding of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Potatoes and celery touched by the hands of plant breeders have caused documented skin and health problems in consumers and farm workers.


5. Transparency.  Organic is based on full disclosure, traceability, information sharing, seed saving and public engagement. Commercial breeding is based on secrecy, absence of labeling, and proprietary breeders rights for corporate profits. The almost complete absence of a regulatory framework has allowed the breeding industry to move forward without the benefit of rigorous, transparent scientific inquiry. The absence of ;artificial selection; labels has allowed genetically modified products into the U.S. food supply without the public;s knowledge or engagement., and without the ability to track public health benefits.


6. Accountability.  Organic farmers must comply with NOP requirements and establish buffer zones to protect organic crops from contamination and from contact with prohibited substances. When a plant breeder creates an organism that has not existed before and releases it into the environment, its genes know no boundaries and can contaminate organic crops. Novel or untested (and unknown) genes in wild relatives can infiltrate organic fields by ;genetic trespass; and no one ;  absolutely  no one is accountable for this genetic drift.


7. Unnecessary.  It is well established that healthy soils produce healthy crops, healthy animals, and healthy people. Research and development should focus on agricultural methods, including organic, which recycle nutrients to build soil health, producing abundant yields of nutrient dense foods, while protecting environmental resources. To date, plant breeding has contributed to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content. Technologies, such as breeding, which foster moncropping are not compatible with organic systems, where soil-building crop rotations are required.


8. Genetic diversity.  Organic farmers are required to maintain or improve the biological and genetic diversity of their operations. Plant breeding has the exact opposite effect by narrowing the gene pool and is focused on mono-cropping varieties. Although plant breeders may start with more diverse stock, the breeder purposefully selects only the genetics that they ;want; to see in the field. By selecting beneficial traits they are reducing genetic diversity and thus plant breeding should not be allowed to happen in organic agriculture.


9. Not profitable.  According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey conducted by the USDA National Ag Statistics Service, organic farmers netted more than $20,000 per farm over expenses, compared to conventional farmers. Use of conventionally bred varieties has lowered the net profit per acre for conventional producers, forcing them to farm more land in order to stay in business.


10. No consumer demand.  Consumers are not calling for organic foods to be subjected to breeding. In fact, there is a growing demand for ;wild; foods that have not had their genetics altered by fallible human beings. By incorporating conventionally bred crops into organic agriculture, we would be further eliminating the consumer;s ability to choose these more ;natural; foods. There is no public poll which indicates that consumers of organic (or conventional for that matter) foods desire to have the genetics of their crops altered by plant breeding.


It is entirely clear that ;conventional breeding; is just that ; breeding for conventional agriculture and not for Organic systems. There can be no compromise on this issue, and this is not a drill.


Okay this is a drill.


Evaluating Jim;s Riddle


If you;ve made it this far, you will no doubt notice that it is virtually identical to mine. Yep, a lot of cutting and pasting was involved. Actually, no, not a lot. I added some more information to some of them, some more depth and historical examples in one case. What is accomplished by rewriting his arguments in this fashion is that if they make sense, then the logic transfers over and you must either accept the new conclusion ; or ; reject the first one. But banning plant breeding from organic agriculture is absurd, and I;m sure that Jim Riddle would agree. Therefore, his article presents a riddle: how can these characteristics apply to both breeding and genetic engineering while one is compatible and the other is not?


Discuss, and  stay tuned for part II  ; wherein I take a hard look at Riddle;s arguments.


*  Orgenic  (Or-gene-ick) refers to the idea of combining Organic agriculture with Genetic Engineering.













Document Number: 9535 



 World bank has wavered from its poverty-reduction mission ; to Nigeria;s detriment 


 by  David Tribe  on 18 October 2010 


The World Bank;s Palm Oil Mistake  NY Times  By THOMPSON AYODELE


Published: October 15, 2010  Lagos, Nigeria


WHEN the World Bank held its annual meeting last weekend, there was much discussion of trade imbalances and currency wars, but nothing about Nigerian palm oil. That;s a shame, because the bank;s loans for plantation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing regions  some $132 million of which have gone to palm oil cultivation  have been humanitarian and economic triumphs. Yet now, under misguided pressure from environmental groups, the bank is turning its back on the program.


Palm oil, which is extracted from the pulp of the oil palm, is an essential food in sub-Saharan Africa and other poor regions. Accounting for almost 40 percent of the world;s vegetable oils, it is an indispensable source of vitamins and calories. The developing world is heavily reliant on palm as a source of nutrition because the plant thrives in tropical climates and yields significantly more fats and calories than other options. It gives the developing world  where hundreds of millions of men and women still live on a few dollars a day  the most caloric bang for the buck;


But the bank;s legacy of success is now in serious jeopardy. Under the leadership of Robert Zoellick, a former United States trade representative, the bank has wavered from its poverty-reduction mission and is increasingly focusing on achieving fashionable political and social goals. As Mr. Zoellick put it, ;We are all committed to ensuring that positive developmental outcomes  including environmental and social sustainability  are at the core of all our activities.;


This is a huge, and disturbing, change in direction. The World Bank was conceived out of the wreckage of World War II, and its mission has always been simple: extend low-interest loans from rich nations to support development projects in poor nations. Of necessity, many of these loans support agriculture-related projects. These projects do two crucial things. First, they help poor nations feed their populations. Second, they generate goods that can be traded in global markets, thus linking the developing world economically with the wealthy world.


The results have been extraordinary. According to the bank itself, since its inception, life expectancy in developing countries has risen by more than 20 years. Adult illiteracy in poor nations has been cut in half since 1980. And over the past two decades, the number of people living on less than $1 a day, while unacceptably high, has dropped for the first time.


But in many cases this progress has now run afoul of environmental groups that often put ideology ahead of the needs of the poor. And, unfortunately, these groups have persuaded Mr. Zoellick to suspend all loans for palm-related plantation agriculture indefinitely as the bank undertakes a review of its policies.


The critics of palm oil production, mostly in the United States and Europe, claim that it contributes to the destruction of forests. Yes, Nigeria has a problem with deforestation  but that is primarily in the country;s north, and almost all palm oil plantations are in the south. The forest depletion in the north is generally due to climate problems and the population;s reliance on firewood for fuel.


Indeed, the expected drop in palm oil production because of the World Bank;s decision is likely to worsen deforestation, as a weakened economy will force more Nigerians to chop down trees for cooking fuel and shelter.


The environmental effects of palm oil production around the world should certainly be given consideration, but any new regulations should not impede poverty alleviation in the developing world, as poverty is the biggest driver of ecological harm. And there are many multilateral organizations that focus on environmental health, including several within the United Nations, that are far better equipped than the World Bank to handle the job;.


Thompson Ayodele is the director of the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, an independent public policy group.













Document Number: 9959 



 2010 World Food Prize 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 11 October 2010 


The 2010  World Food Prize  Laureates David Beckmann and Jo Luck were introduced by the President of Iowa State University Gregory Geoffroy for a talk titled:  Grassroots Efforts in the Fight against Global Hunger  . The speakers were met with record attendance for this annual event, about 500 students, faculty, and community members. Tonight;s lecture is part of a week long series of events celebrating the legacy of Norm Borlaug and looking to what we can do to solve hunger in the US and across the world.


Many World Food Prize Laureates have been scientists, and scientists are undoubtedly important in developing new crop varieties and new methods that can produce more food with fewer inputs, particularly for small famers. This year;s Laureates have a new message to share. As David Beckmann pointed out during his talk, great scientists are important, but it also takes groups like Bread for the World and Heifer International to organize and mobilize people to help. This year;s Laureates share a message of hope and inspiration.


David Beckmann


David Beckmann is the President of  Bread for the World  and President of  The Alliance to End Hunger  . He starts his talk with a positive note: there have been stunning changes for the better, including large reductions in child mortality due to hunger. Countries with reduced poverty include diverse countries like Brazil, Bangladesh, and Great Britain. Their successes show that it is possible to reduce hunger and poverty in our own communities and all over the world.


Bread for the World organizes people to change the politics of hunger. To make dramatic changes we need to change laws and systems. Front line work such as with food banks is important, but only make up about 6% of the food provided by US government programs like food stamps and school lunches. ;We can not food bank our way to the end of hunger.;


Beckmann;s organizations help people make the  connection between Jesus and justice  , bringing Christian churches from many denominations as well as students, companies, and legislators together to work towards ending hunger. Bipartisan efforts have helped to triple US international aid in the last ten years. Even more important, that aid has been made more effective with a sharp focus on hunger issues. For example, the Obama administration was responsive to calls for improvement in international aid, but they did not have the political capital at the beginning of the term. Bread for the World helped provide political capital with millions of supporters. The results have been great, including a doubling of nutrition assistance to the hungry in the United States. As US elections approach, Beckmann urges us to consider which candidates will make time to help the hungry.


Beckmann, a Lutheran minister, concludes his talk with a reminder that God is calling us to help the hungry. He adds, if you don;t believe in God, the fact that hundreds of millions of people have escaped hunger should still be sacred. The proven effects of individual efforts should motivate us to work to help more people. ;It;s not just about technology. We have to organize the give-a-damn to get it done.;


Sheri Reilly  , campus minister at of St. Thomas Aquinas, who helps run a  small farm  in Ames, asked about problems with food aid, specifically referring to the problem of food aid to Haiti putting local farmers out of business. Beckmann replies: ;food aid needs to be fixed;. The US needs to provide cash to buy food from farmers, not grain, whenever possible. For example, the biggest need is food for babies, but babies don;t eat grain. We need to look beyond grain as aid. The US spends two billion dollars a year on food aid. If we took half of that and used it to purchase food in country, we would get double the aid value. Originally food aid was about using up US surplus but now the amount of US food used for crops is minuscule. The problem is that there are a handful of shipping companies that are making money from shipping food aid grain ; tax dollars are being used to pay these companies. There is also resistance to change from congressmen that is difficult to cut through.


In response to a question about subsides, Beckmann says that there is a higher rate of poverty in rural America but the poverty affects small farmers disproportionately. One cause is that subsidies are given to larger farms. A lot of the problems is that public policy is affected too much by special interests that don;t have issues like world hunger or the needs of small farmers in the US or abroad in mind.


Jo Luck


Jo Luck, CEO of  Heifer International  , started her talk by saying that you ;don;t have to be a scientist or a researcher, it takes all of us together,; including educators and teachers. Luck is a teacher by training.


Luck contracted a disease while traveling in Africa that has caused her to be sight-impaired. After the talk, I asked how long she has had this illness and she shared that over the past 20 months she has endured many surgeries and a lot of pain. As a student remarked while we were waiting to speak to Luck, so many of us complain or stay in bed when we have the sniffles. Luck is a role model to many of us who live comfortable lives, who have never slept on the ground or gone without food.


Luck said that her experience with this illness has not impacted her as negatively as it might because of some experiences she has had with blind individuals in Africa. She has worked with a blind family that once was shunned, that once had no dignity or self-worth, but who learned to farm, to tend animals, to plow and to plant, that regained their dignity through hard work. If they could persevere through their blindness then so can she.


What has made Heifer International so effective is that it is grounded on principles, called the  12 Cornerstones  . These cornerstones echo not only the goals of the organization but also the goals of the people that Heifer International helps. Luck surveyed 200 people in 45 developing countries to see what was most important for them. We can think of many things we might expect to see on the list, such as running water, medicine, cars, and televisions, but the top ten included family, love, peace, spirituality, health, friendship, livelihood, justice, and dignity. These were consistent across economic, ethnic, and other factors. These commonalities can help us to better respond to needs in the US and across the world.


These principles appear in another way: recipients consider the animal a living loan. Once they are able to raise themselves out of poverty, families and individuals are quick to want to help others that are in the same situation that they were able to leave behind. This often includes passing on offspring of the animal to neighbors, but can also include monetary donations back to Heifer International to help families in other countries. Luck didn;t say it but the conclusion to this thought hung in the air. If these families who are just able to meet their food needs are able to find money to spare to help other families, what can we in the United States do?


Alan Koslow  , community activist, vascular surgeon, and local radio show host, asked whether Heifer International focused on cows or if they provided other animals and how they worked around cultural sensitivities when it comes to animal choices. Luck responded that Heifer International originally provided just cows, but now they have a number of species, and the appropriateness of each species for each situation is carefully considered. For example, communities with little space might be encouraged to take guinea pigs. Some animals are more useful that others in that they provide more options for families. Buffalo and goats are called ;7 M; animals becuse they can provide milk, muscle, money, materials, meat, motivation, and manure ; such animals are particularly useful in helping families and communities move out of poverty. In a conversation after the event, Luck shared that Heifer International is committed to a system of agriculture that includes plants and animals, and as part of their efforts they offer not only animals but seeds and education.


Editor;s note: Check out the  Biofortified photo page  for photos of Frank and Anastasia with this year;s Laureates. Dr. Koslow recorded the lectures which will be available on his  YouTube channel  .













Document Number: 1677 



 Would you eat a brown apple? 


 by  Anastasia Bodnar  on 1 December 2010 


Have you ever cut up an apple to take for lunch, or prepared apples for a fresh fruit tray only to have them turn an unappealing shade of brown? You;re not alone. There;s nothing wrong with brown apple slices, but they certainly don;t look nice, which discourages some people from eating as many apples as they should. Apples are a healthy snack and anything that gets people to eat more fruit could be considered beneficial.


Like it or not, sliced apples that don;t brown are in demand. Many children and some adults have hard time biting into whole apples. In addition, there is much convenience in being able to eat one slice at a time, no matter where you are. Some companies are producing sliced apples treated with a chemical solution to keep them from browning, and you can find them in some schools and in places like McDonald;s and Subway restaurants, but that has its own  complications  , including what some say is an off-taste and additional plastic waste.


A Canadian company has developed apples that won;t turn brown, which has the potential to solve this problem and get more people eating an apple a day. In this post, I;ll discuss the chemistry behind browning and the science behind non-browning fruits and vegetables.


The enzymatic reaction that turns apples brown within minutes is a major problem for home cooks and professional chefs alike. Just Google  how to stop an apple from turning brown  and you;ll get 2,770,000 results, including a pretty cool  at-home apple browning experiment guide  (pdf) by the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology.


Phenol is the simplest of all the phenolic compounds.


Why do apple, potatoes, avocados, peaches, and many other fruits and vegetables turn brown when cut or bumped?


Phenols  are a whole category of compounds found naturally in a lot of foods. Most plant phenols are fine for humans to consume and some even seem to have anti-cancer properties and  slow aging  , but some are toxins, some may cause cancer, and many do things like reduce the absorption of iron from food. The enzyme  polyphenol oxidase  catalyzes a variety of reactions among phenols. Polyphenol oxidase oxidizes phenolic compounds into  quinones  and then links the quinones into pigments that make the surface of light colored produce look brown. There are actually a whole family of polyphenol oxidases that each work on slightly different molecules, and each plant, animal, or bacterium may have many different genes for different types of polyphenol oxidases.


Dr. Anne Marie Helmenstine describes the chemistry behind the prevention of apple browning on  About.com  :


The reaction can be slowed or prevented by inactivating the enzyme with heat (cooking), reducing the pH on the surface of the fruit (by adding lemon juice or another acid), reducing the amount of available oxygen (by putting cut fruit under water or vacuum packing it), or by adding certain preservative chemicals (like sulfur dioxide). On the other hand, using cutlery that has some corrosion (as is seen with lower quality steel knives) can increase the rate and amount of the browning by making more iron salts available for the reaction.


Frank and a large Pink Lady apple. The apple was beautiful and delicious, but would have browned terribly if it had been prepared in advance for a fruit tray, salad, or similar fresh use.


All of the methods to deter browning have some effect on taste or texture, which is sometimes ok, sometimes not, depending on what you plan to do with the apples. If you;re baking a pie, or putting apples in a salad, a little lemon or salt probably doesn;t matter, but if you;re preparing apples for a fruit tray for guests to savor with cheese and wine, any apple contaminants are unacceptable.


Okanagan Specialty Fruits  , a Canadian fruit breeding company in Summerland, British Columbia, has developed a way to keep apples from browning without the need for special heat or chemical treatments. How did they do it? The short story is that they silenced the gene that makes the polyphenol oxidase enzyme so that the enzyme is no longer produced. No enzyme, no browning.


As for the details, we don;t have many. If you;ve read any of the ;  news  ; articles about these apples, you know that lots of the stories are short on science and short on facts. The company isn;t telling much on their website*, and hasn;t published any peer-reviewed papers on their process (probably because they don;t want anyone to steal their ideas), so we;ll have to wait until the APHIS risk assessment for petition  10-161-01p  is made public.


Until then, the AP article by Shnnon Dininny gives an important clue.  USDA asked to approve GMO apple that won;t brown  is pretty well researched and includes quotes from Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits. Ms. Dininny writes: ;the company licensed the non-browning technology from Australian researchers who pioneered it in potatoes.; Before I get into the details of how polyphenol oxidase was silenced in potatoes (and apples), there are some things that I apparently have to address, based on comments on this AP story on  Grist  and elsewhere. Here we go:


THE APPLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONSANTO.  THE APPLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH POTATOES.  THE APPLES ARE GOING TO ROT THE SAME AS ALL APPLES ROT.  THE APPLES ARE DIGESTED THE SAME AS ALL APPLES ARE DIGESTED.  THE APPLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONSANTO.


Sorry for yelling, but people just aren;t getting it, despite Ms. Dininny;s excellent reporting. Here;s hoping this post helps a little. On to the details.


RNA can bind to itself and form a &quot;hairpin loop&quot;, creating double stranded RNA. This structure is key to RNA interference.


I think the Australian researchers that Ms. Dininny referred to are from  CSIRO  (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is Australia;s national science agency), but they haven;t published anything specifically about polyphenol oxidase silencing either. They have published a lot of  papers  about their efforts to use RNAi, though, which leads me to believe that the gene for the polyphenol oxidase enzyme was silenced in the non-browning apples with RNA interference ; RNAi for short.


RNAi is an amazing technology that can be used to shut off genes using the natural mechanisms that exist within a plant (or animal, fungus, etc). Karl has a great explanation of ;RNA that Interferes; in his post  Cotton like Candy  and other excellent explanations can be found elsewhere, such as on the  Naked Scientists  site, so I won;t go over it again, except to point out that RNAi is used by organisms as a defense against viruses that carry their genetic material as double stranded RNA. RNAi just uses that natural defense mechanism to effectively shut off a gene, and doesn;t require the addition of any new genes.


RNAi can be used to change characteristics in existing plants, such as  turning off the genes in onions that make you cry  ,  turning off the genes in wheat that make gluten  (great for people with celiacs disease!), and turning off other allergens (such as in peanuts and apples). RNAi can also be used to add new characteristics in plants such as nematode resistance or virus resistance (both of which have been done in multiple species). It;s a very versatile tool that I expect we;ll see much more of as researchers and companies figure out new ways to use it, assuming that people can stop freaking out and actually take the time to learn what it;s all about.


Of course, shutting off a gene can cause unintended effects.


For example, a  study  by Cornell researchers in potato that used RNAi to reduce expression of polyphenol oxidase found that the plants also had reduced disease resistance (Thipyapong, 2004). Polyphenol oxidases seem to play a role in helping plants protect themselves and recover from disease. Note that this experiment reduced the expression of all polyphenol oxidases, not just one, and they used a constitutive promoter that is always on in all tissues. An earlier  study  , also from Cornell, used a tuber specific promoter so the polyphenol oxidases were turned off only in the potatoes, not in the rest of the plant, and the researchers didn;t find any adverse affects on disease resistance or anything else (Bachem, 1994).


Sometimes the unintended effects of genetic engineering can be very positive. The J. R. Simplot Company has also created reduced browning potatoes using RNAi. In a  study  that evaluated their potatoes compared to wild-type potatoes, the RNAi potatoes were found to have not only reduced browning but french fries made from the potatoes also tasted better, smelled better, and had greatly reduced accumulation of  acrylamide  , a toxin naturally produced in potatoes and other foods during high temperature cooking (Rommens, 2004).


Will these non-browning apples have negative unintended effects, positive unintended effects, or both? The truth is, we don;t know yet due to the lack of information coming from Okanagan Specialty Fruits. We;ll just have to wait for that APHIS risk assessment for petition  10-161-01p  to see the details of the non-browning apples, but we have a hint in the review  Plant Regeneration and Transformation in the Rosaceae  (pdf,  Rosaceae  is the family of plants that includes apples):


Multiple years of field testing of this material confirmed the stability of the non-browning phenotype and have identified no negative impacts on horticultural traits, or on resistance to diseases and insects when grown under field conditions. The non-browning technology developed at [Okanagan Specialty Fruits] has been incorporated into a new enabling platform that: (i) eliminates the selectable marker, (ii) removes all interfering [intellectual property], (ii) uses only plant derived gene sequences and control elements, and (iv) improves the efficiency of gene silencing. Plants arising from this series of transformations are now entering field trials.**


Fruit tray by Tim Inconnu via Flickr.


Remember that fresh fruit tray that this post started with? Which would you prefer ; apples treated with chemicals or heat, apples bred to brown a little more slowly, or apples engineered to silence the enzyme that causes browning?


I know what I;d choose for my lunches and for fruit platters that I;d present to my friends and family. Here;s hoping that these apples make it through the regulatory hurdles and lawsuits by activist groups, are planted by a farmer nearby, don;t get uprooted or otherwise destroyed illegally by activists, and make to my table.


.


Aldwinckle H, Malnoy M (2009). Plant Regeneration and Transformation in the Rosaceae  Transgenic Plant Journal  (3 (Special Issue 1)), 1-39


Bachem C, Speckmann G, van der Linde P, Verheggen F, Hunt M, Steffens J, &amp; Zabeau M (1994). Antisense Expression of Polyphenol Oxidase Genes Inhibits Enzymatic Browning in Potato Tubers  Bio/Technology, 12  (11), 1101-1105 DOI:  10.1038/nbt1194-1101


Helmenstine AM  (2005).  Why Do Cut Apples Turn Brown?  About.com Chemistry. Accessed 1 Dec 2010.


Rommens CM, Ye J, Richael C, &amp; Swords K (2006). Improving potato storage and processing characteristics through all-native DNA transformation.  Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 54  (26), 9882-7 PMID:  17177515


Thipyapong P, Hunt MD, &amp; Steffens JC (2004). Antisense downregulation of polyphenol oxidase results in enhanced disease susceptibility.  Planta, 220  (1), 105-17 PMID:  15300439


* If anyone from Okanagan Specialty Fruits reads this, it would probably be useful to have a little more info on your website. I know intellectual property is important, but some information is needed. You;re going to have rampant rumor and fear mongering no matter what, but additional info would really help people like me to do a good job of reporting the science. Also, using the trade name Arctic for these apples might not have been the best choice, in my opinion, because it brings to mind anti-freeze genes that we all know get people really freaked out (to anyone else reading this, no, non-browning apples have nothing to do with fish genes, anti-freeze, or anything like that at all).


** This information was from a seminar given at the 1st International Symposium on Biotechnology of Fruit Species, 1-5 September 2008 in Dresden, Germany by J Armstrong and N Carter titled ;A new addition to the buffet;. Unfortunately, the text is nowhere to be found. The conference;s website didn;t have any presentation texts and it;s not available on Web of Knowledge either.













Document Number: 7930 



 WWF realise sustainability and farming productivity are linked 


 by  David Tribe  on 23 August 2010 


Earth needs more from less | News | Feedstuffs FoodLink   The world;s growing population will need increasingly more food, including meat, but it must be produced from fewer resources using intensification and technology.  (8/13/2010)  Rod Smith  MULTIPLYING the world;s population by its consumption of food does not equal a healthy planet ; the multiplication result is not balanceable or sustainable, according to Dr. Jason Clay, senior vice president at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).  ;We need to use less to produce more ; to restore the planet,; he said in remarks to the Cattle Industry Summer Conference last month in Denver, Colo.  He was one of three speakers who addressed beef production;s environmental footprint (Feedstuffs, Aug. 9).  Clay laid out a scenario in which the world;s increasing population forces more and more habitable land into agricultural/food production every year and said this ;has to be changed, and we can do that by intensification.;  He noted that in 40 years, the world;s population will increase 33% ; from almost 7 billion people today to more than 9 billion ; incomes will triple and food consumption will double. Clay said 70% of the world;s population will live in cities, and ;we need to address this; because the ;impacts; people and food production/consumption have on the land and water ;that are acceptable today with 6.8 billion people will not be acceptable with 9.1 billion people.;  ;We will have to get better; at producing more food with fewer resources, he said.  Clay said agriculture;s footprint on the Earth must be ;frozen; but emphasized that this doesn;t mean decreasing or ;not expanding; production; rather, agriculture/food producers need to become increasingly more efficient.  Accordingly, he said producers must adopt advanced genetics, management practices and technology and emphasized that ;we cannot abandon modern genetics and technology.;  Indeed, Clay said WWF, in the interest of the health of the planet, has backed off its previous anti-genetic modification position.  Since producing any product, including any food product, will have an impact on the planet, it;s critical that producers identify the metrics they will use to ;measure; their progress toward becoming more efficient, he said.  For beef producers, several measurements could be pursued, Clay said, including cattle per acre, beef produced per acre, beef produced per unit of water, calories produced per acre or unit of water, feed in/meat out, carbon sequestered per acre or pound of beef produced, etc.  Probably, he said, a number of these measurements should be ;optimized, but ;until we reach a consensus, we won;t be able to focus on results, and results ; what an acceptable impact is, what goals producers should try to achieve; ; are the end game.  Results, he added, are best achieved through voluntary actions by producers and information sharing about what works best in producing more with fewer resources to give other producers something against which to benchmark.  ;We can get the bottom to move up by sharing what the top has achieved,; Clay said, suggesting a process of continuous improvement.  Regulations achieve less as far as results go, he noted.  Clay said producers need to focus on more than one measurement but not on every measurement, so ;we need a consensus on the key impacts; where improvements can be made. Furthermore, he said the measures taken and results achieved need to be based on science.  Clay announced that WWF and collaborators have scheduled a conference on sustainable beef production in November because the year ;2050 is coming, and we;ve got to get going; on the road that will increase meat production while supporting the planet.













Document Number: 3733 



 Your very own Frank N. Foode ; April Fools! 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 1 April 2011 


Note: This post was an April Fools prank. Read  all about it here  .


Ok, so yesterday I got an exciting package in the mail, and I;m afraid that I can;t keep this thing under wraps for very long, because you are going to hear about it sooner or later through other media channels. A lot of people have taken an interest in our blog mascot, Frank N. Foode, and it got me thinking about what could be done to satisfy that interest, and teach people about genetics and genetic engineering. I talked about it with my friends and family, and decided to try and see if there could be some way to make and sell an educational Frank N. Foode toy. Brainstorming this concept was easy, but getting everyone on board to put this together was hard. I got a hold of a toy manufacturer and a marketing company, which was surprisingly easy in retrospect, but the hardest part was convincing a seed company to go along with it. Because not only did I want to try putting Frank on some store shelves, I also wanted to put seeds in each box. Not just any seeds, in fact. Genetically engineered sweet corn seeds, and a second packet of ;Mystery Mutant; seeds. I want to bring plant genetics up close and personal to kids, teenagers, and adults, and I think this could be the way to do it. And for all those who have been aching to get your own Frank doll, this is your chance!


There;s quite a bit of backstory and thought that went into putting this product together, so rather than write it all out, when they sent me a sample of the finished product to me I grabbed a little video camera and explained it all on camera. After I recorded the footage, I realized that the details may not come in very clear, so I snapped some shots of the box as well, which are below. Without any further ado, I give you: Your very own Frank ;N; Foode:


Box images so you can better see what I am talking about. Here is the front:


Left side and back:


Front and right side:


Back flap opened (click on this one):


License Agreement (only drawback to getting GE seeds):


Bottom with UPC and blog logo:


As this gets rolled out in a few stores in the next month, I am trying to gather all links to sites that comment on it, so please use the comments to notify me of any as they come out. This will be a very exciting time for me and for the blog as well, and I want to capture it all as it happens. As I mentioned in the video, 50% of net profits will go to support the blog. I will let you know as soon as they are available in stores if any of you should want to get one of your own.












Document Number: 3209
Greenpeace destroys GM wheat trial in Australia
by David Tribe on 13 July 2011
From GMO Pundit.


Greenpeace's own photo of their criminal activity in destroying the wheat trial in ACT, Australia
Greenpeace recently enlisted Vandana Shiva to protest on their behalf about GM wheat trials underway in Australia. Vandana Shiva endorses criminal arson as direct action against scientific laboratories she disproves (explicit video interview).

Now Greenpeace — by their own self-acknowledged vandalism — are following Vandana Shiva (Sydney Peace [sic] Prize recipient)  into the cesspool of criminality.

.

Greenpeace destroys GM wheat
Jessica Nairn, ABC Radio 666 Canberra
Updated July 14, 2011 11:08:36

Greenpeace protesters have broken into a CSIRO experimental farm in Canberra to destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat.

In the early hours of this morning a group of Greenpeace protesters scaled the fence of the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra in the capital’s north.

Greenpeace says activists were wearing Hazmat protective clothing and were equipped with weed string trimmers.

They say the entire crop of genetically modified wheat has been destroyed.

About half a hectare of GM wheat is being grown on the site, as part of Australia’s first outdoor trials.

No genetically modified wheat strain had ever been approved for cropping in Australia before.
Last month the CSIRO received permission to conduct Australia’s first trial in which humans will eat GM wheat.

The wheat’s genes have been modified to lower the glycemic index and increase fibre to create a product which will improve bowel health and increase nutritional value.

Animal feeding trials of up to three months have been conducted, with human trials at least six months away.

Greenpeace says it has taken action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding the experiments.

Campaigner Laura Kelly says the Federal Government needs to put an end to testing GM wheat in Australia.

She says parts of the United States and many countries throughout Europe have already rejected the crop, and Australia should do the same.

“No one is looking after the health of Australians. Julia Gillard isn’t standing up to foreign GM countries to protect our daily bread so Greenpeace has to,” she said.

ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury used to work for Greenpeace and says he is not surprised the group has taken such action.

“It’s always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes,” he said.

“Greenpeace has clearly formed a view that the best way to both draw attention to this issue and to potentially protect the human food chain in Australia is to take this action.”

Mr Rattenbury says Greenpeace has a track record of breaking the law to highlight problems.
“I’ve certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass,” he said.

ACT police have confirmed they are investigating but have not released any further information.

GM crop destroyed
BY STAFF REPORTERS (Canberra Times)
14 Jul, 2011 09:08 AM

…ABC radio reported that the four protesters scaled the fence at the secure facility in Ginninderra wearing full-body Hazmat protective clothing.

Greenpeace have confirmed at least two women scaled the fence, including one mother, Heather McCabe*, who is concerned about her family’s health.

“This GM wheat should never have left the lab,” said Ms McCabe.

“I’m sick of being treated like a dumb Mum* who doesn’t understand the science. As far as I’m concerned, my family’s health is too important. GM wheat is not safe, and if the Government can’t protect the safety of my family, then I will.”

Canberra Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury [Pundit note:former Greenpeacer staffer] this morning condoned the action on ABC Radio, citing Greenpeace’s long-held opposition to GM crops, and saying that sometimes the end justified the means.

The site was being used to grow some of the first outdoor GM wheat crops in Australia, and trials were due to begin on human consumption of the modified wheat.

“We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,” said Greenpeace Food campaigner Laura Kelly in a release this morning.

“This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.

“It is time Julia Gillard stood up to global biotech companies and protected Australia’s daily bread. With public health and our largest food export under threat, this is too big an issue for the Prime Minister to continue to ignore.”

Police are investigating the incident.

* There is a  Heather McCabe on the Greenpeace pay-roll according to linked-in. The dumb Mum treatment thus may be related to her place of employment.
Updates:
The Greenwar Chronicles. News stream at GMO Pundit, with ongoing updates, about the thuggery, crass ignorance and criminality of Greenpeace.
Robust reader comment thread
Activism does not have to be anti-scientific

A week or so earlier earlier Greenpeace had arranged deceptive protest letters against the GM wheat that were nontransparent about Greenpeace involvement.
Greenpeace destroys year’s work in CSIRO GM crop raid
BY EWA KRETOWICZ, CITY REPORTER, Canberra Times
15 Jul, 2011 06:57 AM
Scientists have lost a year of work and up to $300,000 after Greenpeace activists destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat at Ginninderra.
The CSIRO has labelled the act a media stunt and will review its security procedures….
The GM trials were conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator which imposes strict containment conditions.
CSIRO Plant Industry chief Jeremy Burdon said the wheat was modified to increase yield and improve nutritional value. He denied the government-funded science body had links to multinational biotechnology company Monsanto.
”I don’t see the grounds under which anyone should be concerned about the level of integrity the CSIRO [employs in its] experimental work,” Dr Burdon said.
He said the GM crops were safe.
”Gene silencing basically allows you to turn off genes and manipulate existing genes within a plant. It’s not like some GM products where you bring in a gene from a totally different species. In this case, you are simply taking the existing genes that are there and turning them on or off.”…
From: “Australian Academy of Science”
Subject: Media Release – GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Academy of Science
(14 July 2011)
GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Australian Academy of Science
The Australian Academy of Science today condemned last night’s destruction of a scientific trial of genetically modified crops at CSIRO in Canberra by Greenpeace activists.
“The Academy condemns this behaviour in the strongest possible terms,” said Academy President Professor Suzanne Cory.
“This kind of mindless vandalism against science is completely unacceptable.”
Professor Cory said scientists must be free to conduct their work without fear or favour.
“The trials are being conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator [official Australian Government gene technology regulatory agency] which impose strict containment conditions,” Professor Cory said.
“These conditions have been deliberately breached by Greenpeace.
“For an organisation that claims to be dedicated to the protection of the environment, this is an unconscionable act.”
Australian Farmers React:
Thursday 14 July 2011
Press release Grain Producers of Australia

GRAIN PRODUCERS SLAM GREENPEACE STUNT

Australian Grain Producers have today called for Greenpeace to be reprimanded and appropriate

action taken, following the destruction of CSIRO wheat field trials in Canberra.

“The destruction of world class science is absolutely despicable.  Attacking the research that supports Australian farmers is the same as attacking Australian farmers and generally we are sick of it. It is irresponsible, unethical and in this case illegal” said Mr Peter Mailler, Chairman, Grain Producers Australia.

Mr Mailler said .”CSIRO is an iconic organisation, responsible for many of the agricultural advancements that enable Australian farmers to produce the cleanest, safest and healthiest food and fibre that feeds and clothes hundreds of millions of people across the globe every year ”

“GM wheat is seven to ten years away, CSIRO has been responsibly conducting GM wheat field trials at this site for fourteen years. Today’s Greenpeace actions are totally unacceptable,” he said.

“Plant science and research and development are critical to the future of our industry,” said Mr Andrew Weidemann, R&D spokesperson, Grain Producers Australia.

“Australian farmers are highly innovative and have continued to adapt to changes in climate, customer requirements and the global operating environment, but we cannot achieve ongoing production without new tools and technologies,” he said.

“Gene technology is a proven and safe plant science. GM crops have been grown, traded and consumed around the world for fourteen years, delivering significant agronomic, environmental and sustainable outcomes,” he said.

“Today’s illegal Greenpeace activity has once and for all proven what many of us have feared for quite some time – Greenpeace is not interested in green outcomes or sustainable agriculture and food production. This is purely a non-factual, high profile fund raiser and Australian consumers need to be aware of this,” said Mr Weidemann.

Pruducers Forum Press release 14 July 2011

FARMERS CONDEMN GREENPEACE ASSAULT

Today the multi-million dollar multi-national Greenpeace continued its assault on Australian agriculture and in doing so revealed its true nature. By illegally entering the CSIRO property and deliberately destroying trial plots at the site, the Greenpeace activists and those who support them are making a mockery of Australia’s dearly held democratic rights and freedoms. “Our farmers are appalled at the unconscionable actions of the trespassers and believe that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” said Heather Baldock, National Convenor of Producers Forum.

“People have been contacting me to express their outrage and wondering what we can do about it. Civil protest is one thing. Wilful, illegal, destruction is something else entirely and must be roundly condemned,” she continued. “This is the nation’s property yet we have individuals, egged on by a multi-national NGO, willing to destroy it. It is hardly a wonder people are outraged,” Ms Baldock said.

“Australian farmers are innovators. Adopting new tools, techniques and technologies have allowed them to be among the best in the world, made possible by the support of Australian scientists and research organisations.

“The research and development (R&D) and innovation that today allows Australian farmers to produce the safe, healthy and affordable food that consumers value and expect continues to be needed to face the challenges of food production into the future. Our farmers are rightfully proud of the quality, quantity and variety of foods they produce,” Ms Baldock added.

Wayne McKay farms in the Central West of NSW. He says that the Australian grain industry strongly supports R&D in all facets of agriculture including  GM crops, and notes that the rate of production increase in Australia has declined and that Australians do not need fear mongering naysayers trying to undermine and destroy valuable R&D that supports agriculture and food production.

“Australia’s CSIRO is recognised world-wide as a first class   research organisation. The scientists working in the fields of molecular biology and gene technology operate within the processes and guidelines set down by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and our regulatory system is widely regarded as among the best in the world.

“To imply that these scientists are doing anything that would harm Australians or any other people is quite  imply and demonstrably wrong. It certainly does Greenpeace no credit,” Mr McKay said.

“Attacking our CSIRO is a bit like attacking motherhood,” he said.

Ms Baldock says that the community must question Greenpeace’s motives in attacking a technology that is good for the environment, and helps small farmers in developing nations to become more self sufficient.

COSMOS magazine are on the job.










Document Number: 3402 
Genetically modified plants as fish feed ingredients
by David Tribe on 13 July 2011
From GMO Pundit.

There has been a long and tortuous discussion of Steve Savage’s post  Way Too Much Angst about GMO crops covering many of the usual topics. But among the hundreds of comments there is at last some gold. Fishy smelling gold.

A new paper has been kindly unearthed in the comments by (a commenter): Genetically modified plants as fish feed ingredients by Nini Hedberg Sissener, Monica Sanden, Åshild Krogdahl, Anne-Marie Bakke, Lene Elisabeth Johannessen, and Gro-Ingunn Hemre (2011).

Abstract:

Genetically modified (GM) plants were first grown commercially more than 20 years ago, but their use is still controversial in some parts of the world. Many GM plant varieties are produced in large quantities globally and are approved for use in fish feeds both in Norway and the European Union. European consumers, however, are skeptical to fish produced by means of GM feed ingredients. Concerns have been raised regarding the safety of GM plants, including potential toxicity and (or) allergenicity of the novel protein, potential unintended effects, and risk of horizontal gene transfer to other species. This review will present the current state of knowledge regarding GM plants as fish feed ingredients, focusing on fish performance and health as well as the fate of the GM DNA fragments in the fish, identifying limitations of the current work and areas where further research is needed.

And then commentator Allan goes to town  interpretating this paper. Many thanks to Allan and to (commenter).
Allan’s comment:

First, I thank (a commenter) for turning us on to a new paper. I’ve downloaded the paper and additionally downloaded many of the references in the paper so that I can check out what the referenced authors are actually saying.

Second, I’m detecting a creeping confusion between hazard, risk, and just plain old homeostatic physiological phenomena that are neither adverse effects, hazards, or risks. Specifically, (a commenter) cites Bodner as saying, ““There is no indication that Bt protein (in transgenic plants or in sprays) is harmful to mammals, birds, or fish…”. He indirectly refutes this generality by referring to the review article by Sissener et al. (2011) and then to Sissener’s summary of some of the papers that she reviewed. The quotes in Sissener’s article does not refute Bodner’s statement. The evidence for this can be drawn directly by examining the referenced author’s own words. For example, the longest section in Sissener et al. (2011) that was quoted by (a commenter) refers to a paper by Sagstad et al. (2007). wherein immune system parameters among others was found to differ in a comparison of reference diet-fed fish, GM corn diet-fed fish, and non GM corn-diet fed fish. However, the question is health effects, which is not addressed by examining immune system biomarkers (I’ll come back to what Sagstad et al. (2007) really showed). A better paper, on which Sagstad is an author, is the one by Hemre et al. 2007 in Aquatic Nutrition, in which they conclude the following (from the abstract) : “Based on the present findings, the conclusions made are: Atlantic salmon smolts fed GM maize (event MON810 ), its near-isogenic parental line and suprex maize (Reference diet), all resulted in high growth rates, ADC and feed utilization. Health, when evaluated by means of mortality (low), normal ranges of blood and plasma parameters, except somewhat elevated ASAT values and minor variations in organ sizes, were considered good in all diet groups. The changes in the glucose transport mechanism and intestinal maltase enzyme activity in the gastrointestinal tract warrant further studies.” If the last statement is worrisome, then consider what the conclusion is based on. Whereas the vast majority of comparisons for the measured parameters were made between three treatment groups: a reference diet control, non GM corn, and GM corn, the latter statement is based on an in vitro study of isolated brush border membrane cells but DID NOT INCLUDE the reference diet fish. This is important, because sometimes there might be a difference between non-GM and GM fed group parameters, but the parameters do not differ significantly between the GM and reference diet group.

Now back to the Sagstad et al. 2007 article and those immune system biomarker results for my third point. Here is where you have to actually look at Table 4 to find out the following. First, the data are expressed as the percentage proportion of several different innate immune system cells in the sampled population of white blood cell populations from the reference diet, non-GM corn, and GM corn diet groups. While it is true that some significant differences in proportions of cells amounting to several percent were found when non-GM corn and GM corn were compared, there were no statistical differences between the reference diet and the GM diet fish. So, what does it mean? I argue it does not mean anything other than observation about homeostatic mechanisms owing to differences in environment. What do I mean by differences in environment? Well, you take 45 fish and isolate them from another group of 45 fish and you’ve automatically changed their environment. Don’t think that fish have personalities and quickly establish dominance hierarchies? I suggest you haven’t observed animals enough. (BTW, I can find no indication of fish sexing prior to group establishment. Lack of sexing could be a confounder, maybe.) The bottom line is that WE EXPECT minor differences in biomarkers between groups, whatever the exposure treatment, because by isolating animals we have changed their environment. The fact that SMALL differences in immune cell proportions were reported by Sagstad, with no statistical difference from a reference diet (that contained an equivalent amount of corn starch as the other diets) tells me there is no consistent physiological effect related directly to treatment. Certainly, these data mean NOTHING regarding health. The important conclusion about health is in the Hemre et al. (2007) paper referenced above.

As an aside, lest you think that Monsanto is hiding something and the regulators don’t know about these studies, consider that Monsanto is credited with providing these researchers with MON 810 corn and its isogenic non GM line. Thus, you can bet that Monsanto had the data and furthermore, as required under FIFRA, had to report those results to the EPA. After all, MON 810 is a registered pesticide (the technical term is a PIP, plant incorporated pesticide). Monsanto was not involved in the GM soya feeding studies because those papers did not use an isogenic line. Differences in cultivars will lead to differences in biomarkers, but even then, the researchers did not see any effects on health, broadly defined for their purposes as effects on growth parameters and mortality (lest you get picky, I’m skipping a lot of details here).

Fourth, the weight of the evidence based on examining more fish GM vs. non GM diet papers shows that the small cadre of authors involved in these studies have more often than not concluded no effects of putting large proportions of plant protein in fish food. And this brings me to the conceptualization of risk in this case. The objective of the research reported in these papers is basically two-fold. First, can you substitute a lot of plant protein for fish meal when rearing fish in aquacultural operations? Second, if the fish health is not affected (remember for this case health = growth parameters, mortality, and proximate nutrient content), will having 15-30% of the plant protein content come from GM soy or corn, affect health? Regulatory toxicology relies on the weight of the evidence, and of the perhaps 20 papers I quickly downloaded following (a commenter’s) remarks, I see no concern expressed by these authors about health. Where specific biomarker parameters were different, the authors call for more study, but what bona fide scientist doesn’t call for more study?

Finally, this forum is a lot more fun when people actually discuss the data and don’t react as if personally threatened by every new bit of information.











Document Number: 7172
The EFSA is doing traceback of E. coli contaminated fenugreek seeds imported into the EU. Preston and Tribe do traceback with plagiarised junk science.
by David Tribe on 6 July 2011
From GMO Pundit.

The European food safety authority is currently tracing the sources and distribution of allegedly deadly E. coli contaminated fenugreek seeds originating in Egypt which have been implicated in several different outbreaks of severe pathogenic E. coli infections occurring these last weeks in Germany, France, and Sweden (see several other recent GMO Pundit Posts).
To quote from the European food safety authority’s website:

A trace back investigation is the method used to determine and document the distribution and production chain, and the source(s) of a product that has been implicated in a food-borne illness investigation. A trace forward investigation aims to find the distribution of the suspected food products along the food chain from the origin in the direction of the consumer.
Using this approach for this investigation, at each step of the delivery/production chain identified in the trace back, further investigation was initiated to try and account for all seeds in any suspect lots. The objective was to identify critical lots and their current location. To this end, detailed information on each lot of seeds was established for each step of the delivery/production chain back to the importation into the EU.
The comparison of the back tracing information from the French and German outbreaks leads to the conclusion that lot # 48088 of fenugreek seeds imported by the Importer, from Egypt, is the most likely common link, although it cannot be excluded that other lots may be implicated.
Given the possible severe health impact of exposure to a small quantity of contaminated material, and, in the absence of information regarding the source and means of contamination and possible cross-contamination, it seems appropriate to consider all lots of fenugreek from the identified exporter as suspect. In this regard, the thus far negative test results from the microbiological tests carried out on seeds cannot be interpreted as proof that a batch is not contaminated with STEC O104:H4 since these results depend on and may be limited by both the analytical and diagnostic performance characteristics as well as by the nature of the sampling plan.
Traceback of plagiarism
At GMO Pundit we have undertaken a trace back of shoddy scientific work that compromises the reliability of food safety decisions. Scientific integrity of food safety science is crucial for making decisions about food safety that produce the best outcome for improved human welfare. If valuable human resources are misdirected by flawed safety evidence or reasoning, for example to imagined scenarios based on fear rather than objective risk, they are then not properly focussed on the most serious risks in food.

In short, food safety should focus on real risks not fake ones.

In recent years, particularly in the European Union food safety management has been driven by fears– fears of pesticides and fears of new technologies — rather than the objectively major risk in food which is contamination with common infectious pathogens, such as pathogenic Escherichia coli, Salmonella bacteria, Campylobacter bacteria and Norovirus germs.
Very recently an Australian newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald announced a letter protesting against the initial stages of research in the development of wheat varieties that can improve human health. Here the focus is on imagined future risks 10 to 15 years down the track, rather than the immediate problem of germs in our food that kill us today.

In talking about imagined future risks the protest letter purports to summarise scientific evidence supporting its concerns. The rest of this post focuses on the fraudulent nature of that evidence. We raise the question why should the evidence be given any weight if it is fraudulent?

Unfortunately the scientists writing the letter mentioned by the SMH have been particularly  misled by biased information in one particular review ( Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009) about safety of genetically modified food, and some of the scientific the defects of that review have been discussed in a previous GMO Pundit post. 

The letter writers were also misled by another non-peer-reviewed Austrian  study that had only been announced announced by press release as part of European politics to prevent the use of genetically modified food.It had never been subject to peer-review which is the standard ethical process for primary investigational studies. Again unfortunately, the scientist writing the letter reported in the SMH failed to note that the Austrian study that they cited has in fact been formally withdrawn by the original investigators because the results are meaningless.

This had all been summarised in the previous GMO Pundit post about this issue.

The main scientific reason for criticising the Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009 scientific review is that it is a biased assessment of genetically modified food safety. Scientific bias leads to a misleading evaluation of risks relating to genetically modified food. It feeds fear and wastes benefits.  The researched wheat varieties which the letter seeks to delay could improve gut health.

It is crucial that scientific reviews be a fair and objective view of all of the information relating to the topic in question, but they also depend upon heavily  the integrity and relevant experience of the review authors.

 There are severe ethical problems with the Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009  review which seriously call into question whether the authors devoted fair and diligence and unbiased attention to all the issues of GM food safety. Internal evidence in the paper — specific plagiarism examples — have already pointed out in the earlier Pundit post , but it is also relevant to evaluate whether the major author has an otherwise solid track record.

Associate Prof Chris Preston of Adelaide has diligently traced back many of the publications by that senior author.

A series of 15 serious plagiarism examples in papers by that author are shown below. These are additional to the two exhibits in the earlier post on this topic.

These are reproduced in a series of 15 images  in total where the text of papers by Arvanitoyanis is compared on the left-hand side column with text and original sources of information  (that pre-date the respective publications by Arvanitoyanis) on the right-hand side column. Exact similarities have been coloured in yellow. There is a lot of yellow writing.

Readers are invited to examine the following diagrams. They provide compelling proof that repeated plagiarism occurs in papers by this author. They remove any basis for believing that duely diligent scientific process has been applied to the controversial and contested review about genetically modified foods that was the significant bases for the protest letter about  GM wheat  reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. The claim in the protest letter to the SMH that there is a portfolio of valid evidence that GM foods are unsafe is false.

The pupose of food traceback is to remove dangerous food from the market place so people don’t get sick and don’t die. These plagiarised papers should also be removed from the scientific marketplace of ideas, and the editorial processes that allowed them to appear and remain so long in the literature should be thoroughly scrutinised to find out why they failed.


Health risks of genetically modified foods.

Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009 Feb;49(2):164-75.
Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, University of Athens, Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.











Document Number: 8077
Thomas Sims gets it
by Karl Haro von Mogel on 5 July 2011
Thomas Sims, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Biological Sciences department at NIU. He was interviewed for a column about genetically engineered crops written for Northern Star Online, that claimed that GE foods are unsafe, quoting Dr. Oz, Jeffrey Smith, and the AAEM.

Here is an example of the claims made in the piece.

Between the U.S. and European countries, which has more instances of food allergies? Which has more instances of asthma or autism? Which has more instances of cancer and heart disease? Yes, I understand many factors play a role in these distinctions. However, I think it would be unwise to ignore the relation between the introduction of GM foods and higher instances of food-related allergies. Do you honestly believe major corporations care more about the health and safety of the public over their ability to make a profit?

His words only got a brief mention, and his response is a model for how scientists should respond to these kinds of claims. We have received permission to republish his spot-on commentary. (He has asked that I obscure the name of the young reporter who wrote the column so that it is about the information and not the person. So only the name has been edited.) Enjoy!

Column regarding genetically modified foods was one-sided and misinformed

This author’s column on Genetically Modified (GM) foods  is a thinly-veiled hatchet job, repeating a mixture of half-truths, lies and grossly misinformed opinions about this technology. This was disappointing, as she interviewed me (I’m an “NIU Expert” on plant genetic engineering) at some length during the preparation of her column.

Judging from the content in her column, she came to this subject with a pre-formed agenda, and wasn’t interested in accuracy or real science. Let me be absolutely clear that I am not upset or concerned that she used little if any of the information she and I discussed. This was an opinion piece and she was perfectly within her rights to use or not use any information that I provided to her. I have no ego involved here.

What I found disappointing, however, is that the author gave enormous credibility to anti-GMO advocates, when for the most part those opinions have little, if any, real scientific credibility.

When reporters are writing about science-related issues, whether that be GMOs, vaccines, Global Climate Change or E. coli from German organic farms that has recently killed at least 40 people, they have an obligation to do their best to understand the science and to realize that when experimental evidence is involved, not all opinions are equal.

Having been interviewed on the basis of what seems to me to border on false pretenses, I would like to provide a different perspective on several of the points raised in her article. As an example, she lifts (verbatim) a statement from the website of the official-sounding American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) about the “serious health risks associated with GM food consumption.”

Quackwatch.org lists AAEM at the top of a list of questionable organizations and explains that AAEM was founded by Theron Randolph in 1965 to promote the now-thoroughly-discredited idea of “multiple chemical sensitivity.” AAEM lists several studies in its bibliography that it claims point out the danger of GM foods.

Had she bothered to check these out she would have found that the few peer-reviewed, scientifically-vetted articles quoted showed marginal (and often statistically insignificant) differences in studies of animals fed diets of GM food vs. non-GM food, with the authors of the articles stating that the few differences shown might well be due to factors unrelated to the GM protein present in the food.

This is a typical tactic of extreme advocacy groups: take an inconclusive study, with a couple of data points that might suggest some difference (whether biologically significant or not), blow it all out of proportion from the conclusions of the actual scientists and trumpet it as showing dangers to health and well-being.

What about Dr. Oz, “a surgeon acclaimed for providing health advice”? The author conveniently left out of her piece other statements from the doctoroz.com website such as: “Overwhelmingly…studies indicate that GMOs are safe to consume.”, “Easier farming means more food which, in turn, means less expensive food…less expensive food makes it easier to feed hungry populations around the world,” and “GMOs can be modified to have greater nutritional value…scientists…have genetically modified rice to contain significantly higher amounts of vitamin A.” (More on that in a bit.)

OK, how about the “Institute for Responsible Technology”? Well that turns out to be the personal website of Jeffrey Smith, an anti-GMO agitator with no scientific credentials. Mr. Smith’s self-published anti-GMO books and claims have been thoroughly refuted by academics, including Professors Bruce Chassy and David Tribe (www.academicsreview.org). As they say, consider the source.

Let me briefly return to the genetically modified “Golden Rice” referred to above. This rice variety has been genetically engineered by the non-profit Golden Rice Project (www.goldenrice.org) to produce Vitamin A in the rice grain, something that is not possible to attain by conventional breeding. Vitamin-A deficiency contributes to over 500,000 cases of blindness in children in countries with rice-dependent poor populations (Nature 29, July 2010, p 561). Seventy percent of these children will die within a year of going blind. Golden Rice was developed over 10 years ago, will be provided free of charge, and has the potential to save millions of lives.

Yet Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other anti-GMO organizations have consistently opposed and delayed its introduction. Why? I don’t know, but to me it says that the political agendas of these organizations are more important to them than the lives of millions of poor children, and that’s tragic.










Document Number: 3622
Real leadership leaves Friends of the Earth. Unfortunately, they still need it.
by David Tribe on 3 July 2011
From GMO Pundit.

Finally, accept certain campaigns are not winnable, and simply drain resources. Absolutist positions do not hold up for the majority. Because of climate change, this probably includes total opposition to nuclear power and GM products globally. Focus instead on the conditions where these technologies become acceptable: safe, economic, free of patent control by a few companies, and effectively regulated. (Charles Secrett, ex FOE, 2011).

In the Pundit’s experience, and sincere opinion, many members of Friends of the Earth (FOE) are often the most principled and honest of the opponents of genetic technology. In short, they are wonderful human beings and a pleasure to meet.

This open letter reproduced below is a welcome example from Charles Secrett of what FOE is truly capable of. Charles Secrett now joins my list of outstanding and courageous honest environmentalist heroes, up with Stewart Brand, Mark Lynas and Patrick Moore. He is yet another ecopragmatic turq (see tags below for the meaning of these adjectives).

Enlace: ‘Amigos de la Tierra’ se queda sin liderazgo real … pero aún les hace falta


***
An open letter to the green movement
Charles Secrett
guardian.co.uk,  Tuesday 21 June 2011 13.51 BST

Last week, Charles Secrett argued that 40 years after the birth of the modern environment movement, it has turned into an unwieldy behemoth and its tactics have stalled. This prompted criticism that he is out of touch with the movement. Here, in an open letter to green campaigners, Secrett gives his remedy for the movement’s ills.

Letter of Charles Secrett:

What more can NGOs do to help humanity out of the mess we are in? Tried and tested campaign tactics, based on protest and outrage at the incompetence of governments and industry, are not working. It’s time to break free from a perpetually defensive mode, and go on the offensive. Spark the reasonable revolution.

We need something much more powerful than just direct action or lobbying to encourage politicians, companies and communities to change course and tread a development path where the needs of people and nature are jointly met. The necessary wealth, resources, technologies and ideas are out there. What is missing is the political will to implement.

As you constantly warn, we have about 10 years or so to turn around the juggernaut of industrialism, and our gobbling up of earth’s resources, before ecosystems start collapsing, species extinctions reach crisis point, and the fundamental stability and productivity of the biosphere (soils, oceans and atmosphere) enters a state of runaway change. That will be the point of no return for billions of people. Imagine the chaos.

First, appreciate how powerful you could be from pooling your efforts. In the UK, you employ thousands of staff, spend over £100m annually, and have millions of members. You speak for people from all walks of life, and all political persuasions. Globally, you can multiply those numbers by a factor of 10, and probably much more.

Second, stop working in parallel, and unite with other causes – development, human rights, poverty, public health, democracy, community well-being – under one banner: “For people, for the planet”.

The fundamental problems in these fields – authoritarian government, the dominance of selfish elites, rampant neo-liberal economics, and disdain for the workings of nature – are connected. So are the solutions, and therefore your agendas. By co-operating, you reach a critical mass to achieve your aims.

Third, every successful revolution has a compelling text at its heart – ideals, goals, words, images and examples that inspire the majority. Where is your equivalent of the Rights of Man, Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital, or Little Red Book?

You need to agree a joint manifesto for life. Mine the library of sustainable development strategies to spell out a route map that can take humanity from where we are to where most want to be.

Collate the best solutions from public, private and community sectors into a compelling narrative. Pepper it with case studies of what works from around the world. Use simple language and pictures, not the professional jargon of sustainability-speak, to convince the silent majority that the alternatives exist.

Then, crowd-source the draft. Iceland is drawing up a new constitution like this. NGOs have the reach to try the approach globally. Bridge the traditional divides between north and south, east and west, where national governments and multinationals have failed. Help the public create a new world order, and confirm the principles, objectives and means to deliver political economies that work for people and nature.

That can build ownership of the outcome, and commitment to change, across cultures. Where the intelligence of elites has failed to motivate the mainstream, the wisdom of crowds can succeed.

Fourth, build a cross-party political consensus in every nation. You have extensive international networks, and are embedded and respected in most countries.
Societal change is about power, and who wields it and why. Your regular interaction with government and companies is not the same as real influence. You must systematically generate significant pressure to change the failing business-as-usual provision of energy, food, housing, jobs, welfare and the other things that people require for a good life.
Power resides with voters, tax-payers and constituents. No government can rule without citizen consent.

Use the manifesto, and specific proposals for policies, regulations, tax-codes and spending priorities that make environmental, economic and social sense, to show how people’s lives will improve from their adoption. Natural allies include scientists, gardeners, fishers, farmers, foresters, sports-people, outdoor recreationalists – tens of millions of people who depend on a clean, healthy environment.

Organise locally in every constituency to build formidable alliances between your supporters, other community groups, unions and local businesses.

The imperative is to hold government and industry to account at elections and between elections, at AGMs and throughout the year. If they don’t respond, motivated electorates and shareholders can throw the bums out.

Fifth, do the same in markets. Business too needs a license to operate. Consumers, shareholders and investors are the kings and queens of commerce and industry. No company will invest in, make or sell services and products that people won’t buy, or shareholders reject. It’s another opportunity to organise and mobilise.

Business allies are in sectors like insurance and pension funds that depend on stability and continuity in economy and ecology. And, the entrepreneurs and innovative companies who deal in clean, green and smart technologies, vehicles, products and infrastructure that reconcile a steady-state economy with a steady-state biosphere.

Activists and executives can speak with one voice to help decision-makers break free of ideological chains for what works. Neither left nor right, but forward, as the German greens used to proclaim.

By taking these steps, you can create the opportunity for governments at global summits to find common cause and tackle climate change, deforestation, ocean depletion, destructive trade patterns, human rights abuses et al – and escape the groundhog day experience of always being bitterly disappointed at every meeting.

Finally, accept certain campaigns are not winnable, and simply drain resources. Absolutist positions do not hold up for the majority. Because of climate change, this probably includes total opposition to nuclear power and GM products globally. Focus instead on the conditions where these technologies become acceptable: safe, economic, free of patent control by a few companies, and effectively regulated.

This is how NGOs can help mobilise a majority to back changes that give the poor and downtrodden, let alone my son and your children, a fighting chance of enjoying as decent lives as you and I do.

Yours sincerely,
Charles










Document Number: 2779
GMO Food Is Actually Already Labeled If You Know A Few Rules
by Steve Savage on 2 July 2011
Back in 1995, I was party to some discussions about whether about-to-be-released GMO crops should be labeled at the consumer level.  It was clear that a failure to do so would look to some like a conspiracy, but we also realized that it would be far too expensive to track the great rivers of grain well enough to be able to label everything accurately.   Practicality won the day and GMO foods were never labeled.  15 years later this decision is still being needlessly debated.

Why You Can’t Really Track All Grain

It does not normally make sense for a farmer to have his/her own harvesting equipment.  There are “custom, contract harvesters” who move from South to North during the harvest season.  There are always some grains left in the harvester as it moves from field to field.  The grain is then hauled to local “elevators” which are used to store grain.  They only have a few silos which end up containing grain from dozens to hundreds of fields.  Segregating the GMO portion of the crop is not possible at this stage.   To ask this system to segregate and track GMO is absurd.  It is much more practical to “identity preserve” the small amount of non-GMO crop.  That also usually involves paying a price premium.

A “May Contain” Label Might Have Been A Better Choice

I actually supported the idea of a “may contain GMO” label, recognizing that things like corn and soybeans are turned into ingredients that are in just about any processed food (corn starch, HFCS, soy protein, soybean oil…).  Both the biotech industry and the food industry thought that a “may contain” label would unnecessarily frighten consumers.  I still think it would have inoculated them against alarm.  In the Information Age, only the absence of information stands out.

Fruits and Vegetables

As I have written elsewhere, almost no fruit or vegetable crops will ever be GMO – not because of consumer wishes, but because of economics, brand protectionism, and alternative ways of achieving the same goals.  If GMO ever did move to fruit and vegetable crops, it would probably be intentionally labeled and farmers would then segregate the GMO from the non-GMO.  For instance, if there was a line of coffee with a trait that allowed intentional timing of flowering (and thus timing of harvest), it would be much cheaper because it could be mechanically harvested (this is actually needed, or coffee is going to become extremely expensive in the future).  A label could explain this.  If there was a new variety of potato with higher starch content, it would absorb less fat during cooking.  It could be proudly advertised as a “low fat” option at a fast food chain (there was such a potato in the works before McDonald’s killed the program).

The “Biotech By Choice” Brand Concept

There is the concept of an umbrella brand for these sorts of GMO innovations – “Biotech By Choice”  (I even once reserved the domain name for that). The GMO,Bt sweet corn, that already exists (quietly) should be the first product under that brand – if there ever was a grocery retailer with the guts to promote it.  Instead, they quietly tell their suppliers not to bring them any GMO corn.  The second product under the brand could be the GMO virus resistant papaya (which saved the Hawaiian papaya industry a few years ago). Instead it is being sold on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” basis.

Biotech Wine

A third product under the Biotech By Choice brand could be premium wine grown on virus and nematode resistant rootstock.  I once advised the folks in Chile, that own this Cornell-developed technology, to buy some previously ideal vineyard sites in Napa and France that are now worthless because they are contaminated with the nematode and virus which kill any grape you plant there.  They could buy that land cheaply, grow some really good grapes, and make a premium wine.  There are plenty of people who would subscribe ahead of time to be able to buy a case a year at a wholesale price.  Did that happen?  No. People with fears of genetic contamination (which shows that they know nothing about grapes)ripped the French version of that experiment out of the ground.  The US experiment still exists, but only because its location is secret.  Still, this technology will probably never reach the market (do you have a couple million spare bucks to help finish the work?).

A Biotech Crop to Feed the World

A fourth Biotech by Choice crop could be wheat.  It might be drought tolerant or efficient in its use of nitrogen.  It might be resistant to a herbicide so that specific varieties can be grown purely under a no-till system.  It might be resistant to Fusarium, a fungus, and thus free of the mycotoxin, DON or vomitoxin.  I’d like to be able to choose a loaf like that.  Wheat actually could be segregated into GMO and non-GMO.  Most wheat farmers have their own, on-farm grain storage facilities. Wheat quality is variable by variety, geography and year, so there is a lot of testing and movement of small lots.  If there were reasonable rules about “adventitious presence,” (e.g. a few kernals of GMO in the non-GMO because they were harvested with the same harvester). Then Biotech By Choice wheat products could be sold.  Will that happen?  Its hard to know.  The wheat farmers certainly hope so.

All Food Is Effectively Labeled if You Know A Few Rules

Most people would like GMO products to be labeled.  I get that.  But, if you know a few rules, they already are in a de-facto mode.  For the grain crops, other than wheat, it just isn’t practical to segregate, and it makes far more sense to label only what is non-GMO.  We do that and should. Just assume the rest contains GMOs. It is like buying eggs: they all contain cholesterol, but there is no need to say so on the label except for the “whites only” variety and no one would mistake the little boxes for eggs.

For fruits and vegetables it would make sense to proudly label the improved, GMO versions.  If they are not promoted that way, just assume they are non-GMO because that is the norm. This is comparable to the reason you don’t have to label lettuce or water that is “fat free.” If you don’t want GMO, don’t buy papaya’s from Hawaii.  You could also avoid squash, but I don’t think it is GMO anymore.

For wheat products, actual labeling will be feasible as long as people accept reasonable thresholds for adventitious presence. For now, just know that there is no GMO wheat being grown commercially, so there is no need to label anything (although most wheat products will have some soy or corn ingredients as well).

Conclusion

In my world, this all makes perfect sense.  I hope this helps.  If you don’t worry about GMOs, there is no need for labels.  If you have worries, it is easy to avoid GMO.  However, I’m under no delusion that activists will adopt such a view.  There is way too much money to be made in the fear business.










Document Number: 3165
How to feed a hungry world
by Pamela Ronald on 25 June 2011
From Tomorrow's Table

This week, the G20 Agriculture Ministers gathered for their first-ever meeting to discuss potential measures to address price volatility and record high food prices. The key to any long-term solution is acknowledging that we need to empower the very people whose lives are most affected by food shortages. Three-quarters of the world’s poorest people get their food and income by farming small plots of land. The potential of small farmers for getting us out of this and future food crises cannot be overstated.

Today, we find that millions of lives depend upon the extent to which agricultural science can keep pace with the growing global population, changing climate, and shrinking environmental resources — and the extent to which this science is available to millions of the world’s poorest farmers.

Few people will argue with the idea that we need to grow more food. World economic and agricultural leaders have projected that the human population will surpass 9 billion by 2050, and 10 billion by the turn of the century. And they have forecast that we must double or even triple food production to meet demand.

Yet, already 40 percent of the earth is farmed (an area the size of South America). The amount of arable land is limited and what is left is being lost to urbanization, water shortages, erosion, and environmental degradation. Farmers are so pressed for space in many parts of the world that much of the land now being farmed is marginal, such as the steep hills of Ecuador. Overuse of pesticides sickens farmers and continuous cultivation of the same land drains it of nutrients.

So how will we keep up? How will we feed the world without destroying it?

My husband Raoul Adamchak and I often discuss this question. Raoul has been an organic farmer for thirty years, and I’m a plant geneticist. You may think that a geneticist and an organic farmer represent polar opposites. But we both have the same goal: an ecologically based system of agriculture that is able to grow more food, largely on existing farmland.

When Raoul and I wrote “Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food,” our intention was to give readers a better understanding of how geneticists and organic farmers address our big challenge–creating a healthy and productive agricultural system–and how what we do can be complementary.

We believe that the discussions about agriculture must be framed in the context of the environmental, economic, and social impacts of farming–the three pillars of sustainable agriculture. Rather than focusing on how a seed variety was developed, we must ask what most enhances local food security and can provide safe, abundant and nutritious food. We must ask if rural communities can thrive and if farmers can make a profit. We must be sure that consumers can afford the food. And we must minimize environmental degradation.

Both organic farming and biotechnology have a seat at this table. Organic farming began as a response to the overuse of pesticides and fertilizers, and relies on integrated management to control pests and disease. And while organic production practices can be an important component of sustainable agriculture, they cannot address every constraint faced by farmers, including some diseases and pests, challenges posed by climate change, and the need for adequate nutrition.

This is not to say that genetic engineering is always the most appropriate technology, but there are times when it can help rapidly solve major problems.

Rice is a good example. It is a daily source of food and calories for more than half the worlds’ people. Yet dependence on rice may come with a price, as the grain is deficient in vitamin A. Many of those who rely on rice are also vitamin A deficient. Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children. It also impairs immune system function and increases the risk of death from certain childhood diseases.

Plant breeders are using biotechnology to develop a new rice variety called Golden Rice, a unique type of rice that contains beta carotene, a source of vitamin A. Because rice contains negligible amounts of beta carotene, which the body converts to vitamin A, genetic modification is required to boost micronutrient levels. Crop breeders and farmers are now working together to develop varieties of Golden Rice appropriate to different growing conditions, with the intention of making these golden grains available to help meet urgent nutrition needs for many of the world’s poor.

As we address global issues of food and nutrition security we need everyone at the table. This includes breeders, organic farmers, seed companies, charities, geneticists, consumers. We need more support for agricultural research that is responsive to the unique needs of poor small-holder farmers. And we need the G20 to invest in agricultural development in the least developed countries, give farmers the freedom of technology choice, and explore options for international governance of food markets.










Document Number: 617
First they banned irradiation of foods, then GMOs, now they are starting on nanotechnology — all life-saving technologies.
by David Tribe on 23 June 2011
From GMO Pundit.

Nanotechnology Now – Press Release: “Nanostructured water treatment products to be worth $2.2 billion in 2015″


Warnings from nutritional hell, with apologies to El Bosco
We live in a world where whole organisations make comfortable incomes by demonising technology. These self-styled “technology critics” early successes included active blocking of the use of irradiation to make food safe or years. This largely unused technology is based on using electrons or radioactively generated gamma rays to kill germs.
Eleven years ago the German government vetoed the use of such radiation based technology to make food safe to eat in the EU. Odd that they should do this given that it’s a widely used and successful tool to avoid deadly infections during modern surgical operations. It could have prevented the ghastly current E. coli sproutbreak in Germany that has killed 44 and has condemned near 900 people to coping with the vile aftermath of HUS — which include kidney transplants or a lifetime of being hooked to dialysis machines. [It could also have prevented a second outbreak of sprout promoted lethal disease from the same E. coli strain now taking place in France.]

The next “success” of technology-critics was delaying and stymieing introduction of beneficial GMO foods. In this case the damage is felt mainly in developing countries. Damaging consequences of this include hundreds of thousands cases of diarrhoea and measles infections in people with poor immunity because they currently miss-out on genetically fortified vitamin A enhanced rice, and the countless thousands of Indian small-hold farmers needlessly exposed to dangerous synthetic pesticides because GM insect-protected aubergines and cabbages are unnecessarily kept out of the market by anti-GM activism in India.

Not content with these “achievements” which never seem to be included on anti-technology activist’s lists of dangers to worry about, the “technology-critics” have moved on to targeting nanotechnology (featured in this link), whatever that is.
Nanotechnology, it turns out, is used to purify water. Pure water is crucial to good health, and many developing country communities lack clean water. In China, for example, rotten village water resources are a contributory factor in high liver-cancer rates.
So civil society technology critics have now hit a deathly trifecta of tragic mistakes – which are truly a collection of warnings from nutritional hell. Unnecessary faecal contamination of food, avoidable vitamin A malnutrition-induced damage to immunity in the poor, and with the latest fear-fad of anti-nanotechnology activism, fear-mongering about a technology that gives us healthy drinking water.
Some day more mainstream journalists will wake-up to this farce and start writing  more widely about this travesty, and make  misguided activists come to their senses. Meanwhile Rachel Carson must be turning in her grave.










Document Number: 4094
Worried about deliberate introduction of the German E. coli germ? Please read this.
by David Tribe on 18 June 2011
From GMO Pundit.


Different EAEC and STpEAEC (E. coli) bacterial chromosomes and mini-chromosomes compared with one-another, with evolutionary changes highlighted by gaps (Kat Holt)
(Updated 21-06-2011] Enough information is now emerging from the frantic work of the DNA sequencing teams and the crowdsourced intense detective work by bioinformatics experts (all mentioned in several previous posts at this site) to assemble a broad picture of how the German outbreak germ has evolved in recent years  in terms of changes to its overall chromosome structure.

The bottom line is this: the strain is roughly 75% conservative genes and 25% radical genes. It’s the newly arrived radicals that do the damage.

Kat Holt has presented in very visual terms her analysis of all the DNA decoding made public by several life-science workers and various corporations in Germany, USA, China, France and Britain. She has just made this available at backpathgenomics blog. Her latest work summarises DNA decoding data obtained on four different bacterial strains. It is similar to the picture sketched out by the BGI sequencing group when they released their fully analysed DNA data recently — but much easier for most people to understand because of the colourful graphics. One of her graphics is displayed above, but there are more detailed larger scale pixs of the individual chromosomes at her blog.

The set of compared germs  include two strains analysed in Germany, one strain analysed in Britain, and one done by the American-Chinese consortium BGI.

This heavy duty computerised detective work on  DNA reveals that the main germ chromosome is huge at 5.2 million base pairs. It possesses about 1 million base pairs of extra information not present in non-pathogenic non-dangerous strains such as the laboratory strain E. coli K-12. This shows the huge amount of horizontal gene movement going on in E. coli. This is not a surprise. The first pathogenic E. coli sequence (by Perna and colleagues in 2001) carried similar extra genetic baggage. Only about 80% of the germ’s main chromosome DNA is common heritage for all the divergent strains, but that DNA which is retained in all strains doesn’t change much in its coding information during strain evolution.

There are also three smaller additional mini-chromosomes to the main chromosome. These are completely lacking from most other E. coli strains. Two important ones of these are (i) a plasmid carrying a broad spectrum antibiotic inactivating enzyme (called a beta-lactamase) and (ii) another plasmid that is somewhat similar to a plasmid found in an ancestral strain of the enteroaggregative E. coli bacteria. This ancestral is called plasmid AA, usually abbreviated to pAA.

From the comparison of different strains done by Kat Holt it seems the small pAA plasmid has undergone extensive recent genetic change, and it carries a novel gene called aag — most likely involved in aggregated microbial cell attachment to the gut wall — when its plasmid variant is present in the German outbreak strains. The broad spectrum antibiotic resistance plasmid has a known means of of mini-chromosome replication and regulation shared by many other plasmids. This method of replication/regulation is referred to as IncI so we will refer to this plasmid here as the IncI plasmid. This plasmid does not seem to have undergone much recent genetic change.

The remaining plasmid is a small selfish DNA that seems to possess only the means to replicate itself inside the bacterial cells. Possibly this selfish plasmid does no harm to humans. Selfishness is not a mortal sin.

In addition to these plasmids, there are two extra identifiable major additions of new mobile DNA in the main chromosome.

These extra genes are DNA blocks from a bacterial virus that is similar to one (called VT2) carries the Shiga toxin gene in EHEC bacteria. They appear in red in the diagram above from Kat Holt. Their presence is not a surprise either. These shigatoxin virus DNAs come and go in many different pathogenic E. coli strains.

There is extremely high similarity of the great bulk of the main E. coli chromosome  between all analysed genomes including the more divergent African derived strain. These retained genes can be called the clonal framework or alternatively the housekeeping chromosomal backbone. Thus all E. coli strains have the same backbone. This is well established from many other investigations on E. coli genetic structure.

But because of the extra presence the Shiga toxin related block of DNA represented by the virus insertions, the outbreak strain is starting to be called Shiga toxin producing enteroaggregative E. coli or STpEAEC. This acronym recognises that the stain is a EAEC type E. coli with ability to produce Shiga toxin.

Evolution of the germ chromosomes

One more thing can be said from this extra information summarised by Kat. The four outbreak strains that have been completely decoded are very similar to one another in their main chromosomes. They have not had a chance to undergo much evolution. But they are consistently different from the African EAEC strain Ec55989 at about seven positions at least in addition to those that have been bought in by the shiga toxin phage. These gaps in the similarity maps shown in the diagram indicate insertion of a new block of block of DNA in the outbreak strains the has no corresponding DNA in the African isolate. This indicated that the outbreak  isolates have a common source that has has a significant time to evolve from the African isolate called Ec55989.

Thanks to Githiub wiki we can any follow further progress on characterizing these various DNA additions.

[Updated section 21-06-2011

Peter Slickers has set up a wiki there to collect comments on regions of difference.

Quoting from that wiki:

The term "Regions of difference" (ROD) referres to loci within a bacterial genome which are found only in some members of a species. These loci are typically prophages, transposons, plasmids integrated into the chromosome, and remnants of all these mobile elements. If their evolutionary origin cannot be deduced, they are just called genomic islands. Chromosomal encoded virulence factors and antibiotic resistence determinats are most often haboured in ROD. In an excellent publication ChaudhuriRR-SebaihiaM-2010 have used the concept of ROD to analyze the full genome of the prototypical enteroaggregative Escherichia coli strain 042.

This page is intended to create an inventory of all ROD in the genome of the 2011 O104:H4 outbreak strain in a collaborative fashion in the style of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contribute to this page and its subpages in order to get a complete and throughout analysis and annotation of all ROD.

id	size / nt	integration site	type	name	payload	note
RD0001	60869	wrbA	prophage	phiStx2	stxA2, stxB2	
RD0002	86630	ycdU and tRNAserX	O island	Tellurite resistance- and adherence-conferring island	iha, mchBCF, terCDE, yeeVW	adhesine, microcin
RD0003	48449	yecE	prophage			
RD0004	48778	tRNAselC and setC	composite island		merDA, tetRA, flu, yeeVW	
Preliminary findings:

it is amazing to see how all the prominent virulence and resistence factors cluster together at only a few sites.
the yeeVW gene cluster is found on the chromosome at 3 locations. Is this an artefact of assembling or an example of elevated gene dosage?
tRNA genes are hot-spots for integration of mobile elements in O104:H4 (which is long known)
The Pundit notes that "natural" mechanisms for insertion of 4/4 of these inserts are suggested by the DNA sequence data itself. These are phage and tRNA sites which are established hot-spots for new gene insertion.

End of updated section from Peter Slickers 21-06-2011]

The historic 2001 strain of the germ that was found in Germany.

It will be fascinating when the University of Muenster-Life sciences Corporation joint collaboration releases their genome sequence  information about the historical 2001 isolate of pathogenic EAEC E. coli that was present in Germany some years before this outbreak. Comparison of its decoded genome with that of the outbreak strains will open up many leads to understanding why the germ is so dangerous and perhaps even provide clues to treating infections.

Because extremely prudent use of genetic sequencing to characterise that strain of E. coli genome scientists were able to work out that it is very definitely closely related to the current outbreak strain. I gather Mike the mad scientist was one of the first to realise this. His discovery nicely illustrates how genetic sequence information enables communication about outbreak causes across the Internet through quick, easy and certain cross-referencing between different disease events. [His blog might also suggest this strain could even date back to Jan-91.]

MLST typing is essential to any serious Public Health work.

This is one of the reasons why the technique of gene sequencing of outbreak strains must become a routine world-wide part public health work to manage and eliminate foodborne disease outbreaks. The technique of using gene sequences to fingerprint strains of germs is referred to as MLST and was cleverly developed more than 13 years ago by a consortium of European academics  including Dominique Caugant,  Ian Feavers, Martin Maiden, Brian Spratt, and Mark Achtman and others – who were involved in studying the natural evolution of germs. It will be nice to see a public tribute to their work when the general public realise the importance of their leadership and foresight.

Terrorism and conspiracy theories? Huh!

It may be sobering for those who worry about the possible deliberate introduction of this germ into Germany, or the possible import of contamination on seeds imported from outside the country, to realise that a very similar germ has been around the country for a considerable period, maybe dating back to 1991, and at least 2001. It is really important that people understand that the germ causing the outbreak has a reservoir for further transmission in the human alimentary canal and is transmitted by human contact, for example unwashed hands of food handlers. It also be sobering to contemplate any other information that emerges about the widespread distribution of this germ already in the environment in locations widely disconnected from the implicated sprout farm in northern Germany (such as news like “Deadly E. coli found in a stream near Frankfurt“).










Document Number: 9574
Natural GMOs Part 90: Genes move between species in fungi
by David Tribe on 16 June 2011
From GMO Pundit.




(Photomicrograph of Aspergillus nidulans, the species of mold that appears to have been the source of the 22-gene cluster that jumped to Podospora anserina, an unrelated species of mold. The Aspergillus genus contains a number of species that are beneficial and harmful to humans. (Creative Commons licensed Image via Özgür Bayram and Gerhard Braus)
GMO Pundit just been highlighting gene movements occurring naturally among bacterial species – the so called horizontal gene movements (HGT). But with the extensive decoding of the DNA of numerous organisms that has taken place this last 5 years or so, many more instances of gene movement between species are turning up. Fungi turn out to be no exception when it comes to such movements.
Vanderbilt University Jumping Gene webpage published earlier this year has a dramatically colourful news story about gene movement in fungi:


Since the days of Darwin, the “tree of life” has been the preeminent metaphor for the process of evolution, reflecting the gradual branching and changing of individual species.
The discovery that a large cluster of genes appears to have jumped directly from one species of fungus to another, however, significantly strengthens the argument that a different metaphor, such as a mosaic, may be more appropriate.
“The fungi are telling us something important about evolution … something we didn’t know,” said Antonis Rokas, assistant professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt. He and research associate Jason Slot reported their discovery in the Jan. 25 issue of the journal Current Biology.
Ancient gene cluster jump found between unrelated moldsRokas and Slot discovered that millions of years ago, a cluster of 23 genes jumped from one strain of mold commonly found on starchy foods like bread and potatoes, Aspergillus, to another strain of mold that lives in herbivore dung and specializes in breaking down plant fibers, Podospora.
The findings came as a major surprise, as there are only a handful of cases in recent evolutionary history where this type of gene transfer between organisms, known as horizontal gene transfer, has been reported in complex cells like those found in plants, animals and fungi.
“Because most people didn’t believe that such large gene clusters could be transferred horizontally, they haven’t looked for them and they haven’t been found,” Rokas said.
Rokas and Slot detected the unprecedented gene cluster transfer during a detailed comparison of the entire genomes of nearly 100 species of fungi. The primary goal of their research is to identify the most reliable methods for determining the evolutionary relationships of species of all kinds. In the course of their analysis, they discovered the 23-gene capture.
So even genes for toxins can move around among different fungi. Gosh! Nature certainly serves up some nasty surprises!












Document Number: 4868
TechNyou carry great story about GM wheat: the story of our daily bread |
by David Tribe on 8 July 2011
From GMO Pundit.

GM wheat: the story of our daily bread | TechNyou
BY JASON MAJOR

TECHNYOU (REPRODUCED HERE BY KIND PERMISSION OF TECHNYOU)

Australian consumers will soon be eating GM bread that has never been proven safe, according to Greenpeace.
Greenpeace have lately been rattling the can about CSIRO’s proposed trials of GM wheat that have altered starch characteristics. Part of the proposal to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator was for possible human feeding trials, which they especially didn’t like.
As part of what Greenpeace say is just the beginning of a concerted push to oust any GM wheat from Australia and elsewhere in the world – research trial or otherwise, they yesterday released a report, “Australia’s wheat scandal: the takeover of our daily bread”. They certainly didn’t pull any punches in their criticism of CSIRO and other research organisations such as the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics.
Is the criticism justified?

I thought I had better check it out. In trying to get a handle on the actual CSIRO research, I have spoken to CSIRO’s Dr Matthew Morell, Theme Leader, Future Grains, Food Futures Flagship, who headed the research into the GM wheat with altered starch characteristics. I go into more detail about this wheat as we go and at the end.
First the Greenpeace report. If I was to go through every part of the report I thought needed clarification or context you would need to take an annual leave day to read it so these are just some of the main points. The report is also often a political and economic debate rather than a scientific one and so steps outside our agenda.
Greenpeace claim: Commercialised GM wheat by 2015.

This is highly unlikely. The closest GM wheat to commercialisation is the CSIRO wheat mentioned above and that is still in the research phase rather than any final tweaking for commercialisation. Dr Morell says that it would be at least 2017 before that hits the market, if all goes well with the proposed research trials and it gets through all the regulatory hoops and hurdles – and further trials.
Conflicts of interest?

Greenpeace are concerned that this year’s GM wheat trials were proposed and approved while two directors of Nufarm were serving on the board of the CSIRO. I am unsure how this is relevant as CSIRO are not lawfully allowed to approve such trials. This is the responsibility of the Australian regulator agency, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). CSIRO can chat and approve all they like internally, but they cannot conduct any such trials – laboratory or field – unless they apply to and get approval from the OGTR – which they have.
See CSIRO’s OGTR application DIR 093, and if you are interested all the other applications at this url
Shoddy science?

Under their heading of “Shoddy Science”, Greenpeace make the following claims about gaps or flaws in our regulators’analysis:
Failure to require corporate applicants to conduct molecular analysis to map gene insertion sites and copy number. This means that scientists and their corporate partners do not know what and where they have inserted novel genes into GM wheat before releasing it into the environment.
And – Failure to require corporate applicants to disclose evidence of short-term genetic stability.
And – Failure to require corporate applicants to disclose details on genes inserted, declaring this information ‘commercial in confidence’. (this one is partially true in that such sequences are not released publicly, but they must be made available to the regulators – FSANZ, at least – as part of their assessment)
I am unsure where they got there information from for this statement, but this information is exactly what Food Standards Australia New Zealand require as part of any application to have a GM food assessed before it is approved for human consumption. See references below for a more detailed idea of just what FSANZ do re: safety assessment of GM foods. And yes, I am aware that many of those opposed to GM crops think their assessment is insufficiently rigorous, but that is not for me to judge. The other side think their assessment procedures are too rigorous and make the cost of doing such research only accessible to those with lots of money – ie big corporations.
And – Failure to require corporate applicants to provide evidence that GM will not cause toxic or allergic effects in animals and humans. No amount of testing on animals or humans can prove that GM is safe.
Apart from the fact that no amount of testing can prove that non-GM or conventionally-bred food is safe either, I can only assume that Greenpeace are referring to the CSIRO wheat with altered starch trait at the stage of the research it is at now, in which case this statement is true. But the point is that the CSIRO wheat trials are research trials only. That is, they are trials designed to understand if the technology is working as they want it to. That is, the genes they silenced are having the desired affect. Should they decide that they can take this knowledge into a commercial variety then the research testing for toxicology and to determine if any unintended affects such as increases in allergenic compounds or anti-nutrients are present will be done. In fact, it is mandatory as part of any FSANZ assessment application.
As Greenpeace point out there may be all sorts of unintended affects caused by inserting chunks of DNA into a genome. This is well acknowledged and as pointed out is part of any research process to understand what unintended affects have occurred, what caused them and why. As far as the CSIRO wheat goes this stuff is par for the course. I guess the question for the consumer is whether this is sufficient testing? How safe does our food need to be before we are prepared to eat it?
Human feeding trials

The Greenpeace report states that The CSIRO announced that GM wheat from this year’s field trials in the ACT will be used for human feeding trials. This will be the first time in the world that GM wheat will be tested on humans. CSIRO and its global biotech partner, Limagrain, intend to test GM wheat on rats and pigs before testing it on Australians. However, there is currently no publicly available information on the parameters of these animal-feeding studies
CSIRO have been granted approval for human feeding trials, but they have yet to decide if they will conduct them. This approval came following a full application to the OGTR in addition to approval from a human ethics committee that is made up of external experts and operates under the NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research) guidelines.
The human feeding trials – these ones anyway – have nothing to do with safety testing. If conducted, they will assess if the altered starch characteristics are having the desired affect. That is, the wheat has been altered to have higher levels of the resistant starch, Amylose, which is important for bowel health. For this type of analysis, one or two days are apparently all that is required to establish any effect.
Initial tests on rats have shown improvement in indices of bowel health. This research was published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in February 2006. You have to scroll down a bit. It is under the heading Biological Sciences.
Full reference below.
They have also done further trials on rats and pigs. The data from the rat trial and pig research is still being crunched and written up and will be released in a peer-reviewed publication soon. Further animal trial will be conducted.
Suffice to say that there is publicly available information on the parameters of the animal feeding studies. What isn’t soon will be once the data has been analysed. If Greenpeace think this is limited information, it is because the status of the research is still preliminary.
Greenpeace research on health risks of GM crops

Doubtless that in many cases Greenpeace’s claims about difficulties in obtaining GM seed for testing are true, but it can be done and there are loads of independent and peer-reviewed papers out there. In their open letter to CSIRO and report, Greenpeace highlight three papers relevant to the safety of GM food – see below. Two of the three papers (I have yet to check out the last one) have been soundly rejected by scientists as dodgy, the second one wasn’t even peer-reviewed and the claims have since been withdrawn.
Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. (2006). GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In: Biology of
Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-
540.
Velimirov, A., Binter, C., and Zentek, J. (2008) “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810
fed in long term reproduction studies in mice” Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend
Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria
Dona A. and Arvanitoyannis I.S. (2009) Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Crit Rev Food Sci
Nutr., 49: 164–175.
Commentary on these papers can be found t the following:
TechNyou blog
GMO Compass
Who you calling whitebread?

Greenpeace’s report says the following:
They (CSIRO and Limagrain) claim that GM white bread is the answer to reducing bowel cancer rates in Australia.
CSIRO’s Dr Morell would disagree with that. In my conversation with him, Dr Morell is suggested that this wheat is just one potential solution among many that can contribute to better health. Morell says at the population level it can help provide a better diet to consumers.
And yes, I did push him on this, suggesting that wouldn’t it be more beneficial to get people to eat more wholegrains and a healthier diet all round rather than spending 20 years and millions on one wheat plant that might make a minor contribution overall?
He did agree with this, but he pointed out that too many people don’t and won’t ever make the effort to eat a healthy diet, and so much of the processed food available uses refined flour.
Barleymax – a digression

I guess, there is a marketing decision here as well similar to CSIRO’s BarleyMax which is out there at the moment, which is another story because it has been bred by a process of mutagenesis, a standard way of plant breeding that has been used for decades. In this case CSIRO researchers exposed the barley seed to a chemical mutagen which randomly mutates and scrambles the barley’s DNA in weird and unknown ways. One of those mutations produced the BarleyMax individual which was used to breed the line now seen in cereals and health products in Australian supermarkets. It is branded as such, so you can’t miss it and you pay for it too.
The point of my digression is that all the health claims Greenpeace are making about a wheat that hasn’t even got to the health testing phase yet can equally apply to this BarleyMax grain, so why aren’t they also complaining about it? And BarleyMax, nor any of the 2500-odd cereals, fruits and vegetables bred via this method over the years, have had any safety testing or regulatory scrutiny. Equally, there is corporate ownership and IP/patents attached to the product.
Back to the report – PR diet

Greenpeace say, false promises of the benefits of GM crops are nothing new for the biotech industry and ‘functional’ GM crops are the latest misleading PR exercise. ‘Golden Rice’ is still being pushed as the answer to malnutrition in Asia, despite its failure to offer real solutions to Vitamin A deficiency.
I have no idea how they can justify this claim. First, Vitamin A rice isn’t commercially available anywhere yet. It is in the final stages of testing and integration into regional cultivars so it can hardly fail to offer solutions when it hasn’t been grown or eaten yet to establish this. And I have yet to talk to or read about any scientist/plant breeder working with nutritionally enhanced crops that thinks or says such crops are the answer to malnutrition. Such crops are viewed as one tool that offers the potential to help with the problem. The same people all agree that such crops much be integrated into other programs (social, political and agronomic) to help sort this problem. See the YouTube vid comments made at our National Science Week event in Adelaide last year discussing this very topic. And a reminder we are running a similar event in Melbourne this year on 10 August.
GM versus MAS

According to Greenpeace, Dr Matthew Morell, admits that a conventional equivalent of the high Resistant Starch wheat has been developed using marker assisted selection (MAS) alongside the GM variety, but the preference is to commercialize the latter if possible.
Well when I spoke to Morell, he made a point of saying that the current GM wheat trials are purely research trials and if they prove fruitful they will use this knowledge to develop a commercial wheat variety with these characteristics. This may be via marker-assisted selection or via transgenic (GM). The preference for transgenics mentioned by Greenpeace is because wheat has a tricky genome made up of between two and six genomes (sets of chromosomes) that eventuated through natural hybridisation over hundreds of years. This characteristic makes it difficult (often impossible) to isolate and introduce new traits via marker-assisted selection. Hence the preference for transgenics.
The CSIRO GM wheat

There is actually also barley bred for similar traits that are part of the same trial application. Both the wheat and barley are bred to contain high levels of the resistant starch amylose, which is important for bowel health – read more on the CSIRO publication.
Essentially, they found two genes associated with starch synthesis in the wheat plant. Via a technique called gene silencing they down regulated the activity of these genes (made them less active) which led to the proportion of amylase starch in the grain rise to about 70%.
CSIRO explanatory on gene silencing – PI_info_genesilencing
To achieve the equivalent result in the barley they only had to silence one of these genes.
So far the research program into understanding starch synthesis and the genes involved in cereals has been going for nearly 20 years. The research in transferring this knowledge to generating a cereal with altered starch characteristics has been going for about 12 years – ie obviously the two research streams have been happening alongside each other for some of this time.
And as mentioned, assuming the current research proves fruitful and everything goes without a hitch with regulators, etc, then it won’t be until at least 2017 that a commercial variety is available.
So, is the criticism justified? I’ll let you be the judge of that.











Document Number: 1050 



 Youre eating viral DNA? 


 by  Karl Haro von Mogel  on 25 November 2009 


As a society, we are scared of viruses. They are too small to see, insert themselves into our own cells, and turn our bodies into factories for making more of them. On top of that, they make us feel ill and can be tough to beat. HIV, H1N1, Papaya Ringspot Virus ; it;s hard to find anything good to say about the little pseudo-living things. So it comes as no surprise that when people hear that scientists sometimes use DNA from viruses to genetically engineer crops, they get scared.


Viral DNA in food? How nefarious! Well, not really.


The most common piece of viral DNA in GE crops is the 35S promoter from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus. Promoters are like ;on switches; that tell the cell when and how strongly to express or ;turn on; a gene. The 35S CaMV promoter is a very well-described one that tells the cell to always leave the light on. Though part of those inserted genes came from a virus, it doesn;t make viruses of any kind.


Another way you might find viral DNA involved in genetic engineering is in developing virus resistance. A protein that coats the Papaya Ringspot Virus was engineered into Papayas to block where the virus attaches to the cell and prevent infection. Later on, as we started to understand more about some really cool aspects of genetics, it was discovered that the viral gene that was inserted also does a little gene silencing.


Susceptible papayas on the left, resistant on the right


Termed RNA Interference, or RNAi, you can stick a piece of viral DNA that the cell uses to recognize infecting viruses so it can destroy them ; kind of like a vaccination for plants. In the case of inserting a viral coat protein, a virus-infected papaya will also have this harmless protein everywhere in the fruit, and in the case of the latter, RNAi doesn;t even produce proteins and carries very few safety concerns.


Nevertheless, the prospect of eating viruses still sounds scary. Well guess what, you are yourself made partly from viruses, and are eating things made from viruses. The complete sequence of the B73 Maize Genome has  just been published  , and at final count*, it seems that corn itself is  mostly virus  , if you look at its DNA sequence. Upon reading this, Abbie Smith at ERV says that she has  fallen in love with corn all over again  . She noticed that corn has a lot of viruses in its genome:


The human genome is made up of about 45% of this stuff.  Corn genome?    84.2%  WHOAAA!  A full 75.6% is Class I retrotransposons! Thats so cool!**


Yes that;s right, the corn genome is made up of mostly viral DNA, and the same is probably true for most of the plants you eat. Heck, we ourselves are almost half virus on the DNA level!


This really puts into perspective focusing on the source of the DNA (virus, plant, animal;) when talking about genetic engineering. If you think that ;viral DNA; is unsafe in and of itself, then you might not want to eat anything at all, because it is everywhere and in everything.


For complete coverage of the Corn Genome and its discoveries, take a trip to  James and the Giant Corn  .


I always find discussions of ;plant genes; vs ;animal genes; and ;viral genes; interesting, because what about the genes that are shared by different organisms? Plants and animals are all eukaryotic cells with nuclei and mitochondria, which share a common ancestor as well as a whole slough of common genes. Can you call a gene shared by both plants and animals a gene that ;belongs; to either one? Both? Neither?


Forgive me, but I;m a bit of a nominalist on this topic when it comes down to the nitty gritty philosophical details: my position is that there is no such thing as a plant gene. Or an animal gene, viral gene, etc. There are, instead, genes found in plants, genes found in animals, and genes found in viruses. Genes shared by Eukaryotes are just that ; genes in common. Apart from the syntactical preferences of different organisms in how they like their DNA to read, there is nothing about a gene that makes it belong to one lineage or another.


Previous philosophers would think about these things in terms of ;essence,; and the term still has its uses. Like essential oils, the essence of something is what is left after you have ;boiled down; that something to its most ultimate and fundamental parts. There seems to be a pervasive notion that all genes carry the ;essence; of the organism they are found in. When people talk about ;  fish genes in my tomato  ; they are expressing a worry that their familiar tomato will have some of its essential characteristics mixed up with those of a fish and that it will cease to be a tomato anymore.


The fish-tomato example is rather ironic, as this meme began when scientists  were experimenting  with using the ;  antifreeze protein  ; from a species of fish to see if they could keep tomatoes from freezing (They were never commercialized). But as it turns out, a similar antifreeze protein in cod  evolved out of noncoding DNA  ; going from useless sequences (sometimes haphazardly referred to as ;junk DNA;) into a functional and essential gene. If you put this antifreeze gene in a tomato, is it even a fish gene? Or a junk gene? What if it once was a viral gene that got into fish, and eventually became what it was before a genetic engineer stuck it in a fruit, is it still a viral gene?


It;s  an antifreeze gene  ; that evolved in fish. And you would  essentially  still be eating a tomato.


What should be the final nail in the coffin of the genic essentialism going around in these discussions is the fact that the foods we eat are made up of so much DNA from other species. Corn is 84% virus  yet it still manages to be Corn  . I also  just found  references to these issues in a book called  Acceptable Genes: Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods  . Does a plant with a ;pig gene; carry the essence of a pig and present a problem for Jews and Muslims?


We;re entering an age where genetics are going to play a much bigger role in our lives, and in our food, so we need to wrap our collective heads around how our gathered knowledge compels us to change our perspectives. We may be 45% virus ourselves, but at least we could stop acting like them and propogate ideas that help us understand this stuff rather than add to the confusion!


*Nothing in science is truly final, but this is about as close as it gets.


**It is really cool, Abbie. Except when you are searching for a gene and you keep running into broken bits of retrotransposons all over the place! Can;t your people clean up after themselves?













Document Number: 7085 
Exploring the Myths of Organic vs. Conventional

Scientific Americans Science Sushi blog looks at common myths around organic and mainstream agriculture.  Blogger Christie Wilcox says upfront that there are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods.  But organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods, and people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for what they believe are the best foods available. So Wilcox looks at organics four most common myths and includes scientific cites for her claims:

Myth #1: Organic Farms Dont Use Pesticides
Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides. There are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the U.S. Organic Standards.  Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use.  Organic pesticides are not all safe.  In fact, some  might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry.

Myth #2: Organic Foods are Healthier
Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones  and scientists have been comparing the two for over 50 years.

Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better for the Environment
People seem to believe theyre doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that theyre not.  Take, for example, organic farmings adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy.

For example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. Its one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plants genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways.

But the real reason organic farming isnt more green than conventional is that while it might be better for local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than conventional ones.

Myth #4: Its all or none
In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isnt the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally.










Document Number: 9476
How to grow the economy and feed the world

By Barbara Wells, President and CEO, ArborGen
Chair, BIO Food and Agriculture Section Governing Board

For the past two decades, the United States has led the world in crop biotechnology innovation. Under this leadership, American growers have produced most of the worlds food, fiber and energy, while the U.S. agricultural sector experienced sustained economic growth and a positive trade balance.

But an increasingly complicated regulatory system and threats of litigation from opponents of technology have inhibited the continued growth of crop and forest biotechnology and impeded the development and commercialization of safe, beneficial products. Greater certainty is needed to encourage business growth, drive scientific innovation and reassure international trading partners.

To address that situation, BIO has developed and announced a summary of legislative proposals to reform the investment and regulatory environment for biotech innovation. The plan, crafted after consultation with industry experts, academics and BIOs board, is designed to minimize the regulatory and legal burdens that hinder our ability to provide food, feed and fiber, as well as to heal the world.

For the food and agriculture sector, the plan calls for streamlining the regulatory process within the USDA, FDA and EPA while enhancing the coordinated framework and avoiding duplication. Our regulatory system needs to recognize our exceptional safety record, reassert risk assessment by product  not production, and improve the timeframe for approvals based on science-based system. In addition, increased funding is needed for research, as well as regulatory oversight.

If we can enact policies that create a more hospitable business climate for biotechnology companies, we can also bolster the competitiveness of American growers, revitalize rural communities, spur job growth and invigorate the economy. Most importantly, we can better provide the feed, fuel and fiber for a growing planet and send a signal to the world that America is prepared to lead again.











Document Number: 5313
Biotech addresses food security, climate change: Potential economic growth engine

By Jose W. Fernandez, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs

By 2050, the global population will surpass 9 billion and require nearly a doubling of agricultural output to provide an adequate food supply. At the same time, the worlds agricultural system will be increasingly challenged by water scarcity and climate change, raising the risk of production shortfalls in a world where over 800 million people are already undernourished. A challenge like this can be met through biotechnology, innovation, and appropriate agricultural development and trade policies.  At the State Department, we are working to encourage countries to think proactively about the role technology can play in addressing food security and climate change and about its strong potential as an engine of economic growth. Unfortunately, the lack of science-based regulations in many countries discourages innovation and adaptation and creates barriers to trade.


Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez at the Gordon Institute of Business Science

Biotechnology has created an array of tools to improve agricultural productivity, efficiency and nutrition over the last decade, from tissue culture to marker-assisted selection to genetic engineering, and concurrently reduced agricultures environmental footprint. It offers great potential to help developing countries reduce crop losses due to pests and disease, increase the nutrient content of crops and mitigate the effects of climate change. This is particularly relevant in Sub-Saharan Africa, where agriculture models have indicated that by 2050, average rice, wheat, and maize yields will decline by up to 14 percent, 22 percent, and 5 percent, respectively, as a result of climate change. Through Feed the Future, the U.S. global hunger and food security initiative, the United States is well placed to surpass the advances of the Green Revolution, and improve agricultural yields in an environmentally sustainable way.

On a recent trip to southern Africa, I was struck not only by what the technology has already done in countries like South Africa, but how much more it can do in countries like Zambia. In South Africa I spoke to the agri-business chamber about Americas role in encouraging science-based regulations in the region, and in Zambia I met with private sector companies as well as a number of countries in the COMESA region, where we outlined several areas where we can work together. I was particularly excited by COMESAs work on developing region-wide guidelines for risk assessments for biotech products. By pooling resources, countries in eastern and southern Africa will be able to accomplish what no single country can do alone. By establishing a regional biotechnology framework that is transparent, predictable, and science-based, they will demonstrate their openness for investment while protecting people and the environment.

In 2011, the Department of State will devote some $500,000 to actively engage more than two dozen countries on the potential of biotechnology and the need for risk-based regulations. In partnership with the Department, experts from government, academia, and the private sector are engaging countries on the need for science-based regulations and developing alliances with those interested in the technology. If we each achieve our goal of reducing barriers to biotechnology and increasing innovation, both the United States and the rest of the world will prosper.










Document Number: 8611
Biotech for Now, and for the Future

Written by Scott Swenson  Scott Swenson is a wheat grower from Elbow Lake, Minnesota, and Chairman, National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates Joint Biotechnology Committee.  He was a panelist on our Food & Ag Media Breakfast at the 2011 BIO International Convention panel titled, WINNING THE FUTURE:  Does U.S. Ag Policy Support or Discourage Innovation? on June 29.

Did you know that biotechnology in plants saves fuel and machinery usage by eliminating passes in a field?  It also reduces the possibility of water and soil contamination by making environmentally safe chemicals more effective. Some of the biotech crops currently being developed will require less nitrogen fertilizer and less water, and will make plants resistant to cold and drought. This means less resources required for crops and far more environmental benefits.

I truly believe that if the general public understood these benefits and the scientifically-proven safety of biotechnology, producers and consumers of more crops would be able to reap these advantages.

I grow wheat, corn and soybeans in west-central Minnesota. Over the years, Ive seen a tremendous shift from wheat to corn in my area because of the benefits biotech provides for farmers. As farmers, we are businesspeople who make decisions about what to grow based on short-term profitability and how the crop will affect the land for years to come.

Thirty years ago, I grew mostly wheat, but now it is only less than 1/6 of my acreage. I really want to keep wheat in my rotation and viable on my farm. Unfortunately, wheat has not yet had the opportunity to benefit from biotech traits that could make it more hardy and more productive.

I think it is important for everyone to understand the benefits provided by biotechnology in plants. It is easy to scare the public with words like Frankenfood, but the true scientific story seems to be left behind in favor of attention-grabbing media sound bites.

The process of changing plants to incorporate more favorable traits is centuries old, and one modern way of doing this, through biotechnology, is carefully scrutinized by the scientific community as well as government agencies whose jobs are to protect citizens and the environment. Once a biotech plant has been approved, it allows farmers to produce a safe and secure food supply while using far less chemicals, fuel and, someday soon, water.

President Obama recently called on the American citizens to win the future through science and technology. Biotech crops are obvious winners, reducing energy and water consumption, reducing environmental impacts and helping us farmers provide a safe and plentiful food supply.

So Im excited about telling wheats story and in the process, introducing the public to greenfood  made possible through both science and technology!











Document Number: 9760
Understanding Biotechnology and Food Safety

Since the first biotech crop was commercialized in 1996, some food activists have raised uncertainty about whether or not biotech crops are as safe as conventional crops. 

As the use of agricultural biotechnology increases globally (currently biotech crops are preferred by more than 15 million growers in 29 countries), people need to be better informed about food production, so they can form opinions based on facts, not fear. 

Producing Safe Food for Nearly Two Decades

The safety of biotech-derived food products has been thoroughly addressed by the international scientific community.

The worlds top scientific authorities  such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, the American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association and the regulatory authorities for each of the products have concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients pose no more risk to people than any other food. 

In fact, a National Academies of Science study concludes: 

Genetic engineering is one of the newer technologies available to produce desirable traits in plants and animals used for food, but it poses no unique health risks that cannot also arise from conventional breeding and other genetic alteration methods.

Biotech crops have been cultivated for more than 15 years, and foods derived from agricultural biotechnology have been eaten by billions of people without any significant health problems.

Government Regulation Under the Coordinated Framework

Biotechnology products in the United States are regulated more strictly than any other agricultural or food product in history. 

Under the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, biotech products are not approved until they have been proven to be safe for human consumption and safe for the environment by:

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Future Challenges

Why do we need biotechnology?  Well, the United Nations is predicting that the global population will grow by one-third to 9.1 billion by 2050. This will require a 70 percent increase in agricultural production.

Biotechnology has proven to be an essential tool in meeting this challenge of increasing our safe and affordable food supply. Biotechnology helps farmers to grow crops that resist diseases and pests and that requires less fertilizers.  With biotech seeds, farmers can grow crops without tilling the soil, decreasing on-farm fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and conserving soil quality.  Future technologies will enable farmers to grow crops that are drought-tolerant, or freeze-tolerant, and crops that have an increased nutritional value  this is especially important in developing countries where malnutrition and food poverty has reached tragic levels.

Supporting Policies that Encourage Innovation

The House Agriculture Subcommittee hosted a public hearing on June 23 to review and discuss the opportunities and benefits of agricultural biotechnology for farmers, the environment, food and energy security, and competition in the global marketplace. 

Subcommittee Chair Tim Johnson (R-IL) said,

innovation in agricultural science and technology is the key the meeting future challenges. 

Ranking Member Jim Costa (D-CA) said,

agriculture biotechnology is and will continue to be vitally important as American farmers work to feed a growing population around the globe.

 

Dr. Roger Beachy of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, former director of USDAs National Institute of Food and Agriculture and one of the expert witnesses at the hearing, agreed that questions around biotechnology and safety need to be put to rest once and for all.  Dr. Beachy said the regulatory process governing the use of agricultural biotechnology needs to adapt to the experiences of the past 24 years.  He urged for a system that distinguishes between real and perceived risks in establishing safety recommendations, especially since each of the technologies and products that have come to market has an outstanding record of safety for the farmer and consumer as well as the environment.

In a statement following the hearing, BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood said,

Only when we embrace technology can we move forward to address future challenges, revitalize our economy and teach the developing world to be self sustaining.  If the United States provides the necessary leadership today, the world will benefit tomorrow.











Document Number: 9458
Approps Amendment Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A number of media outlets including the New York Times reported on the June 15 vote on the House floor to deny funding for authorization of the genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon.

In response, BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood admonished the action for setting a dangerous and inappropriate precedent.

This amendment does a grave disservice to our Governments science-based regulatory system. President Obama has called for America to lead on new technologies so as to foster new industries, more jobs and enhanced economic benefit. This amendment would present new barriers to achieving that goal.

Allowing politicians to substitute their judgment for that of scientific experts within the Food and Drug Administration circumvents a comprehensive and well-established approval process, and sets a dangerous precedent for the development of any policies related to food production and human health.

When it comes to the food we eat and serve our families, accredited scientific experts  not politicians  need to make all determinations about safety and health.

Dr. Ronald Stotish, President and CEO of AquaBounty Technologies said that the House action is wrong on facts, policy and process.

This outrageous action is wrong on the facts, wrong on the process and wrong on the policy. A handful of representatives has chosen to subvert the FDAs rigorous 15-year plus process. It completely ignores the results of a rigorous scientific review. This sort of political gamesmanship undermines the science-based system that protects the nations health and safety. It is astonishing that Young and a few colleagues would try to game the system in this way.

Whether or not you support this transgenic salmon, we should all agree these types of shenanigans have no place in a complex scientific debate. These actions threaten the fundamental basis of a science-based regulatory process. Americans deserve better from their elected representatives.

Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com posts on his blog, Damn Science and Consumer Interests!

The ridiculously hypercautious Food and Drug Administration has slowly inched towards approving the sale of farm-raised biotech salmon developed by AquaBounty. The biotech salmon have a gene from other fish species installed that enables them to grow faster using about 10 percent less feed than regular farm-raised salmon. Already aquaculture provides 50 percent of the fish that people eat around the world. Enhancing farmed fish production could relieve pressure on the worlds already way overfished wild fisheries.












Document Number: 7896
Bill Gates: Innovation is Key to Helping Poor Farmers

Ive never been a farmer, Bill Gates confessed at The Chicago Councils Symposium on Global Agriculture and Food Security. Until recently, I rarely set foot on a farm.

Yet, through the Gates Foundation, he is one of the worlds most powerful advocates for poor farmers and he is helping them gain access to technology that will help them grow their way to self-sufficiency.

Right now, the average farmer in sub-Saharan Africa produces just over a ton of cereal per acre, Gates explained at the event. An American farmer? Seven times that. The difference? The American farmer has tools and techniques that an African farmer does not  including access to genetically modified seeds.

The Gates Foundation funds the International Rice Research Institutes Stress Tolerant Rice for Africa and South Asia (STRASA) project. Through this project, farmers are gaining access to advances in agricultural biotechnology and are helping to develop high-yield rice varieties with tolerance for droughts, floods, and saltwater.

One farmer told me he planted this new variety [Swarna Sub 1] next to the old one he used to plant, Gates explained. When the rains flooded his fields for 10 days, the old variety was totally destroyed, while the new rice yielded more than 3 tons a hectare. Thats twice the yield that farmers get from the old rice variety without floods.

A record 15.4 million farmers in 29 countries are using biotech crops  and the trend continues to grow. Ninety percent of these (over 14 million) are resource-poor farmers in developing countries and farmers have earned higher incomes in every country where biotech crops are grown. Read BIOs FAQs about biotech crops.

Helping poor farmers access the latest technology, grow more crops, and get their surplus to market is, quite possibly, the most effective way to reduce global poverty and hunger.










Document Number: 7771
Sustainability: Royal Skepticism Required
Blog entry written by Bill Horan  Rockwell City, IA

Prince Charles likes to talk about sustainability so much that he used a version of the word 32 times in his recent speech about farming at Georgetown University.

I didnt attend the event because I was too busy planting crops here in Iowa. Commoners have to work for a living, after all. But I did find the time to read the text of his remarks. As I made my way through his address, the Prince of Wales turned me into the prince of wailsI wanted to howl in anguish over this mans bizarre views of agriculture.

The prince loves organic food, which is fine. But hes wrong to think it can save the world because its so inefficient.  A recent study by Steve Savage points out that if all farming in the United States went organic, we would need to add an amount of new cropland almost equal to the size of Spain to make up for the lower yields.

This is the very definition of unsustainable.

Who is this guy to lecture anybody on sustainability? Prince Charles flew to the United States on a private jet and traveled around Washington, D.C. with an armada-sized motorcade. As a reporter for the Washington Post noted puckishly, the engine of his SUV was left running while he was inside Georgetowns Healy Hall.

Prince Charles was of course fresh from the lavish wedding of his son Prince William to Catherine Middleton. Perhaps you were one of the billions of people who are said to have watched the ceremony on television. What you may not have seen was the estimated price tag: $33 million. The Daily Mail, a London newspaper, called it the most expensive security event staged in Britain.

Say what you will about royal nuptials. They may be beautiful fairy-tale moments that dazzle imaginations or they may be the retrograde functions of an elite class that doesnt deserve its privileges.

Whatever your opinion, lets agree on a simple observation: Royal weddings are definitely not exercises in sustainability.

So when His Royal Highness decides to condemn my own way of farming as not sufficiently sustainable, I bring a little skepticism to the table.

Our fundamental dispute involves a conflict of visions. We have different ideas about what sustainable farming means.

On one of his many estates in England, the prince oversees an organic farm that puts out oaten biscuits, herbal tinctures, and other products. Here on my family farm in Iowa, I grow staple crops by using the tools of modern food production. One of them is biotechnology because genetically modified plants offer so many benefits, such as increased yields, protection against soil erosion, and a reduction in greenhouse gases.

Yet the prince insists that biotechnology is not a genuinely sustainable form of agriculture.

Im happy to let Prince Charles pursue his hobby farm in Merrie Olde England. I just wish hed extend the same courtesy to me and other farmers in the developed and the developing world as we try to meet the enormous demands of a hungry planet.

Farmers everywhere should enjoy the fundamental freedom to farm. That means allowing us to make our own choices about what to grow and how to grow it.

Some, like Prince Charles, may choose organic options, especially if they want to meet a market demand among upper-income consumers for more expensive food. Most of us, however, prefer to produce large amounts of affordable crops for everyday grocery-store shoppers.

In a dynamic economy, theres a role for all of us.

Unfortunately, the prince disagrees. Its galling to hear him praise an economic model built upon resilience and diversity and policies which encourage more diversityand then, in the next breath, claim that my method of farming is all wrong.

Apparently diversity is wonderful as long as everybody does things the princes way.

In his speech, Prince Charles called for an approach to agriculture that is capable of feeding the world with a global population rapidly heading for nine billion. Hes right about that, though he should keep up with his news clips because shortly before he spoke demographers at the United Nations said that the worlds population will swell beyond 10 billion.

The point to remember, of course, is that this is a significant number. As the 21st century progresses, more people will demand more food. Satisfying them will require cutting-edge technologiesand that means letting farmers embrace a future of scientific innovation, rather than scorning them for refusing to hang on to old ways.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade and Technology.









Document Number: 4216

The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops In Developing Countries 
"This is the first major empirical study that sheds light on the policy dynamics 
influencing the adoption of biotechnology in developing countries. The analytical 
framework and the wealth of new information make it both original and substantive. In 
addition, the study is an honest and candid account of trends in developing countries. 
This is an important book that will inspire the practitioner, challenge the academic, 
satisfy the curious, and appease the bewildered." 
-- Calestous Juma, Harvard University 
Genetically modified (GM) food crops have inspired increasing controversy over the past 
decade. By the mid-1990s they were widely grown in the U.S., Canada, and Argentina, 
but precautionary regulations continue to limit their use elsewhere. The restrictive 
policies of Europe and Japan toward GM crops have been much discussed. Less attention 
has been paid to the policies affecting the adoption of GM crops in the developing world, 
where their potential impact on the availability and quality of food is even greater. 
In this book Robert Paarlberg looks at the policy choices regarding GM food made by 
four important developing countries: Kenya, Brazil, India, and China. Of these, so far 
only China has approved the planting of GM crops. Paarlberg identifies five policy areas 
in which governments of developing countries can either support or discourage GM 
crops: intellectual property rights, biosafety, trade, food safety, and public research and 
investment. He notes that highly cautious biosafety policies have so far been the key 
reason that Kenya, Brazil, and India have hesitated to plant GM crops. 
These cautious policies have been strongly reinforced by international market forces and 
international diplomatic and NGO pressures. China has been less cautious toward GM 
crops, in part because there is less opportunity in China for international organizations or 
independent critics of GM crops to challenge official policy











Document Number: 3841
Technology to Feed the World

The world's population is expected to grow from today's 6 billion to about 8 billion by 2030. Feeding all of these people and eliminating hunger will require advances in food production and distribution that enhance food supplies without damaging the environment. Agricultural biotechnology is one tool that holds great promise for alleviating hunger and poverty. However recent concerns about genetically modified crops may curtail their widespread use. Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture, a new white paper issued by a working group of seven national science academies, including five from the developing world, examines the potential for genetically modified crops to assist developing countries, and the issues that need to be addressed. [News release]

Biotechnology at Work
Farmers have been battling pests for centuries, using everything from conventional plant-breeding techniques to chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides. But because of environmental and health concerns, the development of new chemical treatments has declined in recent years. Now scientists are using the tools of advanced molecular biology to endow plants with genes that help them resist pests. Although breeding practices have been used for years to develop crops with desirable traits, scientists can now pinpoint genes from similar species -- or even from completely unrelated organisms -- and transfer those protective genes into crops.


What are genetically modified foods? How prevalent are they? How are they regulated? The U.S. Department of Agriculture answers frequently asked questions. The University of Wisconsin provides a glossary of terms.

Like most significant scientific innovations, bioengineered seeds did not emerge solely from the efforts of scientists to improve pest or weed control. Beyond Discovery: Designer Seeds explores the history of genetically modified crops.

Take a photo tour of the genetic-engineering process at the Center for Engineering Plants for Resistance Against Pathogens, one of 25 National Science Foundation-supported Science and Technology Centers throughout the United States.

A Global Concern
Today there are some 800 million people (18 percent of the population in the developing world) who do not have sufficient food to meet their needs. Malnutrition plays a significant role in half the nearly 12 million deaths each year of Third World children under five. Growing enough staple crops -- such as corn, rice, wheat, yams, and potatoes -- without further expanding the amount of land that must be cultivated will require substantial increases in yields per acre. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor, a report of an international conference on biotechnology convened by the World Bank's Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, explores the potential impact of biotechnology in developing countries.

Boosting food production has always been the highest agricultural priority in China because of the country's massive population. It is estimated that by 2030, food production will need to increase by at least 60 percent to keep pace with population growth.



The debate on biotechnology use in Africa must be considered in the context of that continent's need for more food and the survival of its people. Africa has the highest population growth rate in the world, making it difficult to maintain adequate food supplies. Yet agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa has stagnated in the past two decades for many reasons, including a shortage of arable land, inadequate rainfall, and an abundance of pests and diseases. In Kenya, biotechnology experiments are leading to increased production of bananas, potatoes, sugarcane, and commercially grown flowers.

Agriculture is one of the most important sectors of Costa Rica's economy. But agricultural expansion has resulted in poor natural resource management. For example, the use of pesticides has contaminated land and water, threatened wildlife, and poisoned high numbers of field workers. A major challenge for sustainable development will be finding innovative ways to link conservation and biotechnology to increase agricultural production on less land, with lower pesticide use.


Plants and Population: Is There Time? the Proceedings of a National Academy of Sciences colloquium, explores how the world can feed its expanding population in a sustainable way while maintaining enough undeveloped land to support and preserve essential ecosystems and biodiversity.

Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century, a conference of the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues, included a session that examined how food production and distribution would need to meet growing demands in the next 50 years.

Leading experts discuss how genetically modified crops could affect nutrition in developing countries on the April 14 edition of Science Friday, a broadcast of National Public Radio.

Protecting Health and the Environment
To date more than 98 million acres (39 hectares) of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified, but concerns have been raised about the potential for transgenic food products to cause allergic reactions or produce toxic compounds. In addition, concrete information on the effects of transgenic plants on the environment and on biological diversity is still sparse.

Every country should have systems in place to identify and monitor potential adverse effects from pest-protected crops, whether modified through modern biotechnology or through conventional breeding practices. A committee of the National Research Council recently reviewed the U.S. regulatory process and concluded that regulatory agencies should do a better job of coordinating their work and expanding public access to the process as the volume and mix of these types of plants on the market increase. The committee said it was not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.

Cultivating Public Confidence in Genetically Modified Crops op-ed article

The National Research Council of the National Academies has established a standing committee of experts to examine the ongoing scientific issues surrounding biotechnology used for agriculture and food production. As part of that effort, the committee is holding a July 13-14 workshop on the ecological monitoring of genetically modified crops. In addition, a study on the environmental impacts associated with the commercialization of transgenic crops is being conducted.

Using a science-based method to assess and control potential environmental risks and benefits of genetically modified crops is discussed in a paper from Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor.

Biotechnology for All?
Most genetically modified technology has been developed primarily for large-scale agriculture in the industrialized world - to make a small number of major crops more resistant to certain insects or viruses. Today, private companies can obtain plant varieties free from farmers and from noncommercial organizations, add a new gene, and then sell those seeds back to farmers with legal protections against copying or reuse. The science academies' white paper notes that the issue of intellectual property rights deserves special consideration when it comes to the needs of Third World farmers. For example, poor farmers in developing countries must be allowed to save seed for future use if they wish to do so.











Document Number: 1127

Since the first biotech crop was commercialized in 1996, many wonder why farmers are so enthusiastically adopting biotechnology (it’s more sustainable, more environmentally friendly and less costly), whether or not biotech crops are as safe as conventional crops (they are), and why foods derived from biotech crops don’t require special labels.

1. Is biotechnology less safe than other plant breeding techniques?
No. Biotechnology is safe. It is a refinement of breeding techniques that have been used to improve plants for thousands of years. Biotechnology is simply a more precise science, so scientists are able to isolate a specific gene to make exact changes to a crop (for example, to make a corn plant resistant to the corn borer insect.)

Scientists around the world agree that the risks associated with crop plants developed using biotechnology are the same as those for similar varieties developed using traditional breeding methods.

2. Are foods derived from biotechnology as safe to eat as foods produced using conventional crops?
Yes. Federal regulatory agencies ensure the safety of biotechnology foods, and biotech plants and foods are among the most tested in history.

The ultimate scientific authorities recognized in this country, such as the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, the American Dietetic Association2, the American Medical Association, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization5 have concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients pose no more risk to people than any other foods.

Biotech crops have been cultivated for more than 15 years, and foods derived from agricultural biotechnology have been eaten by billions of people without a single documented health problem. This is a remarkable food safety record, but not surprising, given the pre-market scrutiny and testing of biotech crops and foods.

3. Are crops developed using biotechnology safe for the environment?
Yes. Extensive scientific evaluation worldwide has not found any examples of ecological damage from biotechnology crops. In fact, the National Research Council6 has documented that, in addition to their safety, biotech crops contribute positively to farm sustainability in the United States, due to their environmental benefits and economic benefits to farmers.
Current crops designed to resist pests and tolerate herbicides have already cut chemical usage on farms significantly. Herbicide-tolerance promotes practices like no-tillage farming that reduce soil erosion, prevent water loss, and even limit release of greenhouse gases.

To ensure that a new plant is safe for the environment, extensive field-testing is conducted under USDA and EPA oversight.

4. Are the products of agricultural biotechnology regulated?
Yes. Biotechnology products in the United States are regulated according to the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.

Under the Coordinated Framework, agricultural biotechnology products are regulated by three agencies:

U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the interstate movement and field-testing of biotechnology-derived plants “regulated articles” to ensure that the environment is protected. A petition for “nonregulated status” must be granted by the USDA prior to commercial growth and sale of any bioengineered crop.
The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for ensuring that pest-resistant biotech varieties are safe to grow and consume. It regulates environmental exposure to these crops to ensure there are no adverse effects to the environment or any beneficial, non-targeted insects and other organisms.
The Food and Drug Administration imposes on foods developed through biotechnology the same regulatory requirements FDA uses to safeguard all foods in the marketplace. The FDA has both premarket and postmarket authority to regulate the safety and labeling of all foods and animal feed.
5. Do foods produced using biotechnology require special labeling?
No. The FDA's evaluation of a biotechnology food focuses on its characteristics, not the method used to develop it. A new biotechnology food that is “substantially equivalent” (meaning it has the same chemical composition and nutritional value to conventional varieties) does not require a special label.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration.s regulations state that requiring the labeling of foods that are indistinguishable from foods produced through traditional methods would mislead consumers by falsely implying differences where none exist.
According to the 2010 Consumer Survey by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), consumer satisfaction with current information on food labels remains high. Only 18 percent of consumers supported additional info on food labels, with only three percent supporting the labeling of biotech foods.

6. Do most foods contain biotech ingredients?
More and more farmers in the United States and around the world are turning to biotechnology so they can grow plants that yield more per acre and are resistant to diseases and insect pests while reducing production costs and contributing to more environmentally friendly farming practices.

In the United States, the majority of all the corn (86 percent), soybeans (93 percent) and cotton (93 percent) are grown using biotechnology.
In 2010, biotech crop area globally grew ten percent to reach 366 million acres.
In the United States, more than 165 million acres of biotech crops were planted in 2010, up from 158 million acres in 200910. The primary biotech crops grown in the United States are corn, cotton, and soybeans, but also canola, squash, papaya, alfalfa, and sugarbeet.
A record 15.4 million farmers in 29 countries are using agricultural biotechnology. Ninety percent (14.4 million) of these are resource-poor farmers in developing countries11.
7. Do biotech foods cause allergies?
To date, no allergic reactions have been attributed to any food product of biotechnology. Every crop produced through biotechnology is screened in advance for its potential to cause allergic reactions, and none have demonstrated any potential to be allergenic.
In fact, advanced techniques are being used to remove allergens from certain foods. Hypoallergenic rice and soybeans have already been developed, and researchers are at work on wheat. The removal of allergens from foods will open up a broader range of products for those with food allergies to enjoy.

8. Do farmers use more pesticides when they grow biotech crops?
No. In fact, biotech crops have helped reduce pesticide spraying (1996-2008) by 352 million kg (a decrease of 8.4 percent), and as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted of biotech crops by 16.3 percent12.

In addition, herbicide tolerant biotech crops have led to the adoption of no/reduced tillage production systems. This has reduced soil erosion and improved soil moisture levels.

9. Do biotech crops “contaminate” other crops?
No. The fact is, nature has used pollen to carry genes between plants for hundreds of millions of years. In recent years, some growers (usually of organic crops) have sought to distinguish their produce from conventional agricultural harvests by claiming there are no biotech derived materials present, even though the USDA organic standard allows for substantial material of biotech or conventional origin to be present in organic harvests as long as the organic grower did not knowingly plant biotech derived seed:
“As long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods will not affect the status of the organic operation.”

Not one organically certified farm has lost its USDA certification due to the presence of unintended plant DNA (from either conventional or biotech varieties) since the beginning of the Federal National Organic Program.

10. Can agriculture biotechnology help feed a growing global population?
Yes. Agricultural biotechnology can be a key element in the fight against hunger and malnutrition in the developing world.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, feeding a world population of 9.1 billion in 2050 will require raising overall food production by 70 percent (nearly 100 percent in developing countries).

To meet this challenge, farmers will need to find ways to grow more food more sustainably.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, along with the Royal Society of London, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy of Sciences issued a report discussing the role of biotechnology in meeting global food needs. It concluded:

“GM technology, coupled with important developments in other areas, should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers.”


Biotechnology has already helped increase food and feed production. For example, biotechnology traits have added 74 million tonnes and 79.7 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn since its introduction in 1996.

In the United States alone, corn yield has increased 36 percent, soybean yield has increased 12 percent, and cotton yield has increased about 31 percent since 1995, in part due to biotechnology.

High-level government officials and ag policy experts agree on agricultural biotechnology’s contribution to increasing agricultural productivity:

- “We need to do a better job of working with scientists and farmers and political leaders to make sure there is a consistent message that comes from this country about the importance of biotechnology as a strategy for meeting world demand.” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, February 24, 2011 
“We believe that biotechnology has a critical role to play in increasing agricultural productivity, particularly in light of climate change. We also believe it can help to improve the nutritional value of staple foods.” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, October 16, 2009
“I became a scientist because one of my goals was to develop disease-resistant crops that require fewer chemical inputs than non-resistant crops – disease-resistance that didn.t need a chemical treatment. When that solution came through biotechnology, I considered it a sustainable outcome. Others define „sustainability. as not involving biotechnology. We disagree.” Dr. Roger Beachy, NIFA Director and USDA Chief Scientist, February 18, 2010
“New technologies - like biotechnology, conservation tillage, drip irrigation, integrated pest management, and new multiple-cropping practices - have improved the efficiency and productivity of agricultural resources over the last decade. Around the world some 14 million small and resource poor farmers in the developing world have already benefited from biotechnology crops.”Jose Fernandez, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State, January 21, 2011
“Biotech is going to be absolutely critical…what we haven.t done is shown people how different modern biotechnology can make farming.” Nina Fedoroff, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State and to the Administrator of USAID, February 12, 2010











Document Number: 7831
Science and Safety of
Biotech Plant Products
Agricultural biotechnology is a science that allows plant breeders to make precise genetic changes to place beneficial traits – such as pest resistance, disease resistance or herbicide tolerance – into plants.
Since the introduction of biotechnology-derived commercial crop in 1996, farmers have used this science to grow plants that yield more per acre with reduced production costs while being resistant to disease and pests and also beneficial to the environment.
In the near future, we’ll see crops that will be resistant to environmental stresses like drought, and crops that use soil nutrients more efficiently, boosting productivity in areas of the world with inadequate rainfall or poor soil. Scientists are also looking to use biotechnology to fortify some food plants with higher nutritional content and to produce pharmaceuticals in plants affordably and efficiently.
Contributing to Sustainable Agriculture
Farmers are enthusiastically embracing this technology, especially corn, cotton and soybean varieties, according to USDA. This growing trend is expected to continue, especially at a time when the United States and the world are looking for science-based solutions to rising food and fuel prices.
Agricultural biotechnology can help farmers feed the world's growing population, while minimizing impacts on the global environment. In 2007, 12 million farmers in 23 countries – 12 developing and 11 industrialized – planted biotech crops, primarily soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Eleven million of these farmers worked small, resource-poor farms in developing countries.
Biotech crops – most of which are currently disease-resistant, pest-resistant or herbicide tolerant – have helped farmers around the world to increase production, boost farmers' incomes and enable them to farm more sustainably, but the technology promises to provide solutions to other challenges as well.
Benefitting the Environment
Biotechnology is reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint by reducing fossil fuel use, soil tillage and run-off from farmer’s fields. Studies show that since commercial plantings of biotech crops began in 1996, farmers have saved 551 million gallons of fuel because of reduced field operations. In 2006, 252 million acres of biotech crops reduced carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 15 million metric tons, equivalent to removing nearly 6.56 million cars from the road for an entire year.
Farmers using biotech crops may also use pesticides less frequently because of the pest- resistance traits within the plants themselves. Within the United States alone, biotech crop varieties eliminated the use of 70 million pounds of pesticide applications in 2005.
Future crops designed to tolerate environmental stresses, such as salty or toxic soils, drought, and freezing temperatures, will make agriculture more efficient and sustainable by producing more food, fuel and fiber on less land. Biotech plants being tested also use nitrogen more efficiently, leading to the potential decrease in fertilizer usage. Biotechnology can also be used to produce renewable plant-based energy and industrial products and biological agents to clean up contaminated soils.
A Record of Safety
Biotech crops are among the most heavily regulated agricultural products. The combined expertise of three federal agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is brought to bear on these products. Products derived from this technology are not approved for planting or to enter the food supply until all three agencies have determined that they are as safe as conventional crops.
To ensure that a new plant is safe for the environment, extensive field-testing is conducted under USDA and EPA oversight. To date, there have been no instances of a biotechnology- derived plant approved for field-testing either creating an environmental hazard or exhibiting any unpredictable behavior compared with similar crops modified using traditional methods.
Biotech seed manufacturers want their products to be developed under science-based regulatory scrutiny to ensure safety for humans and the environment. The reality of modern agriculture dictates that this scrutiny makes not for just good science, but also good business.
Adoption by Farmers
Biotech crops have been adopted by farmers worldwide at higher rates than any other agricultural practice in the history of agriculture. Since the first significant commercial plantings in 1996, acreage devoted to biotech crops has increased 60-fold.
In the United States:
Eighty percent of all the corn planted are biotech varieties. Ninety-two percent of all the soybeans planted are biotech varieties. Eight-six percent of all the cotton planted are biotech varieties.
Fifty percent of all the papaya planted are biotech varieties.
The benefits of biotech crops are demonstrated not only by increases in productivity but also by the rapid adoption of these crops by growers. Farmers recognize that their productivity goes up and costs go down when they grow these crops, providing for more sustainable production for the world’s consumers.










Document Number: 5188
Healing, Fueling, Feeding: How Biotechnology Is Enriching Your Life.
Biotechnology is all around us and is already a big part of our lives, providing breakthrough products and technologies to combat disease, reduce our environmental footprint, feed the hungry, and make useful products.

What is Biotechnology?
New BIO Report Highlights Value of Biotechnology to Individuals and Society
Unleashing the Promise of Biotechnology
Guide to Biotechnology 2008
Biotechnology is all around us and is already a big part of our lives, providing breakthrough products and technologies to combat disease, reduce our environmental footprint, feed the hungry, and make useful products. Even though we may not recognize it, we see it every day in our homes and workplaces, and everywhere in between. At its simplest, biotechnology harnesses cellular and biomolecular processes and puts them to work for us.

The science of biotechnology isn’t easy. Nature does not readily yield her secrets. Still, every day in nearly every country on Earth our brilliant scientists decode a bit more of the language of life. The science continues to astonish and amaze. Today, there are more than 250 biotechnology health care products and vaccines available to patients, many for previously untreatable diseases. More than 13.3 million farmers around the world use agricultural biotechnology to increase yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming’s impact on the environment. And more than 50 biorefineries are being built across North America to test and refine technologies to produce biofuels and chemicals from renewable biomass, which can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Most of us don’t realize that humans have used biotechnology for literally thousands of years; fermenting beer, aging cheese, and baking bread are just a few examples. These rudimentary forms of biotechnology often relied on fermentation, capitalizing on yeasts and other microorganisms to enhance our food supply and make other lifestyle improvements.

Today, biotechnology continues to help improve the way we live, and it helps us do so more responsibly. In the last 40 years, we have seen many important breakthroughs that enable us to:

harness bacteria and yeasts as nature’s microscopic workhorses;
leverage genetic markers; and
deploy a more sophisticated, systematic use of enzyme-based production processes.
The result is a diverse and nearly endless set of practical biotechnology products helping us live longer and healthier lives, have a more abundant and sustainable food supply, use safer and more efficient industrial manufacturing, and reduce our greenhouse gas footprint.










Document Number: 1420
At its simplest, biotechnology is technology based on biology.


What is Biotechnology?
Healing, Fueling, Feeding: How Biotechnology Is Enriching Your Life.
New Heights: Report Shows Continued Growth of Biotech Crops
Unleashing the Promise of Biotechnology
At its simplest, biotechnology is technology based on biology. From that perspective, the use of biological processes is hardly noteworthy. We began growing crops and raising animals 10,000 years ago to provide a stable supply of food and clothing. We have used the biological processes of microorganisms for 6,000 years to make useful food products, such as bread and cheese, and to preserve dairy products.

Crops? Cheese? That doesn’t sound very exciting. So why does biotechnology receive so much attention?

The answer is that in the last 40 years we’ve gone from practicing biotechnology at a macro level—breeding animals and crops, for example—to working with it at a micro level. It was during the 1960s and ’70s that our understanding of biology reached a point where we could begin to use the smallest parts of organisms—the biological molecules of which they are composed—in addition to using whole organisms.

An appropriate modern definition of biotechnology would be “the use of cellular and biomolecular processes to solve problems or make useful products.” We can get a better handle on the meaning of the word biotechnology by thinking of it in its plural form, biotechnologies. That’s because biotechnology is a collection of technologies that capitalize on the attributes of cells, such as their manufacturing capabilities, and put biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, to work for us.










Document Number: 4803
More Than a Fad: Agricultural Biotech Adoption Continues Growth
Biotech seed adoption is growing by leaps and bounds, according to a report released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

The ISAAA report, The Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009, says a record 14 million farmers in 25 countries now use agricultural biotechnology. Ninety percent, or roughly 13 million, are resource-poor farmers in developing countries.

“The annual ISAAA report is proof-positive that the global adoption of biotech crops — especially corn, soybeans, cotton and canola — increases each year as more farmers gain access to this technology,” says Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, BIO’s executive vice president for food and agriculture. “As the world confronts agricultural challenges such as climate change and a higher than ever demand for food supplies, advances in biotechnology can provide heartier crops that produce more food, often in areas with less than perfect growing conditions.”

The report prominently addresses the global food challenge. With a population headed toward 9.2 billion by 2050, the challenge of yet again doubling food production in only 50 years is daunting, ISAAA points out. Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that the world must double food production sustainably by that time, using fewer resources, on about the same arable land producing food today. Plus, as the report notes, the world will also be responding to climate change, and agribio techniques have been shown to reduce carbon emissions substantially.

“The most promising strategy at this time for increasing global food, feed and fiber productivity is to combine the best of the old and the best of the new, by integrating the best of conventional crop technology and the best of crop biotechnology applications,” notes ISAAA.

Improvements in crop products from this integrated strategy, the report concludes, must be incorporated as the “innovative technology component in a global food, feed and fiber security strategy that must also address other critical issues, including population growth and improved food, feed and distribution systems.”









Document Number: 5800
Dispelling Myths: Biotech and Organic Crops Can Coexist
Sometimes a clarification is in order. Such was the case in December, when Brian O’Connor, BIO’s manager of state government relations, testified at a hearing before the Maine Department of Agriculture.

O’Connor talked to Maine agriculture officials about a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs) the state adopted in lieu of passing legislation that would ban or place other restrictions on agricultural biotechnology.

Although BIO generally agrees with the BMPs, the organization points out the need to dispel myths about biotechnology crops as well as ensure that the BMPs are science-driven, realistic and potentially serve as a set of principles other states can emulate. BIO recommended that state officials take a closer look at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s guidelines for biotechnology, rules that could settle some thorny issues, such as farmer certification and a 300-foot buffer for certain crops.

“BIO applauds the legislature and the department’s vision in establishing BMPs to help increase comfort levels among growers in the state who may use different production practices,” O’Connor said.

“We are glad that the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources is clearly embracing this concept through the well-developed BMP effort,” he said. “We agree that BMPs are a much more useful way to ensure that agricultural producers communicate more with their peers, rather than onerous and business-inhibiting regulation.”

BIO’s testimony addresses two major points. First, the BMPs must contain references to the USDA’s National Organic Program’s rules for certification. The Maine Department of Agriculture clearly refers to other bodies in the proposal, noted BIO, such as the state Board of Pesticides Control and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension.

“Since the proposal dances around how to protect organic farmers, it seems absurd that there is no mention of the rules of the National Organic Program, under which Maine’s organic farmers are certified,” he says.

BIO also noted that it is up to the Maine agency to dispel myths that a low-level presence of biotech DNA in an organic crop means the entire loss of that crop and decertification of the organic farm. The organization believes the state agriculture department should point out that, to date, no organic farm has lost certification because of any unintended presence of biotechnology DNA in its crop.

“Much confusion from misunderstanding these facts has led to hysteria over agricultural biotechnology in the state — especially among those state policy makers who have no relationship to agriculture,” O’Connor said.

BIO’s second major clarification deals with a requirement in the BMPs to establish setbacks of 300 feet for corn, yellow crookneck squash and zucchini. The organization says the BMPs offer no explanation for why such a large buffer is needed, and it does not say which grower would have to incur the setback.

“Failure to state which farm would incur these costs is a mistake and leads to confusion,” O’Connor testified, pointing out that the National Organic Program rules say that growers of identity-preserved crops (in this case, organic) have always incurred the extra cost of protecting integrity because they are the ones who will benefit financially from the extra effort.

“If the department disagrees with the USDA, then it should be clearly stated,” he said. “Otherwise, the department should clearly reference existing norms for agriculture across the country and the Federal National Organic Program.”

Maine expects to issue a final version of its BMPs early in 2010.










Document Number: 1182
Sowing Rewards: Benefits of Biotech Crops
 controversial report on genetically engineered crops claims farmers are increasingly critical of these crops. But is it really so?

The Organic Center’s Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years contends genetically engineered crops force farmers to use more herbicides because weeds have developed resistance to glyphosates, and that makes farmers wary, according to the Rhode Island-based center, a nonprofit organization that promotes organic products.

Real-world farm statistics counter the report, says Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, executive vice president for food and agriculture at BIO. U.S. farmers have adopted many genetically engineered crops — such as soybeans, cotton and corn — deploying them widely since their introduction in 1996 because of the value they bring. Biotechnology allows farmers to boost crop yields and agricultural productivity.

“There’s no doubt that farmers continue to embrace biotechnology because of the benefits these products deliver, specifically crops that yield more per acre with lower production costs while using farming practices that better protect the land and environment,” she says.

Driving Up Productivity

According to research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the first decade of genetically engineered crops in the United States, the productivity gains can result in higher income for farmers. As found in the USDA report, The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, herbicide-tolerant cotton and corn were associated with higher economic returns, as were insect-resistant cotton and corn when pest infestations were more prevalent.

Research from English consulting firm PG Economics shows that farm incomes increased by $44.1 billion between 1996 and 2007, thanks to biotech crops. In 2007, the direct global farm income benefit was $10.1 billion, which is the equivalent of adding 4.4 percent to the value of global production of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola crops, according to the October 2009 report, Focus on Income, Well-Being and Food Security. 

Environmental Aid

Biotech brings environmental benefits, too: fuel conservation, reduced soil erosion, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. “Farmers have adapted no- and reduced-tillage systems, which utilize herbicidal weed control rather than plowing,” says Lauritsen. “In 2007, the fuel savings alone was equivalent to removing 31.2 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year.”

In addition to the economic and environmental advantages, plant biotech improves the quality of life for many farmers, allowing them to spend less time in the field and more with their families.

A Point About Pesticides

The Organic Center report, which was also sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Food Safety, asserts that farmers have used 318 million more pounds of pesticides in the past 13 years as a result of biotech crops.

But it’s actually the opposite, says Lauritsen. “Since 1997, the use of pesticides on global biotech crop acreage has been reduced by 790 million pounds, an 8.8 percent reduction,” she says. 

Take it from a farmer: John Reifsteck, a corn and soybean farmer in Illinois. “I’ve used many different tools to protect my crops from destruction — everything from old-fashioned pesticides to new-fangled biotechnology,” he blogged. “I can say with absolute certainty that biotech crops have allowed me to reduce my pesticide applications.”

BIO members concur. “Decades of documented evidence demonstrates that agricultural biotechnology is a safe and beneficial technology that contributes to both environmental and economic sustainability,” Lauritsen points out. Agricultural biotech has an important role to play in helping to feed and fuel our growing world.











Document Number: 1087

The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops In Developing Countries 
"This is the first major empirical study that sheds light on the policy dynamics 
influencing the adoption of biotechnology in developing countries. The analytical 
framework and the wealth of new information make it both original and substantive. In 
addition, the study is an honest and candid account of trends in developing countries. 
This is an important book that will inspire the practitioner, challenge the academic, 
satisfy the curious, and appease the bewildered." 
-- Calestous Juma, Harvard University 
Genetically modified (GM) food crops have inspired increasing controversy over the past 
decade. By the mid-1990s they were widely grown in the U.S., Canada, and Argentina, 
but precautionary regulations continue to limit their use elsewhere. The restrictive 
policies of Europe and Japan toward GM crops have been much discussed. Less attention 
has been paid to the policies affecting the adoption of GM crops in the developing world, 
where their potential impact on the availability and quality of food is even greater. 
In this book Robert Paarlberg looks at the policy choices regarding GM food made by 
four important developing countries: Kenya, Brazil, India, and China. Of these, so far 
only China has approved the planting of GM crops. Paarlberg identifies five policy areas 
in which governments of developing countries can either support or discourage GM 
crops: intellectual property rights, biosafety, trade, food safety, and public research and 
investment. He notes that highly cautious biosafety policies have so far been the key 
reason that Kenya, Brazil, and India have hesitated to plant GM crops. 
These cautious policies have been strongly reinforced by international market forces and 
international diplomatic and NGO pressures. China has been less cautious toward GM 
crops, in part because there is less opportunity in China for international organizations or 
independent critics of GM crops to challenge official policy











Document Number: 9101
Technology to Feed the World

The world's population is expected to grow from today's 6 billion to about 8 billion by 2030. Feeding all of these people and eliminating hunger will require advances in food production and distribution that enhance food supplies without damaging the environment. Agricultural biotechnology is one tool that holds great promise for alleviating hunger and poverty. However recent concerns about genetically modified crops may curtail their widespread use. Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture, a new white paper issued by a working group of seven national science academies, including five from the developing world, examines the potential for genetically modified crops to assist developing countries, and the issues that need to be addressed. [News release]

Biotechnology at Work
Farmers have been battling pests for centuries, using everything from conventional plant-breeding techniques to chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides. But because of environmental and health concerns, the development of new chemical treatments has declined in recent years. Now scientists are using the tools of advanced molecular biology to endow plants with genes that help them resist pests. Although breeding practices have been used for years to develop crops with desirable traits, scientists can now pinpoint genes from similar species -- or even from completely unrelated organisms -- and transfer those protective genes into crops.


What are genetically modified foods? How prevalent are they? How are they regulated? The U.S. Department of Agriculture answers frequently asked questions. The University of Wisconsin provides a glossary of terms.

Like most significant scientific innovations, bioengineered seeds did not emerge solely from the efforts of scientists to improve pest or weed control. Beyond Discovery: Designer Seeds explores the history of genetically modified crops.

Take a photo tour of the genetic-engineering process at the Center for Engineering Plants for Resistance Against Pathogens, one of 25 National Science Foundation-supported Science and Technology Centers throughout the United States.

A Global Concern
Today there are some 800 million people (18 percent of the population in the developing world) who do not have sufficient food to meet their needs. Malnutrition plays a significant role in half the nearly 12 million deaths each year of Third World children under five. Growing enough staple crops -- such as corn, rice, wheat, yams, and potatoes -- without further expanding the amount of land that must be cultivated will require substantial increases in yields per acre. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor, a report of an international conference on biotechnology convened by the World Bank's Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, explores the potential impact of biotechnology in developing countries.

Boosting food production has always been the highest agricultural priority in China because of the country's massive population. It is estimated that by 2030, food production will need to increase by at least 60 percent to keep pace with population growth.



The debate on biotechnology use in Africa must be considered in the context of that continent's need for more food and the survival of its people. Africa has the highest population growth rate in the world, making it difficult to maintain adequate food supplies. Yet agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa has stagnated in the past two decades for many reasons, including a shortage of arable land, inadequate rainfall, and an abundance of pests and diseases. In Kenya, biotechnology experiments are leading to increased production of bananas, potatoes, sugarcane, and commercially grown flowers.

Agriculture is one of the most important sectors of Costa Rica's economy. But agricultural expansion has resulted in poor natural resource management. For example, the use of pesticides has contaminated land and water, threatened wildlife, and poisoned high numbers of field workers. A major challenge for sustainable development will be finding innovative ways to link conservation and biotechnology to increase agricultural production on less land, with lower pesticide use.


Plants and Population: Is There Time? the Proceedings of a National Academy of Sciences colloquium, explores how the world can feed its expanding population in a sustainable way while maintaining enough undeveloped land to support and preserve essential ecosystems and biodiversity.

Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century, a conference of the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues, included a session that examined how food production and distribution would need to meet growing demands in the next 50 years.

Leading experts discuss how genetically modified crops could affect nutrition in developing countries on the April 14 edition of Science Friday, a broadcast of National Public Radio.

Protecting Health and the Environment
To date more than 98 million acres (39 hectares) of genetically modified crops have been grown worldwide. No evidence of human health problems associated specifically with the ingestion of these crops or resulting food products have been identified, but concerns have been raised about the potential for transgenic food products to cause allergic reactions or produce toxic compounds. In addition, concrete information on the effects of transgenic plants on the environment and on biological diversity is still sparse.

Every country should have systems in place to identify and monitor potential adverse effects from pest-protected crops, whether modified through modern biotechnology or through conventional breeding practices. A committee of the National Research Council recently reviewed the U.S. regulatory process and concluded that regulatory agencies should do a better job of coordinating their work and expanding public access to the process as the volume and mix of these types of plants on the market increase. The committee said it was not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.

Cultivating Public Confidence in Genetically Modified Crops op-ed article

The National Research Council of the National Academies has established a standing committee of experts to examine the ongoing scientific issues surrounding biotechnology used for agriculture and food production. As part of that effort, the committee is holding a July 13-14 workshop on the ecological monitoring of genetically modified crops. In addition, a study on the environmental impacts associated with the commercialization of transgenic crops is being conducted.

Using a science-based method to assess and control potential environmental risks and benefits of genetically modified crops is discussed in a paper from Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor.

Biotechnology for All?
Most genetically modified technology has been developed primarily for large-scale agriculture in the industrialized world - to make a small number of major crops more resistant to certain insects or viruses. Today, private companies can obtain plant varieties free from farmers and from noncommercial organizations, add a new gene, and then sell those seeds back to farmers with legal protections against copying or reuse. The science academies' white paper notes that the issue of intellectual property rights deserves special consideration when it comes to the needs of Third World farmers. For example, poor farmers in developing countries must be allowed to save seed for future use if they wish to do so.











Document Number: 173

Since the first biotech crop was commercialized in 1996, many wonder why farmers are so enthusiastically adopting biotechnology (it’s more sustainable, more environmentally friendly and less costly), whether or not biotech crops are as safe as conventional crops (they are), and why foods derived from biotech crops don’t require special labels.

1. Is biotechnology less safe than other plant breeding techniques?
No. Biotechnology is safe. It is a refinement of breeding techniques that have been used to improve plants for thousands of years. Biotechnology is simply a more precise science, so scientists are able to isolate a specific gene to make exact changes to a crop (for example, to make a corn plant resistant to the corn borer insect.)

Scientists around the world agree that the risks associated with crop plants developed using biotechnology are the same as those for similar varieties developed using traditional breeding methods.

2. Are foods derived from biotechnology as safe to eat as foods produced using conventional crops?
Yes. Federal regulatory agencies ensure the safety of biotechnology foods, and biotech plants and foods are among the most tested in history.

The ultimate scientific authorities recognized in this country, such as the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, the American Dietetic Association2, the American Medical Association, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization5 have concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients pose no more risk to people than any other foods.

Biotech crops have been cultivated for more than 15 years, and foods derived from agricultural biotechnology have been eaten by billions of people without a single documented health problem. This is a remarkable food safety record, but not surprising, given the pre-market scrutiny and testing of biotech crops and foods.

3. Are crops developed using biotechnology safe for the environment?
Yes. Extensive scientific evaluation worldwide has not found any examples of ecological damage from biotechnology crops. In fact, the National Research Council6 has documented that, in addition to their safety, biotech crops contribute positively to farm sustainability in the United States, due to their environmental benefits and economic benefits to farmers.
Current crops designed to resist pests and tolerate herbicides have already cut chemical usage on farms significantly. Herbicide-tolerance promotes practices like no-tillage farming that reduce soil erosion, prevent water loss, and even limit release of greenhouse gases.

To ensure that a new plant is safe for the environment, extensive field-testing is conducted under USDA and EPA oversight.

4. Are the products of agricultural biotechnology regulated?
Yes. Biotechnology products in the United States are regulated according to the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.

Under the Coordinated Framework, agricultural biotechnology products are regulated by three agencies:

U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees the interstate movement and field-testing of biotechnology-derived plants “regulated articles” to ensure that the environment is protected. A petition for “nonregulated status” must be granted by the USDA prior to commercial growth and sale of any bioengineered crop.
The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for ensuring that pest-resistant biotech varieties are safe to grow and consume. It regulates environmental exposure to these crops to ensure there are no adverse effects to the environment or any beneficial, non-targeted insects and other organisms.
The Food and Drug Administration imposes on foods developed through biotechnology the same regulatory requirements FDA uses to safeguard all foods in the marketplace. The FDA has both premarket and postmarket authority to regulate the safety and labeling of all foods and animal feed.
5. Do foods produced using biotechnology require special labeling?
No. The FDA's evaluation of a biotechnology food focuses on its characteristics, not the method used to develop it. A new biotechnology food that is “substantially equivalent” (meaning it has the same chemical composition and nutritional value to conventional varieties) does not require a special label.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration.s regulations state that requiring the labeling of foods that are indistinguishable from foods produced through traditional methods would mislead consumers by falsely implying differences where none exist.
According to the 2010 Consumer Survey by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), consumer satisfaction with current information on food labels remains high. Only 18 percent of consumers supported additional info on food labels, with only three percent supporting the labeling of biotech foods.

6. Do most foods contain biotech ingredients?
More and more farmers in the United States and around the world are turning to biotechnology so they can grow plants that yield more per acre and are resistant to diseases and insect pests while reducing production costs and contributing to more environmentally friendly farming practices.

In the United States, the majority of all the corn (86 percent), soybeans (93 percent) and cotton (93 percent) are grown using biotechnology.
In 2010, biotech crop area globally grew ten percent to reach 366 million acres.
In the United States, more than 165 million acres of biotech crops were planted in 2010, up from 158 million acres in 200910. The primary biotech crops grown in the United States are corn, cotton, and soybeans, but also canola, squash, papaya, alfalfa, and sugarbeet.
A record 15.4 million farmers in 29 countries are using agricultural biotechnology. Ninety percent (14.4 million) of these are resource-poor farmers in developing countries11.
7. Do biotech foods cause allergies?
To date, no allergic reactions have been attributed to any food product of biotechnology. Every crop produced through biotechnology is screened in advance for its potential to cause allergic reactions, and none have demonstrated any potential to be allergenic.
In fact, advanced techniques are being used to remove allergens from certain foods. Hypoallergenic rice and soybeans have already been developed, and researchers are at work on wheat. The removal of allergens from foods will open up a broader range of products for those with food allergies to enjoy.

8. Do farmers use more pesticides when they grow biotech crops?
No. In fact, biotech crops have helped reduce pesticide spraying (1996-2008) by 352 million kg (a decrease of 8.4 percent), and as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted of biotech crops by 16.3 percent12.

In addition, herbicide tolerant biotech crops have led to the adoption of no/reduced tillage production systems. This has reduced soil erosion and improved soil moisture levels.

9. Do biotech crops “contaminate” other crops?
No. The fact is, nature has used pollen to carry genes between plants for hundreds of millions of years. In recent years, some growers (usually of organic crops) have sought to distinguish their produce from conventional agricultural harvests by claiming there are no biotech derived materials present, even though the USDA organic standard allows for substantial material of biotech or conventional origin to be present in organic harvests as long as the organic grower did not knowingly plant biotech derived seed:
“As long as an organic operation has not used excluded methods and takes reasonable steps to avoid contact with the products of excluded methods as detailed in their approved organic system plan, the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods will not affect the status of the organic operation.”

Not one organically certified farm has lost its USDA certification due to the presence of unintended plant DNA (from either conventional or biotech varieties) since the beginning of the Federal National Organic Program.

10. Can agriculture biotechnology help feed a growing global population?
Yes. Agricultural biotechnology can be a key element in the fight against hunger and malnutrition in the developing world.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, feeding a world population of 9.1 billion in 2050 will require raising overall food production by 70 percent (nearly 100 percent in developing countries).

To meet this challenge, farmers will need to find ways to grow more food more sustainably.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, along with the Royal Society of London, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences and the Third World Academy of Sciences issued a report discussing the role of biotechnology in meeting global food needs. It concluded:

“GM technology, coupled with important developments in other areas, should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers.”


Biotechnology has already helped increase food and feed production. For example, biotechnology traits have added 74 million tonnes and 79.7 million tonnes respectively to global production of soybeans and corn since its introduction in 1996.

In the United States alone, corn yield has increased 36 percent, soybean yield has increased 12 percent, and cotton yield has increased about 31 percent since 1995, in part due to biotechnology.

High-level government officials and ag policy experts agree on agricultural biotechnology’s contribution to increasing agricultural productivity:

- “We need to do a better job of working with scientists and farmers and political leaders to make sure there is a consistent message that comes from this country about the importance of biotechnology as a strategy for meeting world demand.” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, February 24, 2011 
“We believe that biotechnology has a critical role to play in increasing agricultural productivity, particularly in light of climate change. We also believe it can help to improve the nutritional value of staple foods.” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, October 16, 2009
“I became a scientist because one of my goals was to develop disease-resistant crops that require fewer chemical inputs than non-resistant crops – disease-resistance that didn.t need a chemical treatment. When that solution came through biotechnology, I considered it a sustainable outcome. Others define „sustainability. as not involving biotechnology. We disagree.” Dr. Roger Beachy, NIFA Director and USDA Chief Scientist, February 18, 2010
“New technologies - like biotechnology, conservation tillage, drip irrigation, integrated pest management, and new multiple-cropping practices - have improved the efficiency and productivity of agricultural resources over the last decade. Around the world some 14 million small and resource poor farmers in the developing world have already benefited from biotechnology crops.”Jose Fernandez, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State, January 21, 2011
“Biotech is going to be absolutely critical…what we haven.t done is shown people how different modern biotechnology can make farming.” Nina Fedoroff, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State and to the Administrator of USAID, February 12, 2010











Document Number: 7867
Science and Safety of
Biotech Plant Products
Agricultural biotechnology is a science that allows plant breeders to make precise genetic changes to place beneficial traits – such as pest resistance, disease resistance or herbicide tolerance – into plants.
Since the introduction of biotechnology-derived commercial crop in 1996, farmers have used this science to grow plants that yield more per acre with reduced production costs while being resistant to disease and pests and also beneficial to the environment.
In the near future, we’ll see crops that will be resistant to environmental stresses like drought, and crops that use soil nutrients more efficiently, boosting productivity in areas of the world with inadequate rainfall or poor soil. Scientists are also looking to use biotechnology to fortify some food plants with higher nutritional content and to produce pharmaceuticals in plants affordably and efficiently.
Contributing to Sustainable Agriculture
Farmers are enthusiastically embracing this technology, especially corn, cotton and soybean varieties, according to USDA. This growing trend is expected to continue, especially at a time when the United States and the world are looking for science-based solutions to rising food and fuel prices.
Agricultural biotechnology can help farmers feed the world's growing population, while minimizing impacts on the global environment. In 2007, 12 million farmers in 23 countries – 12 developing and 11 industrialized – planted biotech crops, primarily soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Eleven million of these farmers worked small, resource-poor farms in developing countries.
Biotech crops – most of which are currently disease-resistant, pest-resistant or herbicide tolerant – have helped farmers around the world to increase production, boost farmers' incomes and enable them to farm more sustainably, but the technology promises to provide solutions to other challenges as well.
Benefitting the Environment
Biotechnology is reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint by reducing fossil fuel use, soil tillage and run-off from farmer’s fields. Studies show that since commercial plantings of biotech crops began in 1996, farmers have saved 551 million gallons of fuel because of reduced field operations. In 2006, 252 million acres of biotech crops reduced carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 15 million metric tons, equivalent to removing nearly 6.56 million cars from the road for an entire year.
Farmers using biotech crops may also use pesticides less frequently because of the pest- resistance traits within the plants themselves. Within the United States alone, biotech crop varieties eliminated the use of 70 million pounds of pesticide applications in 2005.
Future crops designed to tolerate environmental stresses, such as salty or toxic soils, drought, and freezing temperatures, will make agriculture more efficient and sustainable by producing more food, fuel and fiber on less land. Biotech plants being tested also use nitrogen more efficiently, leading to the potential decrease in fertilizer usage. Biotechnology can also be used to produce renewable plant-based energy and industrial products and biological agents to clean up contaminated soils.
A Record of Safety
Biotech crops are among the most heavily regulated agricultural products. The combined expertise of three federal agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is brought to bear on these products. Products derived from this technology are not approved for planting or to enter the food supply until all three agencies have determined that they are as safe as conventional crops.
To ensure that a new plant is safe for the environment, extensive field-testing is conducted under USDA and EPA oversight. To date, there have been no instances of a biotechnology- derived plant approved for field-testing either creating an environmental hazard or exhibiting any unpredictable behavior compared with similar crops modified using traditional methods.
Biotech seed manufacturers want their products to be developed under science-based regulatory scrutiny to ensure safety for humans and the environment. The reality of modern agriculture dictates that this scrutiny makes not for just good science, but also good business.
Adoption by Farmers
Biotech crops have been adopted by farmers worldwide at higher rates than any other agricultural practice in the history of agriculture. Since the first significant commercial plantings in 1996, acreage devoted to biotech crops has increased 60-fold.
In the United States:
Eighty percent of all the corn planted are biotech varieties. Ninety-two percent of all the soybeans planted are biotech varieties. Eight-six percent of all the cotton planted are biotech varieties.
Fifty percent of all the papaya planted are biotech varieties.
The benefits of biotech crops are demonstrated not only by increases in productivity but also by the rapid adoption of these crops by growers. Farmers recognize that their productivity goes up and costs go down when they grow these crops, providing for more sustainable production for the world’s consumers.










Document Number: 5585
Healing, Fueling, Feeding: How Biotechnology Is Enriching Your Life.
Biotechnology is all around us and is already a big part of our lives, providing breakthrough products and technologies to combat disease, reduce our environmental footprint, feed the hungry, and make useful products.

What is Biotechnology?
New BIO Report Highlights Value of Biotechnology to Individuals and Society
Unleashing the Promise of Biotechnology
Guide to Biotechnology 2008
Biotechnology is all around us and is already a big part of our lives, providing breakthrough products and technologies to combat disease, reduce our environmental footprint, feed the hungry, and make useful products. Even though we may not recognize it, we see it every day in our homes and workplaces, and everywhere in between. At its simplest, biotechnology harnesses cellular and biomolecular processes and puts them to work for us.

The science of biotechnology isn’t easy. Nature does not readily yield her secrets. Still, every day in nearly every country on Earth our brilliant scientists decode a bit more of the language of life. The science continues to astonish and amaze. Today, there are more than 250 biotechnology health care products and vaccines available to patients, many for previously untreatable diseases. More than 13.3 million farmers around the world use agricultural biotechnology to increase yields, prevent damage from insects and pests and reduce farming’s impact on the environment. And more than 50 biorefineries are being built across North America to test and refine technologies to produce biofuels and chemicals from renewable biomass, which can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Most of us don’t realize that humans have used biotechnology for literally thousands of years; fermenting beer, aging cheese, and baking bread are just a few examples. These rudimentary forms of biotechnology often relied on fermentation, capitalizing on yeasts and other microorganisms to enhance our food supply and make other lifestyle improvements.

Today, biotechnology continues to help improve the way we live, and it helps us do so more responsibly. In the last 40 years, we have seen many important breakthroughs that enable us to:

harness bacteria and yeasts as nature’s microscopic workhorses;
leverage genetic markers; and
deploy a more sophisticated, systematic use of enzyme-based production processes.
The result is a diverse and nearly endless set of practical biotechnology products helping us live longer and healthier lives, have a more abundant and sustainable food supply, use safer and more efficient industrial manufacturing, and reduce our greenhouse gas footprint.










Document Number: 6971
At its simplest, biotechnology is technology based on biology.


What is Biotechnology?
Healing, Fueling, Feeding: How Biotechnology Is Enriching Your Life.
New Heights: Report Shows Continued Growth of Biotech Crops
Unleashing the Promise of Biotechnology
At its simplest, biotechnology is technology based on biology. From that perspective, the use of biological processes is hardly noteworthy. We began growing crops and raising animals 10,000 years ago to provide a stable supply of food and clothing. We have used the biological processes of microorganisms for 6,000 years to make useful food products, such as bread and cheese, and to preserve dairy products.

Crops? Cheese? That doesn’t sound very exciting. So why does biotechnology receive so much attention?

The answer is that in the last 40 years we’ve gone from practicing biotechnology at a macro level—breeding animals and crops, for example—to working with it at a micro level. It was during the 1960s and ’70s that our understanding of biology reached a point where we could begin to use the smallest parts of organisms—the biological molecules of which they are composed—in addition to using whole organisms.

An appropriate modern definition of biotechnology would be “the use of cellular and biomolecular processes to solve problems or make useful products.” We can get a better handle on the meaning of the word biotechnology by thinking of it in its plural form, biotechnologies. That’s because biotechnology is a collection of technologies that capitalize on the attributes of cells, such as their manufacturing capabilities, and put biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, to work for us.










Document Number: 1638
More Than a Fad: Agricultural Biotech Adoption Continues Growth
Biotech seed adoption is growing by leaps and bounds, according to a report released by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

The ISAAA report, The Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009, says a record 14 million farmers in 25 countries now use agricultural biotechnology. Ninety percent, or roughly 13 million, are resource-poor farmers in developing countries.

“The annual ISAAA report is proof-positive that the global adoption of biotech crops — especially corn, soybeans, cotton and canola — increases each year as more farmers gain access to this technology,” says Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, BIO’s executive vice president for food and agriculture. “As the world confronts agricultural challenges such as climate change and a higher than ever demand for food supplies, advances in biotechnology can provide heartier crops that produce more food, often in areas with less than perfect growing conditions.”

The report prominently addresses the global food challenge. With a population headed toward 9.2 billion by 2050, the challenge of yet again doubling food production in only 50 years is daunting, ISAAA points out. Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that the world must double food production sustainably by that time, using fewer resources, on about the same arable land producing food today. Plus, as the report notes, the world will also be responding to climate change, and agribio techniques have been shown to reduce carbon emissions substantially.

“The most promising strategy at this time for increasing global food, feed and fiber productivity is to combine the best of the old and the best of the new, by integrating the best of conventional crop technology and the best of crop biotechnology applications,” notes ISAAA.

Improvements in crop products from this integrated strategy, the report concludes, must be incorporated as the “innovative technology component in a global food, feed and fiber security strategy that must also address other critical issues, including population growth and improved food, feed and distribution systems.”









Document Number: 1323
Dispelling Myths: Biotech and Organic Crops Can Coexist
Sometimes a clarification is in order. Such was the case in December, when Brian O’Connor, BIO’s manager of state government relations, testified at a hearing before the Maine Department of Agriculture.

O’Connor talked to Maine agriculture officials about a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs) the state adopted in lieu of passing legislation that would ban or place other restrictions on agricultural biotechnology.

Although BIO generally agrees with the BMPs, the organization points out the need to dispel myths about biotechnology crops as well as ensure that the BMPs are science-driven, realistic and potentially serve as a set of principles other states can emulate. BIO recommended that state officials take a closer look at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s guidelines for biotechnology, rules that could settle some thorny issues, such as farmer certification and a 300-foot buffer for certain crops.

“BIO applauds the legislature and the department’s vision in establishing BMPs to help increase comfort levels among growers in the state who may use different production practices,” O’Connor said.

“We are glad that the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources is clearly embracing this concept through the well-developed BMP effort,” he said. “We agree that BMPs are a much more useful way to ensure that agricultural producers communicate more with their peers, rather than onerous and business-inhibiting regulation.”

BIO’s testimony addresses two major points. First, the BMPs must contain references to the USDA’s National Organic Program’s rules for certification. The Maine Department of Agriculture clearly refers to other bodies in the proposal, noted BIO, such as the state Board of Pesticides Control and the University of Maine Cooperative Extension.

“Since the proposal dances around how to protect organic farmers, it seems absurd that there is no mention of the rules of the National Organic Program, under which Maine’s organic farmers are certified,” he says.

BIO also noted that it is up to the Maine agency to dispel myths that a low-level presence of biotech DNA in an organic crop means the entire loss of that crop and decertification of the organic farm. The organization believes the state agriculture department should point out that, to date, no organic farm has lost certification because of any unintended presence of biotechnology DNA in its crop.

“Much confusion from misunderstanding these facts has led to hysteria over agricultural biotechnology in the state — especially among those state policy makers who have no relationship to agriculture,” O’Connor said.

BIO’s second major clarification deals with a requirement in the BMPs to establish setbacks of 300 feet for corn, yellow crookneck squash and zucchini. The organization says the BMPs offer no explanation for why such a large buffer is needed, and it does not say which grower would have to incur the setback.

“Failure to state which farm would incur these costs is a mistake and leads to confusion,” O’Connor testified, pointing out that the National Organic Program rules say that growers of identity-preserved crops (in this case, organic) have always incurred the extra cost of protecting integrity because they are the ones who will benefit financially from the extra effort.

“If the department disagrees with the USDA, then it should be clearly stated,” he said. “Otherwise, the department should clearly reference existing norms for agriculture across the country and the Federal National Organic Program.”

Maine expects to issue a final version of its BMPs early in 2010.










Document Number: 7515
Sowing Rewards: Benefits of Biotech Crops
 controversial report on genetically engineered crops claims farmers are increasingly critical of these crops. But is it really so?

The Organic Center’s Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years contends genetically engineered crops force farmers to use more herbicides because weeds have developed resistance to glyphosates, and that makes farmers wary, according to the Rhode Island-based center, a nonprofit organization that promotes organic products.

Real-world farm statistics counter the report, says Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, executive vice president for food and agriculture at BIO. U.S. farmers have adopted many genetically engineered crops — such as soybeans, cotton and corn — deploying them widely since their introduction in 1996 because of the value they bring. Biotechnology allows farmers to boost crop yields and agricultural productivity.

“There’s no doubt that farmers continue to embrace biotechnology because of the benefits these products deliver, specifically crops that yield more per acre with lower production costs while using farming practices that better protect the land and environment,” she says.

Driving Up Productivity

According to research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the first decade of genetically engineered crops in the United States, the productivity gains can result in higher income for farmers. As found in the USDA report, The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, herbicide-tolerant cotton and corn were associated with higher economic returns, as were insect-resistant cotton and corn when pest infestations were more prevalent.

Research from English consulting firm PG Economics shows that farm incomes increased by $44.1 billion between 1996 and 2007, thanks to biotech crops. In 2007, the direct global farm income benefit was $10.1 billion, which is the equivalent of adding 4.4 percent to the value of global production of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola crops, according to the October 2009 report, Focus on Income, Well-Being and Food Security. 

Environmental Aid

Biotech brings environmental benefits, too: fuel conservation, reduced soil erosion, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. “Farmers have adapted no- and reduced-tillage systems, which utilize herbicidal weed control rather than plowing,” says Lauritsen. “In 2007, the fuel savings alone was equivalent to removing 31.2 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year.”

In addition to the economic and environmental advantages, plant biotech improves the quality of life for many farmers, allowing them to spend less time in the field and more with their families.

A Point About Pesticides

The Organic Center report, which was also sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Food Safety, asserts that farmers have used 318 million more pounds of pesticides in the past 13 years as a result of biotech crops.

But it’s actually the opposite, says Lauritsen. “Since 1997, the use of pesticides on global biotech crop acreage has been reduced by 790 million pounds, an 8.8 percent reduction,” she says. 

Take it from a farmer: John Reifsteck, a corn and soybean farmer in Illinois. “I’ve used many different tools to protect my crops from destruction — everything from old-fashioned pesticides to new-fangled biotechnology,” he blogged. “I can say with absolute certainty that biotech crops have allowed me to reduce my pesticide applications.”

BIO members concur. “Decades of documented evidence demonstrates that agricultural biotechnology is a safe and beneficial technology that contributes to both environmental and economic sustainability,” Lauritsen points out. Agricultural biotech has an important role to play in helping to feed and fuel our growing world.











Document Number: 1222
Bumper Crop: Biotech Can Mitigate Climate Change
Can the biotechnology industry feed a hungry world?

Maybe not all by itself, but productivity gains through biotechnology are increasingly important, considering the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports that feeding a world population of 9.1 billion in 2050 will require raising food production by 70 percent. That number jumps to 100 percent in developing countries, where farmers are more adversely affected by climate change.

The need for biotechnology to help offset climate change came to light in December at the climate talks in Copenhagen, when U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released a report entitled The Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Ecosystems.

The USDA report identifies the following trends:

Grain and oilseed crops will mature more rapidly, but increasing temperatures up the risk of crop failures, particularly where precipitation decreases or becomes more variable.
Horticultural crops such as tomatoes, onions and fruit respond to climate change to a greater degree than grains and oilseed crops because of the high sensitivity of their quality and appearance to climate factors.
Livestock mortality will decrease with warmer winters. However, this will be greatly offset by higher mortality in hotter summers. Hotter temperatures will also result in reduced productivity of livestock and dairy animals because of changes in consumption and lower reproduction pregnancy rates.
Weeds will grow more rapidly under elevated atmospheric CO2, extend their range northward and be less sensitive to herbicide applications.
Disease and pest prevalence will escalate as a result of shorter, warmer winters, challenging crop, livestock and forest systems.
“According to this report, climate change is hurting crop production, distribution and yields directly through changes in temperature and precipitation and indirectly by increasing pest and weed outbreaks,” says Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, BIO’s executive vice president for food and agriculture.

“Through biotechnology, crops yield more per acre, plants naturally resist insect pests and diseases and farmers use less energy,” she adds. “Genetically engineered plants and animals can naturally fight diseases and adapt to environmental stress.”

In his address in Copenhagen, Vilsack pointed out that science and technology are already playing a critical role in combating the negative effects of climate change. Through research, the biotechnology industry is helping to increase yields, produce crops that are resistant to the effects of climate change, help farmers convert to no-till practices and develop solutions that decrease carbon-based fertilizers.

“Action by the United States and other developed countries is not enough,” he stressed. “Climate change is a global challenge that demands a global solution. There is simply no way to preserve a safe and livable planet unless major developing countries play a globally responsible role along with the United States in the climate negotiations.”










Document Number: 4369
On GE Animals, Taking Initiative through Guidance on Stewardship
Why is a stewardship program important to those working in research and development with GE animals?
BIO hosted a successful special session on August 20th where the first public presentation was made of the BIO Guidance on Genetically Engineered (GE) Animal Stewardship with 100 international scientists and government officials in the audience of the 7th Transgenic Animal Conference, Tahoe, Calif.

Why is a stewardship program important to those working in research and development with GE animals? Stewardship is the initiative and processes undertaken by product developers in industry, academia and other groups, to increase their control over and responsibility for the conduct of practices.

Today’s landscape for GE animal technology includes many issues that drive public confidence and acceptance. These include the continuing “GMO” debates, the animal welfare concerns about GE technology, and concerns on ethics, social, religious issues. But the landscape also includes cutting edge science, strong regulatory processes, and best of all, the promise of compelling benefits of GE animals including advancing human health, enhancing food quality and safety, softer environmental footprint, enhanced animal health and welfare, and improving industrial products. By adopting a stewardship approach, we may minimize the negative issues and optimize the positive issues.

The mission of BIO’s Stewardship Initiative is to institute and promote guidelines for the development and use of GE animals, which promote good animal welfare and comply with current regulatory requirements. BIO Guidance is meant to be valuable to all who are conducting research and development of GE animals, ‘product developers’, including academia, industry and other organizations. The Guidance is meant to assist companies, universities, and the industry in developing and adopting their own stewardship principles. It will serve as a practical useful guidance; a one-stop shop.
The Guidance presents what is required to be done according to existing law and regulations, and it suggests other practices, dependent on animal species and application, that we should consider.
The Guidance addresses stewardship of GE animals through the life cycle of animals and animal products.
Module One, “Guidelines for Research and Development,” was presented.
Additional modules in the BIO Guidance will be developed in the future.
The feedback on BIO’s Guidance was excellent, with one leading expert in GE animal research stating, “it is timely and important to do this". We had several positive compliments and constructive comments from domestic and international scientists and governments. Visit BIO’s web site soon to see the first Module.

The excitement at the Conference and the sophistication of the science (and the stewardship guidance!) being presented is terrific. This event serves as an excellent springboard for the new and novel BIO Livestock Biotech Summit to be held next year in late September, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It’s time to put that event on your calendar!











Document Number: 876
Tools in the 21st Century Tool Box: “Hot Science” on GE Animals
Did you know that dragline silk, which is a protein produced by spiders, is the strongest fiber known to man?
Today’s program at the 7th Transgenic Animal Research Conference in Tahoe, Calif., hit the “hot science”, as one researcher from Germany noted during lunch. The research on genetically engineered (GE) animals will reap huge dividends in societal benefits to solve the world’s most pressing challenges.

I was particularly impressed by the Chinese researchers from State Key Lab of Agrobiotechnology, China Agricultural University, Beijing. In 2001 they began studying six different genes in GE cattle which improve protein production in milk, including production of human lactoferrin, human lysozyme and a human antibody for cancer treatment. But they don’t stop there. Their GE pig research includes the study of four genes which also impact milk protein production.

Even more remarkable, I know you all have heard about the GE goats that produce spider silk proteins, used for body armor, suture material, or anywhere we need an industrial fiber with high strength. These GE goats are alive and well at the University of Wyoming.

Did you know that dragline silk, which is a protein produced by spiders, is the strongest fiber known to man? It is identical to Kevlar, used in bullet-proof vests, except that it has 35 percent elasticity, to Kevlar’s 5 percent. Researchers at the University of Wyoming are working in collaboration with AFMNet to study the attributes of spider silk proteins produced in the milk of GE goats. They discussed the capability to vary the ratio of two proteins that produce films and fibers with different mechanical properties.

Who’s interested? Good Year Tire is interested in this technology for producing tire cords. Eye sutures are another potential application, and the military has continuing needs to protect the armed forces. This is an exciting application with many benefits – indeed the new ‘tailor-to-task’ efforts in research by the University of Wyoming will continue. And the GE goats are so cute – normal and happy.

The scientific presentations are nearly outdone here in Tahoe along with the informal conversations and debate at coffee breaks. We have discussed the fact that this “hot science” on GE animals will not advance without a relevant and workable regulatory process to bring products to consumers. Tomorrow BIO gets the chance to discuss industry’s responsibility toward good stewardship in meeting (and in some cases exceeding) the regulatory requirements.

It all begins with “hot science” on GE animals, building the 21st century tool box. Stay tuned!









Document Number: 9580
Plant-based Technologies - Panel addressed positive impact of biotech
The speakers at this morning's breakout session "Plant Science Technologies: Recent Advances That Will Change Our World " - tackled the many ways that plant-based technologies are having a positive impact, from renewable fuels to food and medicines. Bruce Ferguson, President of Edenspace, set the context for the importance of plant-based technologies in the production of renewable fuels. He explained that cellulosic biofuels could account for 50% of the total US demand for fuel and he argued for a regional approach that focuses on different crops for different parts of the US. (For instance poplars in the western US and switchgrass in the midwest.) He also discussed the technologies being developed by Edenspace that will help meet the growing demand for renewable fuels and fight global warming, including their Energy Corn. Scott Kohl, from ICM, Inc. then explained how biotechnology is enabling us to put traits into energy crops that make them break down more easily, reducing the number of inputs needed to process them into fuel. This important development helps reduce the costs for both the producer and consumer. Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Adrian Polansky discussed the role of the government in both providing oversight of new plant-based technologies and protecting public safety and also ensuring that those technologies can come to market in a timely way. He stressed the many benefits that biotechnology provides to the public, including fighting food scarcity, ensuring food safety, providing more nutritious foods, playing a key role in the development of medicines, helping us to renewable energy, providing safe bio-based chemicals, and helping reduce our environmental footprint. Finally, attendees learned about how plant-based technologies are helping improve global health through products that combat childhood diarrhea. Products like those developed by Ventria are helping reduce the duration of childhood diarrhea, allowing more children around the world to return to school more quickly and helping save lives by reducing the deaths caused by dehydration from diarrhea.









Document Number: 696
Gleaning Profits from Drought-Smitten Fields
Food & Ag sessions got off to an interesting start this morning as three companies told their very different tales of sailing turbulent economic waters over the past two years in search of profitable harbors. The Value Proposition for Next-Generation Energy Crops: Value Chain and Business Model Considerations. By Val Giddings Food & Ag sessions got off to an interesting start this morning as three companies told their very different tales of sailing turbulent economic waters over the past two years in search of profitable harbors. With oil at $140/barrel, it looked like a game almost anybody could play. With oil at $50/barrel things are a lot more competitive. Aaron Schuchart (Mendel BioTechnology) described Mendel’s approach to the challenges of making and selling improved seeds to serve farmers seeking to provide feedstock for biomass energy and fuels. When a 10 percent increase in yield can improve producer margins by 114 percent, it’s a market worthy of attention. Mendel is working with a variety of materials including sugarcane and, Miscanthus, testing a broad variety of germplasm in search of the best material to adapt to regional markets. Mike Edgerton (Monsanto) described the very different economics and logistics related to corn stover feedstocks. A much less mature sector, with 2 million producers (as opposed to ~400 for cane in Brasil) makes vertical integration much more complicated and challenging for stover. Calculating how much organic material can be used for biomass fuel without damaging soil carbon or exacerbating erosion and water quality is a delicate and variable calculus. But with due attention to the myriad variables and disciplined analysis, both corn stover and cane can sustain profitable enterprises – particularly for the sellers of improved germplasm! Jack Kiser (Sustainable Oils) described a very different approach, working with Camelina sativa, an oilseed related to canola. High in omega-3 fatty acids and polyunsaturated oils, Camelina oil can be used to produce biodiesel while the meal can be used for animal feed. Although transgenics promise numerous opportunities for improvement, classical and mutation breeding have so far barely been used, by no means fully harnessed. Take home message from the session: competition is stiff and success is complicated, but there are many possible paths to a green future. Giddings is a genetics PhD and  biotech consultant with nearly 30 years regulatory, media, and policy experience.  He was a Vice President for BIO Food & Agriculture from 1997 to 2006. 










Document Number: 2595

Today, the biotechnology industry is enjoying more success and influence than ever before. Our industry’s innovations continue to improve the lives of people worldwide, and the advancement of these innovations is supported by the work of BIO. But these are challenging times. Our continued success is not assured, and we must neither rest on past accomplishments nor retreat from new challenges.

At last year’s BIO International Convention, I sketched a bold vision of what I believed the industry must achieve: Greater access to our innovative medicines, at lower prices. Improvements in drug safety, ultimately at lower cost. The continued advancement of the agricultural revolution. The growth of renewable energy with low or near-zero carbon footprints. And a cleaner environment.

The industry—and BIO—witnessed major strides toward achieving these lofty goals over the past year and are today on a trajectory
to make even greater advancements in the year to come. And there is still much to do. Thanks in no small part to BIO’s world-class advocacy team, major FDA legislation passed that provides resources to strengthen post-market safety. We made the case against
raising Medicaid rebates and hastily enacting poorlyreasoned comparative effectiveness legislation, and we pressed for major energy legislation that tripled the mandate for renewable biofuels.

Our tenacity on the regulatory front was rewarded by FDA’s long-awaited risk assessment fi nding that food derived from cloned animals is safe—a major step forward for this technology. The coming year will bring even more opportunities for BIO to showcase the importance of biotechnology on a number of vital issues. Lawmakers are taking up key efforts affecting our industry, such as patent reform and follow-on biologics legislation. Come next January, a new administration will take over the White House and will undoubtedly bring a new perspective and new ideas to the troubled American health care system.

Whatever happens, change is certain, and BIO will be ready for it. BIO has an outstanding record of delivering the message of biotech innovation to federal and state policymakers across the country. But now it’s time to bring that message to a much broader public and to raise and to deepen the impact of that messaging. A BIO-sponsored public opinion survey found that while 78 percent of voters considered curing diseases as a top national issue, only 45 percent had a favorable opinion of the biotechnology companies on the forefront of this effort. However, nearly twice that number—86 percent—voiced favorable opinions of biotech after being told about the industry’s pioneering approaches to treating disease, creating alternative energy sources and combating worldwide hunger and malnutrition. So, why this disconnect? And more importantly, what will BIO do about it?

The work of biotechnology companies is incredibly challenging. With such challenge, there are inevitable disappointments.
Unfortunately, we often hear more about setbacks than progress; such is the unfortunate zeitgeist of the online age, where the negative and conspiratorial more readily dominate attention than the hopeful and true. This is far more than a public relations issue. It is clear that unless we proactively and compellingly present the facts about the benefits and potentials of biotechnology, vital innovations could be held back by public misinformation.











Document Number: 7153
Glossary of Agricultural Biotechnology Terms
Confused by biotech terminology? These terms and definitions will help readers better understand this complex – yet beneficial – science.
Agricultural Biotechnology: A range of tools, including traditional breeding techniques, that alter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to make or modify products; improve plants or animals; or develop microorganisms for specific agricultural uses. Modern biotechnology today includes the tools of genetic engineering.

Allergen: A substance, usually a protein, that can cause an allergy or allergic reaction in the body.

Allergy: A reaction by the body's immune system after exposure to a particular substance, often a protein.

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt): A soil bacterium that produces toxins that are deadly to some pests. The ability to produce Bt toxins has been engineered into some crops. See Bt crops. Biopharming: The production of pharmaceuticals such as edible vaccines and antibodies in plants or domestic animals.

Bt crops: Crops that are genetically engineered to carry a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The bacterium produces proteins that are toxic to some pests but non-toxic to humans and other mammals. Crops containing the Bt gene are able to produce this toxin, thereby providing protection for the plant. Bt corn and Bt cotton are examples of commercially available Bt crops.

Chromosome: The self-replicating genetic structure of cells, containing genes, which determines inheritance of traits. Chemically, each chromosome is composed of proteins and a long molecule of DNA.

Clone: A genetic replica of an organism created without sexual reproduction.

Cross-pollination: Fertilization of a plant with pollen from another plant. Pollen may be transferred by wind, insects, other organisms, or humans. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid): The chemical substance from which genes are made. DNA is a long, double-stranded helical molecule made up of nucleotides which are themselves composed of sugars, phosphates, and derivatives of the four bases adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T).

The sequence order of the four bases in the DNA strands determines the genetic information contained.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA): A technique using antibodies for detecting specific proteins. Used to test for the presence of a particular genetically engineered organism.

Field trial: A test of a new technique or variety, including biotech-derived varieties, done outside the laboratory but with specific requirements on location, plot size, methodology, etc.

Gene: The fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity. A gene is typically a specific segment of a chromosome and encodes a specific functional product (such as a protein or RNA molecule).

Gene expression: The result of the activity of a gene or genes which influence the biochemistry and physiology of an organism and may change its outward appearance.

Gene flow: The movement of genes from one individual or population to another genetically compatible individual or population.

Gene mapping: Determining the relative physical locations of genes on a chromosome. Useful for plant and animal breeding.

Gene (DNA) sequencing: Determining the exact sequence of nucleotide bases in a strand of DNA to better understand the behavior of a gene.
Genetic engineering: Manipulation of an organism's genes by introducing, eliminating or rearranging specific genes using the methods of modern molecular biology, particularly those techniques referred to as recombinant DNA techniques.

Genetically engineered organism (GEO): An organism produced through genetic engineering.

Genetic modification: The production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods. Some countries other than the United States use this term to refer specifically to genetic engineering.

Genetically modified organism (GMO): An organism produced through genetic modification.

Genetics: The study of the patterns of inheritance of specific traits.

Genome: All the genetic material in all the chromosomes of a particular organism.

Genomics: The mapping and sequencing of genetic material in the DNA of a particular organism as well as the use of that information to better understand what genes do, how they are controlled, how they work together, and what their physical locations are on the chromosome.

Genomic library: A collection of biomolecules made from DNA fragments of a genome that represent the genetic information of an organism that can be propagated and then systematically screened for particular properties. The DNA may be derived from the genomic DNA of an organism or from DNA copies made from messenger RNA molecules. A computer-based collection of genetic information from these biomolecules can be a "virtual genomic library."

Genotype: The genetic identity of an individual. Genotype often is evident by outward characteristics, but may also be reflected in more subtle biochemical ways not visually evident.

Herbicide-tolerant crops: Crops that have been developed to survive application(s) of particular herbicides by the incorporation of certain gene(s) either through genetic engineering or traditional breeding methods. The genes allow the herbicides to be applied to the crop to provide effective weed control without damaging the crop itself.

Hybrid: The offspring of any cross between two organisms of different genotypes.

Identity preservation: The segregation of one crop type from another at every stage from production and processing to distribution. This process is usually performed through audits and site visits and provides independent third-party verification of the segregation.

Insecticide resistance: The development or selection of heritable traits (genes) in an insect population that allow individuals expressing the trait to survive in the presence of levels of an insecticide (biological or chemical control agent) that would otherwise debilitate or kill this species of insect. The presence of such resistant insects makes the insecticide less useful for managing pest populations.

Insect-resistance management: A strategy for delaying the development of pesticide resistance by maintaining a portion of the pest population in a refuge that is free from contact with the insecticide. For Bt crops this allows the insects feeding on the Bt toxin to mate with insects not exposed to the toxin produced in the plants.

Insect-resistant crops: Plants with the ability to withstand, deter or repel insects and thereby prevent them from feeding on the plant. The traits (genes) determining resistance may be selected by plant breeders through cross-pollination with other varieties of this crop or through the introduction of novel genes such as Bt genes through genetic engineering.

Intellectual property rights: The legal protection for inventions, including new technologies or new organisms (such as new plant varieties). The owner of these rights can control their use and earn the rewards for their use. This encourages further innovation and creativity for the benefit of us all. Intellectual property rights protection includes various types of patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

Molecular biology: The study of the structure and function of proteins and nucleic acids in biological systems.

Mutation: Any heritable change in DNA structure or sequence. The identification and incorporation of useful mutations has been essential for traditional crop breeding.

Nucleotide: A subunit of DNA or RNA consisting of a nitrogenous base (adenine, guanine, thymine, or cytosine in DNA; adenine, guanine, uracil, or cytosine in RNA), a phosphate molecule, and a sugar molecule (deoxyribose in DNA and ribose in RNA). Many of nucleotides are linked to form a DNA or RNA molecule.

Organic agriculture: A concept and practice of agricultural production that focuses on production without the use of synthetic inputs and does not allow the use of transgenic organisms. USDA's National Organic Program has established a set of national standards for certified organic production which are available online.

Outcrossing: Mating between different populations or individuals of the same species that are not closely related. The term "outcrossing" can be used to describe unintended pollination by an outside source of the same crop during hybrid seed production.

Pest-resistant crops: Plants with the ability to withstand, deter or repel pests and thereby prevent them from damaging the plants. Plant pests may include insects, nematodes, fungi, viruses, bacteria, weeds, and other.

Pesticide resistance: The development or selection of heritable traits (genes) in a pest population that allow individuals expressing the trait to survive in the presence of levels of a pesticide (biological or chemical control agent) that would otherwise debilitate or kill this pest. The presence of such resistant pests makes the pesticide less useful for managing pest populations.

Phenotype: The visible and/or measurable characteristics of an organism (how it appears outwardly).

Plant breeding: The use of cross-pollination, selection, and certain other techniques involving crossing plants to produce varieties with particular desired characteristics (traits) that can be passed on to future plant generations.

Plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs): Pesticidal substances introduced into plants by genetic engineering that are produced and used by the plant to protect it from pests. The protein toxins of Bt are often used as PIPs in the formation of Bt crops.

Plant pests: Organisms that may directly or indirectly cause disease, spoilage, or damage to plants, plant parts or processed plant materials. Common examples include certain insects, mites, nematodes, fungi, molds, viruses, and bacteria.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR): A technique used to create a large number of copies of a target DNA sequence of interest. One use of PCR is in the detection of DNA sequences that indicate the presence of a particular genetically engineered organism.

Promoter: A region of DNA that regulates the level of function of other genes.

Protein: A molecule composed of one or more chains of amino acids in a specific order. Proteins are required for the structure, function, and regulation of the body's cells, tissues, and organs, and each protein has a unique function.

Recombinant DNA (rDNA): A molecule of DNA formed by joining different DNA segments using recombinant DNA technology.

Recombinant DNA technology: Procedures used to join together DNA segments in a cell-free system (e.g. in a test tube outside living cells or organisms). Under appropriate conditions, a recombinant DNA molecule can be introduced into a cell and copy itself (replicate), either as an independent entity (autonomously) or as an integral part of a cellular chromosome.

Ribonucleic Acid (RNA): A chemical substance made up of nucleotides compound of sugars, phosphates, and derivatives of the four bases adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and uracil (U). RNAs function in cells as messengers of information from DNA that are translated into protein or as molecules that have certain structural or catalytic functions in the synthesis of proteins. RNA is also the carrier of genetic information for certain viruses. RNAs may be single or double stranded.

Selectable marker: A gene, often encoding resistance to an antibiotic or an herbicide, introduced into a group of cells to allow identification of those cells that contain the gene of interest from the cells that do not. Selectable markers are used in genetic engineering to facilitate identification of cells that have incorporated another desirable trait that is not easy to identify in individual cells.

Selective breeding: Making deliberate crosses or matings of organisms so the offspring will have particular desired characteristics derived from one or both of the parents.

Traditional breeding: Modification of plants and animals through selective breeding. Practices used in traditional plant breeding may include aspects of biotechnology such as tissue culture and mutational breeding.

Transgene: A gene from one organism inserted into another organism by recombinant DNA techniques.

Transgenic organism: An organism resulting from the insertion of genetic material from another organism using recombinant DNA techniques.

Variety: A subdivision of a species for taxonomic classification also referred to as a 'cultivar.' A variety is a group of individual plants that is uniform, stable, and distinct genetically from other groups of individuals in the same species.
Vector: 1. A type of DNA element, such as a plasmid, or the genome of a bacteriophage, or virus, that is self-replicating and that can be used to transfer DNA segments into target cells. 2. An insect or other organism that provides a means of dispersal for a disease or parasite.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Note: These terms and definitions are intended for general educational purposes only. They are not intended to replace any definitions currently in use in any U.S. Government laws or regulations, nor are they legally binding on the actions of any Government agency. For specific definitions that apply to any law or regulation of any Government agency, please consult directly with that agency.










Document Number: 1242
Agriculture Biotechnology International Trade Fact Sheet
For a long time, BIO has been calling attention to the need for a comprehensive, long-term strategy for dealing with biotech trade issues.

Biotech-related agricultural trade problems are currently in the spotlight in Washington. U.S. agencies are devoting significant time and attention to bilateral trade problems with the European Union (EU), China and Korea, and to multilateral discussions in the Codex and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The House Biotechnology Caucus recently invited United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Robert Zoellick to meet with them to discuss trade problems with the EU. USTR has raised the possibility of initiating WTO dispute settlement proceedings against the EU regarding new product approvals.

For a long time, BIO has been calling attention to the need for a comprehensive, long-term strategy for dealing with biotech trade issues. The Administration has now recognized the need for such a strategy; a USTR strategy paper was recently distributed to interested agencies for consideration.

The USTR approach is reportedly consistent with BIO's recommendations in most respects. The paper lays out an aggressive strategy that should bring coherence to U.S. policy and allow the U.S. to make much better use of available tools for addressing issues. One potential problem: food company representatives are concerned by reports that USTR may be recommending compromises with the EU on labeling.

Essential elements of an effective trade strategy are as follows:

Lifting the EU moratorium on new product approvals. The EU has maintained for nearly four years a WTO-illegal moratorium on the approval of biotech products. The Commission is now promising to restart the approval process when new EU legislation will hopefully go into effect in October. If that does not happen, the U.S. should consider initiating WTO dispute settlement proceedings.
Resisting the adoption of EU traceability and labeling proposals. The U.S. should expand efforts to inform Member States and the European Parliament of U.S. objections to the Commission proposals on traceability and labeling and novel foods and feeds. USTR should prepare a WTO legal analysis of the proposals and make clear that the U.S. intends to exercise its WTO rights if the proposals are implemented as drafted. Moreover, the U.S. should make clear that it would be unacceptable for the EU to link lifting the moratorium on approvals to implementation of the new labeling and traceability rules.
International coalition building. The U.S. should work to build international support for the U.S. position on biotech trade issues. Meetings of the WTO, the Codex Alimentarius and various other international bodies provide ample opportunities for this effort.
Domestic regulatory reform: The U.S. government should adopt a rational, science-based policy on adventitious presence that could be used as an international model. Without such a policy the U.S. will find it increasingly difficult to persuade other countries to adopt similar measures and could be vulnerable to arbitrary restrictions on U.S. exports.










Document Number: 9671


Biotechnology... Fields of Benefits
Plant biotechnology contributes to sustainable agriculture by increasing food production without harming or depleting the Earth’s limited natural resources.
Canoloa
Enhanced Canola Helps Farmers Conserve Soil and Save Fuel
Thanks to new canola varieties improved through biotechnology, farmers can more frequently practice conservation tillage — a method of weed control that reduces their need to plow. Less plowing means less erosion, less run-off and fewer trips across the field. Enhanced canola also allows farmers to make fewer herbicide applications. This further reduces the number of trips they need to make, which lowers their consumption of fuel. These savings can be significant. In one year alone, farmers using conservation tillage practices with herbicide-resistant canola reduced their use of fuel by more than 14 million gallons. *

Corn
Plant Biotechnology Helps Enhance the Safety of Corn for Animal and Human Consumption
One of the benefits of crops improved through biotechnology such as corn,  is enhanced grain quality that helps to ensure food and feed safety. Research shows that the reduction of insect damage with use  of these improved corn varieties results in lower levels of grain contamination by mold and mycotoxins. Molds can produce dangerous fumonisin, one class of mycotoxins hazardous to animals and humans. Plant biotechnology helps the crop be resistant to certain insects and suppress fumonisin concentrations. Furthermore, reduced insect damage to these improved varieties also means the healthier corn plants may utilize soil nutrients more efficiently.

Soybeans
Plant Biotechnology Helps Farmers Better Manage Their Weeds
Throughout North America, Europe and other parts of the world, herbicides are used to keep weeds from robbing agricultural crops of the sunlight, moisture and nutrients they need to grow. In soybeans, for example, weeds are the greatest limiting factor for a successful crop. It’s no wonder then that American farmers have used herbicides on more than 95 percent of their soybean fields. Now farmers can reduce the amount of chemicals they put on their fields by planting crops improved through biotechnology. Herbicidetolerant soybeans, for example, allow farmers to control their weeds with a single, broad-spectrum herbicide they can apply without fear of damaging their beans.











Document Number: 9996

Biotech Food: Setting the Record Straight
"The offending piece in the Washington Post opens with an assertion that does violence to reality stating, 'In the absence of a federal law requiring labels for genetically modified food…'. What's wrong with this statement?"

Despite the fact that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack believes that the regulation of genetically engineered agricultural products must be science-based, and that he has “no doubts about the safety of the products this system has approved and will continue to approve,” some state legislatures are considering bills requiring labeling for biotech-derived food. These bills defy existing science-based regulation and are wholly unnecessary.

The leading scientific authorities recognized in the world – the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, the American Medical Association, the FAO and the World Health Organization – have all concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients pose no more risk to people than any other foods. Download the BIO food safety fact sheet (PDF).

All too often, though, the media creates controversy where there should be none.

In a recent post on the Innovation Policy Blog, Val Giddings works to set the record straight on a recent article in the Washington Post.

"The offending piece in the Washington Post opens with an assertion that does violence to reality stating, 'In the absence of a federal law requiring labels for genetically modified food…'. What's wrong with this statement?

"To begin with, virtually every food item that appears on a plate anywhere in the world is, quite literally, 'genetically modified.' With domesticated crops and livestock this should be self evident -- little or none of it looks like it's wild or ancestral counterparts -- I'll bet my children's college tuition funds that fewer than one in a hundred people would recognize the ancestor of corn, which was produced by genetic modification techniques at the hand of women over ten thousand years ago in Central America. So to assume that modern food derived from transgenic crops or livestock is fundamentally different from other foods in a way that is relevant to health, safety, or nutrition, is a starting point contradicted by facts. This has been recognized by governments around the world for decades (don't argue with me, take it up with the OECD, or the National Academies of Science of every country that has looked at the issue)."

It is time to elevate this discussion from anti-science rhetoric to a rational debate based on the facts.










Document Number: 4590
The Future of Food Needs to Include Biotech Crops
Despite the fact that coexistence is alive and well out in the farmland – and has been for decades – those who really know very little about “sustainable agriculture” are continuing their efforts to oppose biotechnology at all levels, and at whatever cost.

You might have heard that the Prince of Wales, just days after hosting the Royal Wedding, paid us a visit here in Washington.  Prince Charles, a long-time organic food advocate and self-described environmentalist, was here to speak at a Washington Post symposium on the Future of Food.

While it is, of course, perfectly fine that the event featured a parade of speakers extolling the virtues of “sustainable agriculture” and made their case for organic farming, it is unfortunate that the sponsors chose to provide such a one-sided perspective.  Most knowledgeable observers know that to feed a fast-growing and increasingly hungry world population while offering a wide range of food choices to those of us fortunate enough to buy luxury foods, we need room for agricultural practices of all sizes and there is plenty of room for biotech crops and organic farms.

In recent months, we have seen a formal call for coexistence among farmers and farming practices, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack declared coexistence a priority for the USDA. 

But for the food-activist corps – including a group militantly dedicated to restricting farmer and consumer choice – coexistence is unacceptable. Despite the fact that coexistence is alive and well out in the farmland – and has been for decades – those who really know very little about “sustainable agriculture” are continuing their efforts to oppose biotechnology at all levels, and at whatever cost.

For example, California already has a statewide ban on raising genetically engineered fish, and technology opponents are currently working to mandate the labeling of any GE fish that might be imported into the state.  The California measure fails to consider that if and when the Food and Drug Administration approve GE salmon, the petition only allows for the fish to be farmed at one inland farm in Panama.  Any future locations would have to be subsequently approved by the FDA. 

Some other states’ legislatures also are looking at labeling bills for biotech-derived food, despite the fact that the government has determined that biotech foods are no different from conventionally produced  foods, and therefore do not need to carry a different label.

It is time to elevate this discussion from vitrioloic and anti-science rhetoric to a rational debate based on the facts.  Bill Horan, a grain farmer from Rockwell City, Iowa, offers an honest, no-nonsense critique of the recent Washington Post event and provides readers with a bit of food for thought.... 










Document Number: 5550
Royal Skepticism Required
In a dynamic economy, there’s a role for all of us.
Prince Charles likes to talk about “sustainability” so much that he used a version of the word 32 times in his recent speech about farming at Georgetown University.

I didn’t attend the event because I was too busy planting crops here in Iowa. Commoners have to work for a living, after all. But I did find the time to read the text of his remarks. As I made my way through his address, the Prince of Wales turned me into the prince of wails--I wanted to howl in anguish over this man’s bizarre views of agriculture.

The prince loves organic food, which is fine. But he’s wrong to think it can save the world because it’s so inefficient.  A recent study by Steve Savage points out that if all farming in the United States went organic, we would need to add an amount of new cropland almost equal to the size of Spain to make up for the lower yields.

This is the very definition of “unsustainable”.

Who is this guy to lecture anybody on sustainability? Prince Charles flew to the United States on a private jet and traveled around Washington, D.C. with an armada-sized motorcade. As a reporter for the Washington Post noted puckishly, the engine of his SUV was left running while he was inside Georgetown’s Healy Hall.

Prince Charles was of course fresh from the lavish wedding of his son Prince William to Catherine Middleton. Perhaps you were one of the billions of people who are said to have watched the ceremony on television. What you may not have seen was the estimated price tag: $33 million. The Daily Mail, a London newspaper, called it “the most expensive security event staged in Britain.”

Say what you will about royal nuptials. They may be beautiful fairy-tale moments that dazzle imaginations or they may be the retrograde functions of an elite class that doesn’t deserve its privileges.

Whatever your opinion, let’s agree on a simple observation: Royal weddings are definitely not exercises in sustainability.

So when His Royal Highness decides to condemn my own way of farming as not sufficiently sustainable, I bring a little skepticism to the table.

Our fundamental dispute involves a conflict of visions. We have different ideas about what sustainable farming means.

On one of his many estates in England, the prince oversees an organic farm that puts out oaten biscuits, herbal tinctures, and other products. Here on my family farm in Iowa, I grow staple crops by using the tools of modern food production. One of them is biotechnology because genetically modified plants offer so many benefits, such as increased yields, protection against soil erosion, and a reduction in greenhouse gases.

Yet the prince insists that biotechnology “is not a genuinely sustainable form of agriculture.”

I’m happy to let Prince Charles pursue his hobby farm in Merrie Olde England. I just wish he’d extend the same courtesy to me and other farmers in the developed and the developing world as we try to meet the enormous demands of a hungry planet.

Farmers everywhere should enjoy the fundamental freedom to farm. That means allowing us to make our own choices about what to grow and how to grow it.

Some, like Prince Charles, may choose organic options, especially if they want to meet a market demand among upper-income consumers for more expensive food. Most of us, however, prefer to produce large amounts of affordable crops for everyday grocery-store shoppers.

In a dynamic economy, there’s a role for all of us.

Unfortunately, the prince disagrees. It’s galling to hear him praise “an economic model built upon resilience and diversity” and “policies which encourage more diversity”--and then, in the next breath, claim that my method of farming is all wrong.

Apparently diversity is wonderful as long as everybody does things the prince’s way.

In his speech, Prince Charles called for an approach to agriculture “that is capable of feeding the world with a global population rapidly heading for nine billion.” He’s right about that, though he should keep up with his news clips because shortly before he spoke demographers at the United Nations said that the world’s population will swell beyond 10 billion.

The point to remember, of course, is that this is a significant number. As the 21st century progresses, more people will demand more food. Satisfying them will require cutting-edge technologies--and that means letting farmers embrace a future of scientific innovation, rather than scorning them for refusing to hang on to old ways.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade and Technology.











Document Number: 9451
Increasing Global Food Security through Technology
With global food costs reaching such dangerous levels, ensuring a safe, affordable and abundant global food supply has never been as important as it is right now.

With almost 1 billion hungry people in the world, food prices reached a historic peak in February this year. Even with a slight dip in March, prices this month remain 36 percent above April 2010 and only two percent below the peak in February 2011.

“If we don't act now to increase the opportunities for food security, we may never catch up," warned United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a speech today about the latest Food Price Index released by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

With global food costs reaching such dangerous levels, ensuring a safe, affordable and abundant global food supply has never been as important as it is right now.

Major advances in agricultural biotechnology have made it possible to efficiently produce an abundance of food and help keep costs low. So, if biotech can increase crop yields and help control food prices, what’s preventing the world from adopting these practices?

One opinion says that some consumers think biotech crops are not as safe to eat as conventional crops. In a recent research review, Elanco President Jeff Simmons found otherwise:

“In fact, the research review conducted for this paper – including 28 independent surveys representing more than 97,000 people from 26 nations – exposes this myth. Taken together, these data show that about 95 percent of people are either neutral or fully supportive of using technology to produce their food.”

In addition, the leading scientific authorities recognized in the world – the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, the American Medical Association, the FAO and the World Health Organization – have all concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients pose no more risk to people than any other foods. Download the BIO food safety fact sheet.
Instead of continuing to debate whether or not people want “safe, modern and efficient technology used in food production,” it’s time to move forward with fully utilizing all of the advances we’ve made in agricultural biotech.

By the year 2050, global food production will need to double to head off mass hunger, according to the FAO. If we’re going to meet that challenge, biotechnology has to be part of the solution.











Document Number: 4027
Red Roses for Mother's Day? How About Something New, Something Blue?
Thanks to genetic engineering, flowers are heartier and last longer after they’re cut. And they come in a wider variety of shapes, sizes, scents and colors – even blue!
Most people have heard about how biotechnology can help produce new medicines to treat disease, or about how biotechnology can create fuel from grasses, wood chips, cornstalks, even algae!  And most people know that biotechnology is helping farmers around the world grow more food crops that are resistant to insects, plant diseases and environmental stresses.

But did you know that biotechnology is being used to improve flowers and has many applications in the floral industry?

Throughout history, plant breeders have cross-bred existing varieties of flowers to produce new species with different shapes, colors, disease resistance or other characteristics.  Today, biotechnology provides an even more precise science for enhancing flowers. 

Thanks to genetic engineering, flowers are heartier and last longer after they’re cut.  And they come in a wider variety of shapes, sizes, scents and colors – even blue!










Document Number: 5402
Biotech Beets: USDA Lets Farmers Resume Planting
Agency issues partial deregulation of Roundup Ready sugar beets while it prepares an environmental impact statement

The U.S. Department of Agriculture this month partially deregulated biotech sugar beets to allow spring planting to move forward. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service took this interim measure as it completes an environmental impact statement.

Roundup Ready sugar beets are engineered to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate. After APHIS granted nonregulated status to the seed crop in 2005, farmers quickly adopted Roundup Ready sugar beets. The technology enables them to control weeds without plowing or turning over the soil, which reduces the impact on the environment. But in recent years, genetically engineered sugar beets have been subject to ongoing litigation.

“After conducting an environmental assessment, accepting and reviewing public comments and conducting a plant-risk assessment, APHIS has determined that the Roundup Ready sugar beet root crop, when grown under APHIS imposed conditions, can be partially deregulated without posing a plant-pest risk or having a significant effect on the environment,” says Michael Gregoire, deputy administrator for APHIS’ biotechnology regulatory services. 

BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood supports the decision to partially deregulate the biotech sugar beets while APHIS completes its environmental impact statement, a lengthy process that’s expected to take until summer 2012.

“Sugar beets are planted on more than one million acres in 10 states and produce nearly half our nation’s sugar supply,” Greenwood says. “The ongoing litigation has created uncertainty for farmers, sugar producers, technology providers and researchers, which in turn has hurt our agriculture sector and rural economies.”

APHIS now allows the continued cultivation of the Roundup Ready sugar beets under carefully tailored measures. Growers must enter into a compliance agreement that outlines mandatory requirements for how the crop can be grown.

BIO hopes this partial deregulation, along with a recent decision made on Roundup Ready alfalfa, will spur new technologies. “Biotechnology can help crops thrive in drought-prone areas, improve the nutritional content of foods, grow alternative energy sources and improve the lives of farmers and rural communities around the globe,” Greenwood says.










Document Number: 7362
New Heights: Report Shows Continued Growth of Biotech Crops
ISAAA data shows countries around the world have embraced agricultural biotechnology

Farmers across the globe increasingly are planting genetically modified crops, according to a new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 

The ISAAA data contained within the report, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010, details the ongoing proliferation of biotech crops as the agricultural community continues to realize the benefits. Perhaps most encouraging: Developing countries are among the leaders when it comes to adopting biotech agriculture. 

In 2010, according to the report, biotech crop area grew 10 percent. That figure represents 34.6 million acres of farmland, bringing total acreage worldwide for GM crops to 366 million acres. 

The nonprofit ISAAA shares knowledge about crop biotechnology to educate the global community about the attributes and potential of new agricultural technologies. They have tracked global biotech crop trends since the first uses of these crops in 1996. 

“The 2010 ISAAA report proves once again that the global adoption of biotech crops — especially corn, soybeans and cotton — is on the rise as more and more farmers gain access to this beneficial technology,” says Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, BIO’s executive vice president for food and agriculture. “Agricultural biotechnology provides solutions for today’s growers in the form of plants that are more environmentally friendly while yielding more per acre, resisting diseases and insect pests, and reducing farmers’ production costs.” 

In the Developing World

Moreover, in the past year, biotech crops were being grown in 29 countries, up from 25 in 2009. Three countries — Myanmar, Pakistan and Sweden — began growing the crops commercially for the first time, while Germany resumed planting biotech crops after a brief hiatus. The statistics reflect the widening adoption of biotech crops.

In the 15 years since the commercialization of agri-biotech, GM crops have increased 87-fold, to become the fastest adopted crop technology in modern agriculture. 

“When you look at the rising number of acres of biotech crops planted each year, and the increasing number of farmers who have chosen this technology,” Lauritsen says, “it’s obvious that biotech crops are delivering value to more and more growers around the world.” 

The report’s findings suggest this to be particularly true in developing and low-resource nations. Overall, developing countries accounted for 48 percent of global biotech crops in 2010. The report predicts that this figure will increase and that developing countries will exceed industrialized nations in biotech crop production by 2015. 

Finally, ISAAA outlined factors that will be essential to further adoption of biotech crops: strong political support, appropriate and cost-effective regulatory systems, and the ability to make them available to the developing regions of the world.











Document Number: 3349
Market Watch: Revamped Website Offers Agri-Biotech Product Info
Overhauled BIOTradeStatus lets users search for the latest information on hundreds of products
BIO has launched a beefed-up version of its BIOTradeStatus online database of agricultural biotech products.

The revamped site offers up-to-date information, provided by participating companies, on the global authorization status of commercialized agri-biotech products for food, feed and cultivation. 

The site also combines information culled from the previous BIOTradeStatus.com and from BIOExport.net.

BIO hosts the database, and participating companies provide the information. The aim is to help biotechnology stakeholders and investors learn more about how agricultural biotech can be adopted and applied globally. Companies supplying information include BASF Plant Science, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta Seeds. 

The site offers new information and functions not previously available: 

Access: Searching the database is free. There are no username or password registration requirements.
Search: To peruse the site, visitors can use a variety of search criteria. Products and reports can be located using any combination of the following search categories: commodity, country, event, company, product or OECD Unique Identifier (a nine-digit alphanumeric code given to each transgenic plant approved for commercial use). 
Data: BIOTradeStatus offers wide and varied kinds of information, including single event or combined event information, authorization status, the different types of regulatory approvals provided by given countries and the current market status for a given product. The market status details how a product may be bought, sold or used in a specified country for cultivation and import. It also includes information about the most recent seed sales.  
Users can also access additional notes containing more in-depth explanations about a product’s authorization or commercial status. The notes are intended to provide supplemental information to help users; they are not promotional corporate materials. 

Additional help: BIOTradeStatus has links to other biotech information resources, such as the International Life Sciences Institute and the Center for Environmental Risk Assessment. 
It should be noted that BIOTradeStatus in no way provides a comprehensive listing of all agricultural biotech products.











Document Number: 317
By George: BIO Announces Feike Sijbesma its 2011 George Washington Carver Award Recipient
CEO of Royal DSM honored for innovation in industrial biotechnology. Award to be presented at World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioprocessing, May 9 in Toronto.

BIO has named Feike Sijbesma as the recipient of its 2011 George Washington Carver Award for innovation in industrial biotechnology.

A panel selected the Royal DSM CEO for leading his company's efforts to promote bio-based products over those relying on fossil-fuel resources. Sijbesma will receive the award and deliver a keynote address during a May 9 plenary lunch session at the BIO World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology & Bioprocessing. The conference is being held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.

"I am truly honored to receive the 2011 George Washington Carver Award for contributing to the progress and innovation of the industrial applications of biotechnology," Sijbesma said. "I am convinced that in the coming decades biotechnology will have an enormous contribution in addressing the worldwide issues around health, nutrition and environment."

The award is named after Carver, one of the founding fathers of the chemurgy movement, a branch of applied chemistry focused on preparing industrial products from raw agricultural materials. Biotechnology is the modern-day equivalent, and the award honors individuals for carrying on Carver’s legacy.

"The field has developed in ways that Carver may never have imagined, but the work of industrial biotech companies remains true to the goal of a sustainable bio-economy," says Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section.

Royal DSM wants to speed the transition to a bio-economy, a global approach to manufacturing and living based on resources derived from biotechnology as opposed to fossil fuels.

"At Royal DSM, we are committed to make a lasting and sustainable difference to the world in which we live," Sijbesma elaborated. "Biotechnology will enable us to combine our knowledge of life sciences with materials sciences to provide brighter lives for people today and generations to come."

The company's work emphasizes three main areas. The first is developing alternative fuels. A new enzyme and yeast technology created by Royal DSM has made second-generation biofuel — fuel derived from plants grown on land that is not suitable for food cultivation — a commercially viable resource for the first time.

Second, the company has partnered with Roquette, a French starch and starch derivatives company, to make bio-succinic acid. Bio-succinic acid is a key chemical building block in producing foods, resins and polymers; its use eliminates the need for the hydrocarbon ingredients traditionally used in these products.

Last, Royal DSM is attempting to develop plastics that produce a much lower eco footprint. Included in their growing portfolio of bio-based industrial products is EcoPaXX, a high-grade engineering plastic made from castor beans. This product, and others like it, can be used in the toughest settings and outperforms traditional alternatives in terms of durability and functionality.










Document Number: 7429

Plant Biotechnology: Containment Analysis and Critical Control Point (CACCP) Plan
Handbook for Understanding and Implementing the Containment Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan for the Production of Plant-Made Pharmaceuticals and Plant-Made Industrial Products
This Containment Analysis and Critical Control Point (CACCP) plan supports the production of plant-made pharmaceuticals (PMP) or plant-made industrial products (PMIP) in transgenic plants.

A number of host plant systems are being utilized for the production of PMPs and PMIPs including alfalfa, lemna, maize, rice, safflower and tobacco. Each host plant system has unique characteristics that are favorable to the production of PMPs and PMIPs; each system also requires well-defined and controlled containment procedures to ensure the integrity of production and to prevent release and propagation of the transgenic plant outside its controlled manufacturing operations.

The CACCP plan is based on the precepts embodied in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) approaches and was prepared in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) examples and guidance from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) on HACCP plans for the food industry.









Document Number: 4462
Animal Safety

Bt products are found to be safe for use in the environment and with mammals. The EPA (environmental protection agency) has not found any human health hazards related to using Bt. In fact the EPA has found Bt safe enough that it has exempted Bt from food residue tolerances, groundwater restrictions, endangered species labeling and special review requirements. Bt is often used near lakes, rivers and dwellings, and has no known effect on wildlife such as mammals, birds, and fish.

Humans exposed orally to 1000 mg/day for 3-5 days of Bt have showed no ill effects. Many tests have been conducted on test animals using different types of exposures. The results of the tests showed that the use of Bt causes few if any negative effects. Bt does not persist in the digestive systems of mammals.

Bt is found to be an eye irritant on test rabbits. There is very slight irritation from inhalation in test animals which may be caused by the physical rather than the biological properties of the Bt formulation tested.

Bt has not been shown to have any chronic toxicity or any carcinogenic effects. There are also no indication that Bt causes reproductive effects or birth defects in mammals.

Bt breaks down readily in the environment. Because of this Bt poses no threat to groundwater. Bt also breaks down under the ultraviolet (UV) light of the sun.

Even with such widespread use of Bt-based products in the past 50 years, only two incidents of repored allergic reaction have been reported to the EPA. In the first incident, it was concluded that the exposed individual was suffering from a previously diagnosed disease. The second involved a person that had a history of life-threatening food allergies.Upon investigation, it was found that the formulation of Bt also contained carbohydrate and preservatives which have been implicated in food allergy.

 	 
 	
Reference: Bacillus thuringiensis: Biology, Ecology and Safety, Glare, T.R., O'Callaghan, M. (2000) ISBN 0-471-49630-8










Document Number: 598
Bt Cotton Data

For cotton growers, there was a lot of pressure from pests before the introduction of Bt cotton in 1996. Due to synthetic pesticide resistance, farmers were losing much of their cotton to tobacco budworms, cotton bollworms, and pink bollworms.



In 1995, attacks from these pests reduced U.S. cotton yields by over 4%, or by over a quarter billion dollars worth of cotton. In some states such as Alabama, budworm damage reduced Alabama yields by 29% despite growers applying the highest applications of insecticide in the US.

 

 



Reduction in Pesticide Control Costs:

It is estimated that the average cost reduction in pesticides applied on Bt cotton fields from 1996 to 1998 is between $25 and $65 per acre.

Increased Yield:

Bt cotton planted from 1996 to 1998 is estimated to have yielded 5% more on average than if traditional cotton would have been planted.


Price Effect:

It is estimated that prices are .8/lb. lower from increased production due to Bt technology.

Combined, Bt Cotton and Non-Bt Cotton Comparisons: 
(Combined includes both Bt and non Bt acreages)



Decrease in synthetic pesticide use on certain pests.

The use of Bt cotton has decreased the need for foliar spray on pink bollworm drastically.

Overall Bt cotton requires less foliar spray than acres with no Bt cotton and acres with combination of Bt cotton and non Bt cotton.



Decrease in Pest control cost.

Use of Bt cotton has significantly decreased the cost of insecticides in Arizona.

Additional Resources:

Ellsworth, P.C. & J. Jones. 200-. Arizona Cotton Insect Losses. The University of Arizona, Cooperative Extension. Web Publication #AZ1183. Tucson, AZ. URL: http://ag.arizona.edu/crops/cotton/insects/cil/cil.html

"Effects of Bt Cotton Adoption: Regional Differences in Producer Costs and Returns" Final Research Project Report Cotton Incorporated. January 1999 by George Frisvold, Russell Tronstad, Jorgen Mortensen. The University of Arizona, Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics.










Document Number: 8073
Millions of acres of insect-resistant crops, including cotton, corn and potatoes are planted in the United States each year. These crops contain a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. The plants produce insecticidal proteins to provide an effective, environmentally safe pest control.

As a consumer of these crops in the United States, you may have concerns and questions regarding these crops.

Here are some short answers to some FAQs. If you wish to learn more, click on the links on the left to explore Bt.

FAQ

What is Bt?	Does Bt harm monarch butterflies?
Is Bt safe in my food?	Why use Bt?
Is Bt safe for the environment?	What is a crystal protein?
How is use of Bt regulated?	What are some Bt concerns?
Where is Bt used?	What is the future of Bt?
What are Bt proteins?

Bt stands for the naturally occurring bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Bt lives in the soil and is found all over the world. Some types of Bt produce a protein crystal that is toxic to insects. These protein crystals have been used in organic farming for over 50 years to control insects. The genes producing these proteins are now engineered so that plants can make the protein in their cells.

Learn more about Bt
What is a protein crystal


Are Bt proteins safe in my food?
Bt has been found to be safe to all mammals, birds, and fish. Bt is very selective and is only toxic to specific insects.



Resources: 
EPA
Bacillus thuringiensis: Biology, Ecology and Safety
Glare, T.R., O'Callaghan, M. (2000) ISBN 0-471-49630-8

Are Bt proteins safe for the environment?

Bt is safer to the environment than synthetic pesticides. Unlike synthetic pesticides, Bt is selective and will only kill specific insects. This may help beneficial insects because Bt does not target them.

Bt transgenic crops has been shown to reduce the amount of insecticides in runoffs.



Reference:
USDA
Bacillus thuringiensis: Biology, Ecology and Safety
Glare, T.R., O'Callaghan, M. (2000) ISBN 0-471-49630-8

How is use of Bt proteins regulated?

The EPA in the United States regulates the use of Bt crops. Rules and regulations have been set for farmers that want to use Bt crops.



Where are Bt proteins used?

Bt is used in sprays by organic farmers.
Bt is used in transgenic crops all over the world.
Bt is used in sprayings over urban areas (vector control) to control mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects.



Does Bt harm monarch butterflies?

No.



Resources: 
EPA
USDA Research Q&A: Bt Corn and Monarch Butterflies
USDA Bt Corn Not a Threat to Monarchs

Why use Bt proteins?

Bt is used to help reduce environmental damages by acting as a substitute to synthetic pesticides. It can also help increase crop gains.



What is a crystal protein?

Aggregates of proteins made byt Bt that builds up to form a crystal.



What are some Bt protein concerns?

Insect resistance is one of the biggest concerns with Bt. Up till now, resistance in the field have been very rare. But laboratory studies have shown that insects are capable of developing resistance. It is only a matter of time when insects in the field develop resistance to Bt.

Learn more about resistance


What is the future of Bt?

With the increased use of Bt, there is a likelihood that insects will develop resistance to Bt. Scientists all over the world are working to understand Bt and resistance to prevent this from happening.











Document Number: 5421
Bt GM (genetically modified) crops

Since 1996 plants have been modified with short sequences of genes from Bt to express the crystal protein Bt makes. With this method, plants themselves can produce the proteins and protect themselves from insects without any external Bt and/or synthetic pesticide sprays. In 1999, 29 million acres of Bt corn, potato and cotton were grown globally. It has been estimated that by using Bt protected cotton, the United States was able to save approximately $92 million.

Bt GM crops are protected specifically against European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, pink bollworm and the Colorado potato beetle. Other benefits attributed to using Bt include:

Reduced environmental impacts from pesticides  When the plants are producing the toxins in their tissues there is no need to spray synthetic pesticides or apply Bt mixtures topically.
Increased opportunity for beneficial insects  Bt proteins will not kill beneficial insects.
Reduced pesticide exposure to farm workers and non-target organisms.

Potential risks to using Bt:

Invasiveness  Genetic modifications, through traditional breeding or by genetic engineering can potentially change the organism to become invasive. Few introduced organisms become invasive, yet its a concern for the users.
Resistance to Bt - The biggest potential risk to using Bt-crops is resistance. Farmers have taken many steps to help prevent resistance.
Cross-contamination of genes - Although unproven, genes from GM crops can potentially introduce the new genes to native species.








Document Number: 5381 
Document Title: Debate on GMOs Luxury to Developing World
Food is at the bottom of the pyramid of human needs according to Maslows hierarchy, yet global hunger is extremely prevalent in developing nations and contributes significantly towards mortality and morbidity. Starving children in Africa seems especially ironic when compared with the obvious trend in child obesity and eating disorders in the United States. However, developed nations have the luxury of free time that nourishes innovations, and collaborative efforts between these countries are mandatory to find quick yet enduring solutions to solve hunger crises.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are currently a heated topic among both scientists and politicians, but for the inhabitants of the sub-Saharan Africa, this rhetoric is completely irrelevant. Impoverished countries are given the best opportunity if sustainable agricultural methods are introduced, but naturally there are a variety factors that cause impediments to progress. Perhaps one of the most viable concerns with the utilization of genetically modified (GM) food crops is the chance that the transgenic organisms may cross-hybridize with neighboring farms or with the natural vegetation. Plants are often quite amenable to crossing with even distantly related species; therefore this would be one of the most important considerations in growing GMOs.
There are a variety of proposed methods for addressing the problem of cross-hybridization, but one that is both feasible as well as controversial is through the use of terminator technology. Terminator technology involves the use of modern recombinant DNA techniques to produce seeds that are only able to grow a single season. Transgenic plants would be sterile upon maturity while still maintaining the same nutritional content. Three genes are incorporated into the plant genome to produce this result: a gene that encodes the tetracycline repressor, a recombinase protein gene, and a gene which is turned on in late embryogenesis that leads to sterility. These genetic manipulations are relatively basic and widely employed in the field of molecular biology. Therefore, while the fear may be that terminators place too much power in the hands of the distributor, competition from industrialized economies would keep prices low and provide incentive for high quality products. Through the use of terminator technologies in combination with crops bearing other genetic enhancements, available land and resources could be efficiently put to use for human consumption while also protecting the surrounding vegetation.









Document Number: 4078 
Document Title: Bt Cotton in Warangal district, Andhra Pradesh, India: The farmers story

May 24, 2007
We met about 20 Bt cotton growing farmers from different villages such as Kadipikonda (Hanumakonda Mandal), Kapulakanaparthi (Sangyem Mandal), Dharmaram (Beejakonda Mandal), Uggonipalli and Ustarapalli (both in Atmakur Mandal), and Yellampalli (Chityala Mandal) in the Warangal District. Three or four farmers we met have abandoned their non-Bt crop in the face of very severe pest infestation, though this was a low-pest pressure year. Rain fed crop allows only two pickings while the irrigated crop provides for at least three pickings. The acreage of each farmer varied from one to five, though a few cultivate 10 acres or more. Not being properly guided and not being sure of what to choose, in the face of several Bt varieties, the farmers planted a different variety on each acre, in the hope of choosing the best for the next year.
Almost no one planted a refugium. Three pesticide sprays being the norm, one did not spray any pesticide at all, while one sprayed eight times in an anxiety to provide greater protection to the crop. Untimely rain damaged the crop in several places in the District. There were problems of germination, some varieties were susceptible to virus disease or the grey mildew and there was a higher incidence of jassid and white fly in some areas. They expect an income of Rs. 6,000 (rain fed) to 10,000 (irrigated) per acre and seemed satisfied with it. Some farmers are cultivating even the illegal Bt bought in Maharashtra in the hope of realizing an unrealistically high yield of up to 15 quintals. Farmers do not believe that sheep died out of eating Bt cotton and asserted that no farmer committed suicide on account of Bt cotton.
One farmer owning 12 acres grows cotton on eight acres. On three acres, he is growing Bollgard II (the two gene stacked BGII). He bought the seed in Nanded, Maharashtra, as BGII was not approved for AP and is very happy with this variety. On one acre he is growing Bt cotton variety Brahma, and on another MECH 12, both of which also were not approved for AP.
The farmers have no thought of crop rotation and intercropping that would have reduced pest damage, as they hope to earn more from continuous cotton cropping.
One serious complaint was that the banks which advanced crop loans deducted some amount as insurance premium but did not pay compensation for crop losses, an unfair practice. Another complaint was that some dealers mislead farmers by telling that their Bt seed does not need any pesticide spray.
We have also visited the Yaenabaavi village, widely publicized for its management of agriculture without chemical inputs and without Bt cotton, discussed on this blog earlier (January 25, 2007).
The Bottom Line
There have been certain instances of suboptimal performance of Bt cotton in the Warangal District and elsewhere. The causes for this lie not in the Bt technology per se, but in management. All the important players such as the Government (not controlling illegal and spurious seed and no seed certification policy), Bt event developers (not choosing appropriate varieties for specific regions), the seed dealers (insufficient post-sale guidance and crop monitoring), and the farmers (cutting edges and not adopting appropriate cultivation practices), have contributed to certain deficiencies in the crop outcome. The NGOs play on these problems of management and project an over blown picture of Bt cotton disaster to the world. What the farmer ultimately earns depends not on just the crop yield but on the market forces on the day of sale of cotton. The Government should ensure that the farmer gets a fair price which necessitates the elimination of middlemen.
In the semi-arid Telengana region and similar areas, the most important negative factor is growing cotton in red soil and that too as a rain fed crop. This is in spite of the advice of the AP Department of Agriculture which had cautioned against the practice a long time ago, particularly in areas where the annual rain fall was less than 60 cm and not distributed uniformly during the crop season. There is a very striking difference between Bt cotton grown as a rain fed and irrigated crop, as between Bt and non-Bt crop. Whatever the enthusiasm of the farmer, cotton cannot be grown profitably everywhere.
Compulsory registration of Bt seed developers and their seed plots, permitting the sale of only authentic Bt cotton seed exclusively through Government recognized outlets and providing for adequate and appropriate farmer education would immensely improve the situation.
In the ideological and political campaign against Bt cotton, truth and facts are the prime casualties and the ultimate sufferer is the farmer, for whose benefit every one claims to be working.










Document Number: 9491 
Document Title: Control of Bt Cotton Seed Price by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, India
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under Guest Biotech Blogs

By Dr. C Kameswara Rao
FBAE Biotech Blog 
June 30, 2007
The Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP) is issuing an Ordinance restricting the maximum sale price of 400 g of Bt cotton seed required for an acre to Rs. 750. The package also includes 50 g of non-Bt cotton seed to plant the refugium. This Ordinance is being bought in to ostensibly protect the farmer, after the Central Government removed cotton from the protected list of essential commodities.
The Ordinance applies to the whole State, but the focus is on the Warangal District, the fountain head of all anti-GE activism. In the climate of appeasement politics, the State Government gains some brownie points from the Ordinance, but in effect this does not help the farmer much. The AP Government should be doing several other things for the benefit of the farmers










Document Number: 8179 
Document Title: Bt cotton in Warangal district, Andra Pradesh, India: The perception of the establishment

By C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
At Hyderabad, we visited the Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency. We met with Scientific Officers of the Warangal Research Station of the Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University of AP., the Officers at the District Office of the Government Department of Agriculture, Warangal and the dealers of Seeds and Pesticides, Warangal.
1. Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad
The Seed Certification Agency of the Government of AP is totally out of the picture as Bt cotton seed was not officially notified. Certification of any seed is voluntary and no one applied for certification of Bt cotton seed. While there are facilities with the Agency for testing genetic purity including the Bt event, most of the time seed certification is confined to seed viability and germination studies. Only six to eight parental lines, some imported from Russia and Cambodia, seem to be involved in the production of over 200 cotton hybrids in the country. With no information on the pedigree of most of these varieties, there appears to be some confusion in understanding and distinguishing varieties and hybrids.
2. Scientific Officers of the Agricultural Research Station, of the Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University of AP, at Warangal
The Scientific Officers of the Agricultural Research Station, ANGRAU at Warangal, informed us that public institutions did not go all out to recommend Bt cotton, nor spoke against it, as they do not wish to get involved in any kind of public controversy. In addition, the level of understanding of transgenic technology, even among the agricultural scientists, is often far from desirable.
Officers know that most farmers, not being sure of any, used two or three different Bt varieties. Generally, refugium was not planted as farmers do not want to lose that much of the crop and also because there is a considerable area under non-Bt around the Bt cotton fields, which they inappropriately considered as the refugium. Since 2006-07 was a low pest pressure year, chemical inputs on Bt crop were considerably lower than even the previous year. In the Warangal district, cotton was recently afflicted with a) the black arm bacterial disease, b) grey mildew and c) the tobacco streak virus, rarely known in earlier years. A soil borne root rot disease affected not just cotton, but also maize, red gram and chillies. The Scientists do not relate any of these diseases to the Bt gene.
3. Warangal District Office of the Department of Agriculture
The Officers of the District Agricultural Office (DAO), Warangal, told us that the seed sellers inform them about the Bt seed varieties being marketed. One Joint Director and four Deputy Directors monitor cultivation. The DAO confirmed that for the past two years 95 per cent of cotton in the Warangal District was Bt and that chemical pesticide application came down by over 50 per cent. The yield averaged eight quintals per acre of Bt while it was two to three quintals from non-Bt varieties.
The DAO does not consider that sheep death can be attributed to Bt cotton as sheep used to die even before, may be due to pesticides.
A local agriculture correspondent of a vernacular daily also told us that he does not believe that the Bt crop failed or sheep die due to foraging on Bt cotton stubble.
The DAO has records of payment of compensation on claims of cotton crop failure to the tune of Rs. 3.27 crore, at the rate of Rs. 1,400 per acre, during the past couple of years, of which the Excel Company alone paid Rs. 2.5 crore. With such a big incentive, most of the protests appear to be orchestrated and even those farmers, who did not suffer crop losses, either willingly or under pressure claimed compensation or got it.
In the Warangal field trials of several varieties of BGI and BGII (with two Bt genes) are going on with appropriate check varieties.
4. Seed and Pesticide Dealers
We met about a dozen Seed and Pesticide Dealers on the Station Road in Warangal. Bt cotton seed required for one acre, was sold at Rs. 750. Farmers have preference to certain Bt cotton varieties.
During the 2006-07 crop season chemical pesticide sales were down by 60 per cent, to about Rs. 3 crore from Rs. 7 to 8 crore. The health of the farm workers has certainly improved on account of reduced exposure to chemicals.
The dealers are not averse to regulated development and sale of Bt cotton seed to eliminate black market, which is dominated by the fly-by-night operators.
The dealers do not consider that sheep died on eating Bt cotton stubble. They are also certain that no farmer committed suicide on account of Bt cotton.
The Scientists of ANGRAU and the Officers of the DAO are very much concerned with the problems the farmers face. They certainly know what should be done to help the farmers in maximizing the benefits out of cultivation of Bt cotton. However, NGO backed controversies and political complications at the State Governmental level, deter them from participating actively.
The co-operation of the Seed and Pesticide dealers is the key factor in ensuring that only authentic seed is available to the farmers.










Document Number: 938 
Document Title: Bt cotton in Warangal District, Andhira Pradesh, India: The NGO charge sheet


By C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
May 24, 2007
Lately, the Warangal District, in the semi-arid Telengana region of the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP), India, has become the epicenter of everything going bad in the cultivation of Bt cotton. Reports of phenomenal failure of Bt cotton, farmer distress, death of sheep, death of cattle and alleged farmer suicides have show cased the Warangal District as an example of all that could go wrong with modern agriculture. Anti-tech activism has extrapolated all this to the other parts, in and out of AP, such as Vidharbha region of Maharashtra. A rational and scientific assessment does not support such an intensely negative outcome from Bt cotton cultivation. To assess the ground realities first hand, Professor Ronald Herring, Cornell University, Ithaca, Dr S Shantharam, Biologistics International, of USA, and I, have visited the Warangal District for about a week in the middle of December 2006.
Before going to Warangal, we visited the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Hyderabad/ Secunderabad and the Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad, for a first hand assessment of opinions and reports.
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA)
The CSA are the main anti-Bt cotton activists in AP. The two functionaries of CSA we met raised the following issues against Bt cotton:
a) Economical and technical features not up to the mark: What is the mark and whose mark? There is certainly no serious deficiency in basic technical features and performance of Bt cotton. Achieving maximum economic benefits from a crops potential depends upon several local factors, such as the soil type, irrigation facility, weather conditions in a particular season that influence pest pressure, and the awareness of the farmer in adopting appropriate cultivation practices. There has been a phenomenal increase in the acreage under Bt cotton, year after year, even in Warangal District. The Bt cotton acreage increased from 2.27 lakh in 2005 to 8.30 lakh in 2006 in the AP, from 6.23 to 18.40 in Maharashtra, and from 1.27 million to 3.8 million in the country, during the same period. The horror stories of failure of Bt cotton in AP and Maharashtra do not reconcile with statistics from diverse sources.
b) Promises on reduction of pesticide use, yield increase and higher profit not realized: No evidence was offered other than perceptions and opinions. This is contrary to all reports, and feed back from the farmers, which indicate that Bt cotton, did substantially reduce pesticide use, increased yield by preventing loss due to bollworm, which enhanced profits, all reflected in the increase of acreage.
c) There was no environmental and socio-economic impact assessment: Studies prior to commercialization in India and elsewhere for over a decade, have not indicated any adverse environmental impact. The socio-economic impact is rooted in a tension free cultivation and higher financial returns, which were realized by the farmers to a great extent, when the cultivation conditions and practices were right and the expectations were not unrealistic. If the farmers from any part of the country suffer losses, they would immediately dump any technology and this has not happened.
d) Spurious seed in authentic packaging: This is a serious problem of marketing throughout the country. Some greedy farmers and unscrupulous dealers have sustained a vast market for illegal and/or spurious Bt cotton seeds, which has affected all others. Scientists of the Agricultural Research Station (ARS), of the Acharya NG. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU, Hyderabad), at Warangal, also expressed concern over this issue. The Governments in different States have taken remedial measures, but there was some laxity on account of political compulsions.
e) No authentic information on cultivation practices: This is partly true, as the seed dealers did not always provide adequate and appropriate post-sale monitoring and guidance in most places. There were mistakes in choosing the Bt varieties suitable for a particular area. A large proportion of the farmers did not plant refugia, which should have been enforced. The Officers of the ARS, ANGRAU at Warangal, also feel that the farmers need regular guidance on the choice of seed varieties and on crop cultivation methods.
f) No studies on the efficacy of Bt technology in controlling bollworm: This is totally baseless. Bt cotton was mainly developed to control bollworm and its efficacy has been demonstrated all over the world and so in India too.
g) All India coordinated field trials only on agronomical parameters: Not true again. The mandatory all India coordinated trials were conducted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Both agronomical parameters and biosafety issues were evaluated during different field trials, which were accepted by the Review Committee for Genetic Modification (RCGM), before recommending to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for commercialization.
h) Andhra Pradesh has neither State nor the District Committees mandatory under the regulatory regime of GE crops: This is an administrative lapse, though AP is not alone in this. Cultivating any genetically engineered crop without these committees to oversee and monitor is highly irregular. Nevertheless, it is hard to form scientifically competent committees at the State and District levels. It seems necessary to review the purpose, need and practicability of such committees.
i) Death of sheep: At the time of our discussion, death of sheep was the major issue and the number of dead sheep mentioned was 120, but not in thousands. The death of goats and cattle on account of consuming Bt cotton leaves, and farmer suicides on account of cultivating Bt cotton, was not yet made an issue. The death of cattle in the Warangal District was discussed on this blog earlier (March 14, 2007). However, like Professor Herring, one would be amazed to note that the number of both dead cows and dead sheep became 1600, which also seems to be the number of dead cows mentioned on a poster in Delhi, in a different context.
j) The undercurrent: The strongest undercurrent behind the tirade against Bt cotton is the anti-Monsanto campaign. The NGOs have a tongue-in-cheek admiration for the performance of Navabharaths illegal Bt cotton, which contained the stolen Monsantos Cry 1Ac gene. Almost every other Bt cotton variety contains the same sublicensed gene. If Monsantos Cry 1Ac dominates the Indian Bt cotton scene, the fault lies more with the public sector which has not yet released any of the promised Bt cotton varieties.
There is a certain element of truth and genuineness of concern in what the NGOs say, but distortion of facts, exaggeration of problems and scaremongering ruin their case. The anti-tech activists are stretching them too far from science to pursue their political agenda of GM-Free India, and in the process are throwing the baby out with the bath water.










Document Number: 4352 
Extra-judicial protests on GMOs decried
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

An article appearing elsewhere on this blog, and which has been adapted from the Australian-based ABC News, reports that Gene Ethics, a nongovernmental organization opposed to crop genetic engineering, has mapped farmers growing genetically modified canola.
The map lists their names and location of their farms. The Victorian Farmers Federation has issued a press statement condemning the tactic as amounting to bullying.
This is a disgraceful and unsubstantiated witch hunt and shows how few ethics, Gene Ethics really have, Says VFF President, Simon Ramsay.
This incident reminds me of an article I read two weeks ago featuring Howard Atkinson complaining that research institutions in Britain are spending more money guarding field trials of genetically modified crops than in research proper.
Mr. Atkinson said a field trial of genetically modified potato cost Leeds University 25,000 pounds. And additional six-figure bill went to security. What a waste!
The Australian and the Leeds incidents have one thing in common: anti-technology activists are fast resorting to extra-judicial measures to thwart crop genetic engineering.
Rudimentary tactics being practiced by these groups are unacceptable in todays world. People might have concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but I dont think resorting to violence or blackmail is the most sensible thing to do. Let the world engage in a civil debate about GMOs.
GMOs are products of natural science. Natural science demands that every claim be scientifically substantiated. When anti-technology activists make claims against GMOs, they should ground such in science. And they dont have to do it themselves. Since theyre good in mobilization, they can line up scientists to do it. They can even sponsor research: Theyve huge budgets to do so. This is the most civil way of engaging in the debate about GMOs, not engaging in hooliganism, which trivializes the whole debate.
Food security is an important issue that must be discussed soberly. On this blog, Ive repeatedly stated that everything must be on the table when it comes to ensuring global food security. If organic farming can help reduce hunger and malnutrition, so be it. If GMOs can do the same, so be it. We shouldnt have a bunch of activists dictating to farmers the kind of farming to practice.










Document Number: 4739
Prince of Wales under fire for his anti-GMOs stance
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

The Prince of Wales is in hot soup for claiming genetically modified crops have set the word on course for the biggest disaster, environmentally, of all time.
In an interview with the Telegraph, last week, Prince Charles sensationally accused gigantic corporations of meddling with nature and urged them to spare the world the cataclysmic repercussions that might arise from genetic modification of crops.
Prince Charles rantings against GM crops, however, have come under harsh criticism from government officials, politicians, the media and scientists for their ludicrous tinge.
British Environment Minister Phil Woolas has challenged Prince Charles to provide evidence to the effect that genetically modified crops are a disaster. Woolas, in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, affirmed that the government had a moral responsibility to investigate whether GM crops could help alleviate hunger in the developing world. And the minister warned the Prince of Wales not to politicize the issue of GM crops.
Alison Smith, Professor of Plant Biochemistry at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, accused Prince Charles of inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.
He (Prince) seems to be ranting about GM crops, urbanisation, globalisation and even hybrid plants. He is inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.
The Times, in an editorial, said Prince Charles views on genetically modified crops were ill-informed, alarmist and anti-science. his apocalyptic predictions of the effect of genetically modified crops do not enhance public debate, but degrade it, noted the hard-hitting editorial.
British Labor MP, Des Turner, fumed that its entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject this (GM crops) out of hand.
Liberal Democratic Phil Willis, whos also the chairman of the all-party Commons science committee, echoed the same sentiment and warned: Prince Charles lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering.
Prince Charles did have supporters. Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association did issue an oblique statement supporting the Prince of Wales views that GM crops would not help solve the food crisis.
This is a self-denial statement. Ive always argued, on this blog and elsewhere, that criticism of crop genetic engineering is warranted as long its constructive and scientifically grounded. When somebody, for instance, claims that GM crops would not help solve the food crisis, one is left to wonder what happened to the truth. Just the same way I condemn this, Ill also take issue with anybody who might claim that organic farming cannot help in solving the food crisis. Theyve a role to play, just like GM crops have an important contribution to make in enhancing global food security.
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has just released a report that shows GM crops cultivation recorded a 12 per cent growth from 2006-2007. The number of countries growing GM crops also increased to 23. These are hard facts that cannot easily wished away.
Realistically speaking, therefore, one can safely say that these crops are making significant contribution to global food security. This is an undeniable fact that those who support and oppose GM crops must acknowledge.
For the Prince of Wales and anti-technology organizations to deny that agricultural biotechnology is making significant contribution to global food security is wrong. Acknowledging facts as theyre, perhaps, is the best way to handle the debate about cons and pros of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).










Document Number: 6333
African scientist honored for her work in agriculture
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

An African scientist has been honored for her work in promoting sustainable agriculture in Africa. Prof. Florence Wambugu, who heads the Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation, last week scooped the 2008 YARA prize for the African Green Revolution.
Prof. Wambugu was recognized for promoting the use of tissue culture in banana farming in mainly Kenya. The technology has dramatically improved the standards of living of millions of small-scale farmers in the country and other African countries.
Prof. Wambugu is an exceptional, brilliant and selfless woman. After receiving her education in the U.S. and UK, she declined lucrative jobs there to go back to Africa to help it improve its agriculture. This is uncommon to most Africans who go to Western countries to study. Most, if not all, opt to take up well-paying jobs. The fact that Prof. Wambugu decided to forego such opportunities say a lot about her character and her commitment to see Africa becomes self-sufficient in food production.
Prof. Wambugu has also been at the forefront of the campaign to popularize modern agricultural biotechnology. This has not been a simple task. She has fought with anti-tech organizations, such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the two anti-biotechnology activist organizations at the forefront of the campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
To reinforce here support for modern agricultural biotechnology, Prof. Wambugu, soon after receiving the YARA prize, told the SciDev.net web site that the Green Revolution currently being championed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will have to embrace cutting-edge biotechnology.
This call must be taken very seriously. Prof. Wambugu is not just another activist advocating for agricultural biotechnology. She understands the stuff shes talking about. Farmers and governments in Africa better listen to her!










Document Number: 631
Maize yields in Europe declining?
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

I speak and comprehend a little French. Theres this video that features Klaus Ammann saying corn yields in Europe have gone down. David Tribe of GMO Pundit has picked up the issue on his blog.
Let me mention something small about David. He is a characteristically mercurial scientist. I must admit Ive not come across a scientist as interested in science communication as David.
On this blog, Ive repeatedly called on scientists not to allow rookies to distort their work. David seems to have heeded my call. He writes prolifically about agricultural biotechnology. He doesnt fear to be branded a shill of this and that  multinational biotechnology corporations. These are some of intimidatory accusations anti-technology activists use to try to silence folks like David.
In 2006 I urged scientists to come out and defend the science behind crop genetic engineering. Then, I noted that the voices of few scientists who were willing to stand up to opponents of crop genetic engineering were being drowned by these self-styled activists, whove very scant knowledge of agricultural biotechnology. In fact most of them have social science backgrounds. Theyre only good in making blue look white, without ever stepping into a paint shop.
David is among the few scientists who have said enough is enough to propaganda that has come to define the debate genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Davids strategy has been to lay facts out there for all to see and decide for themselves. This is what Ive always advocated: that the debate about genetically modified foods should be anchored in science.
On Klaus remark that corn yields in Europe are going down, David has culled out graphs showing the continuing increase of corn yields in the U.S. The U.S. happens to be the leading grower of genetically modified corn. Connect the dots for yourself.
Europe is fervently opposed to GMOs. Could this be the reason why corn yields are unimpressive there? This is the point David is trying to make. And he could be right.










Document Number: 8727
South Africa approves biotech sorghum
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

South Africa has made another step forward in the field of crop biotechnology. After a rancorous debate over whether genetically engineered sorghum should be grown in greenhouses, the South African government has given its nod to the project.
The decision was a huge blow to anti-GMOs activists in South Africa, led by the South African GMO Executive Council, which had waged a relentless campaign against the new sorghum variety.
Called Super Sorghum, its nutritionally enhanced with more amino acids. The Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR), which had been spearheading the approval, lauded the governments decision saying it was testimony South Africa had robust biosafety laws.
We respect the fact that decision-makers have an obligation towards safety and that rigorous investigations are part of the process. Work on the project will now continue in our level 3 biosafety greenhouse, said CSIR Biosciences Executive Director, Dr Gatsha Mazithulela, soon after the government announced the approval decision.
The Super Sorghum has received worldwide support, including from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has already committed about $17 million to the project. The project is being spearheaded by Florence Wambugu, a renowned Kenyan agricultural biotechnologist, who also heads the Africa Harvest Biotech International Foundation (AHBIF).










Document Number: 7732
Italys health minister favors GM crops
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

Italys health minister Maurizio Sacconi would like her country to lift the ban on genetically modified crops (GM) in his country.
Sacconi told an international food forum recently that Italy needed to apply the European principle of co-existence of different production technologies. The principle lays out clear guidelines on how organic and GM crops should be grown together.
Sacconis stand on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is, to say the least, a courageous one. Anti-GMOs sentiments run high in Europe and for a person of Sacconis caliber to state her pro-GMOs position publicly is not a mean thing.
Secondly, Sacconis position on GM crops is an informed one. Its not from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Remember Sacconi is in charge of the ministry of health in Silvio Berlusconis government. He must be privy to the latest data on the safety of genetically modified foods. Its not surprising that in making a case for GMOs, he mentioned that  all scientific research should be rigorously tested.
The European Union (EU), despite its opposition to GM crops, ought to be listening to the likes of Sacconi. Sacconi is one of voices of reason and common sense in Europe on the issue of genetically modified foods.










Document Number: 5682
EU challenges France on GM Maize
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

The European Union (EU) is again challenging Frances decision to ban a genetically modified (GM) maize developed by the U.S.-based biotech giant Monsanto. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is angry that France has refused to allow the cultivation of MON 810, the only GM crop being grown in the European Union.
No specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health and the environment, was provided that would justify the invocation of a safeguard clause, EFSA said in an opinion article on its web site.
These are weighty words, coming especially from such a nonpartisan organization as EFSA. Theyre words directed not only at France but other European countries weighing on the issue of genetically modified crops.
The issue of the safety of GM foods has been discussed since the introduction of the first genetically modified crop in 1996. Reputable organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. National Academies of Science have issued numerous reports on the safety of GM foods. In June 2005, for instance, WHO released a report entitled Modern Food Biotechnology, Human Health and Development, which reaffirmed the safety of GM foods. The U.S. National Academies of Science, itself, has on numerous occasions cautioned against condemning GM crops on the basis of non-scientific evidence.
France and other countries opposed to crop genetic engineering will do their citizens proud if they allow science to guide every decision of GM crops. Blanket condemnation of GM crops doesnt serve the interests of farmers. It only denies them an opportunity to boost food production.










Document Number: 6386
Indian researcher makes a case for biotechnology
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

The journal Nature has published an article about how developing countries can make the best from biotech. Indira Nath, the articles author, argues biotechnology can revolutionize food production and healthcare in developing countries only if these countries bolstered their scientific capacity.
 
Nath regrets intellectual property rights coupled with inhibit scientists from developing countries from accessing critical technologies. Further, the ongoing opposition to genetically modified foods in both developed and developing countries continues to stymie food production in the former countries.
 
To address this situation, Nath calls on governments in developing countries to intensify efforts in training researchers. They should also provide them with necessary technologies to do their work.
 
Nath joins a long list of scientists from developing countries calling on their governments to be more proactive promoting science and technology for sustainable development. Dr. Calestous Juma, a Kenyan scientist currently teaching at Harvard, has been another vocal supporter of biotechnology. Writing in Japan Times in July this year, Dr. Juma called on G-8 countries to encourage biotech cooperation in Africa. He cautioned that over-emphasis on biosafety was hindering many African countries from adopting biotechnology.
 
Nath and Dr. Juma make very strong cases for biotechnology. They are worth listening to.










Document Number: 4849
Kenyan scientists weigh on GMOs
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

Scientists from one of Kenyas premier university have endorsed crop genetic engineering. After a two-day workshop last week, University of Nairobi researchers dismissed fears that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) posed dangers to human health and the environment.
The scientists said although some caution was needed about GMOs, they had been found to be safe. They called on Kenya and other African countries to quickly enact biosafety laws that would allow their introduction.
Dr. John Nderitu, the Dean of College of Agriculture and Veterinary Services at the University of Nairobi likened GMOs to automobiles which he said if used badly could bring negative outcomes to the society. He said as long as there were biosafety laws to regulate GMOs, he saw nothing wrong in them.
The Kenyan scientists call could not have come at a better time. Debate on potential benefits of genetically modified foods, or lack of them, has been raging in Africa. Some anti-technology nongovernmental organizations, mostly based in developed countries, have literary camped in Africa to persuade governments there not to admit GMOs into their countries. This could be the reason why many African countries, except South Africa, continue to shun them. Countries such as Zambia and Zimbabwe have even passed laws to prohibit GMOs from their territories, which raises the question of whether theyd not like their scientists to study the potential of GMOs to agriculture. Whats these countries vision for innovative research if they cant encourage their scientists to study GMOs?










Document Number: 4322
Vilsack targeted for his Pro-GMOs stand
Published by GMO Africa | Filed under GMO Africa Blog

One day after President-Elect Barak Obama picked Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, as Agriculture Secretary, anti-biotechnology activists are out in full force trying to paint him as an apologist for the biotech industry. Tara Lohan in an article on Alternet.org declares Obama is sending to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) a pro-GMOs, pro-Biofuels Ag Secretary.
 
Way back on November 12, when word went out that Obama planned to nominate Vilsack, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) listed, on its website, six reasons why hes inappropriate for the position.
 
Writing on the Nation, John Nichol quotes OCA as accusing Vilsack of having a glowing reputation as being a shill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.
 
Its interesting how anti-biotech groups malign anybody whos supportive of crop genetic engineering, in total disregard of the nature of such support. Take the case of OCA. Its quarrel with Vilsack stems from his support for Iowa farmers wanting to grow genetically modified foods. How can anybody expect him not to do that? Hes a Governor of a farm belt state, where life=farming and farming=life. Vilsacks support for biotechnology has not been a blind one; it has been in the interest of farmers in his state. Well, for his efforts to help Iowa farmers to modernize their farming, he has won accolades from the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Farmers in Iowa will tell you he deserves it. Here is Iowa Corn Growers Association praise Vilsacks appointment: In a press statement, the association said Vilsack had established an outstanding record here in Iowa as a capable, pragmatic leader who understood the importance of agriculture. These are farmers speaking, not shills for Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta or any other biotech corporation doing business in Iowa.
 
As Vilsack prepares to move to USDA, he should brace himself for sharper criticism for his stand on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Governor Vilsack must not fear to stand for whats right. He should stand his ground, especially when individuals or organizations attempt to contradict science. He shouldnt lock out organizations such as OCA, the Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other entities opposed from agricultural biotechnology from the debate about genetically modified foods. But he must insist they stick to science to justify their opposition to GMOs. The same standards should apply to scientists and corporations advocating for genetically modified foods. They, too, have a duty to make a strong case for GMOs. They ought to educate the public about GMOs. Its their baby, and they must tend to it.









Document Number: 5010
Golden Rice is part of the solution 

Biofortified rice as a contribution to the alleviation of life-threatening micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries
A good start is a food start!

Dietary micronutrient deficiencies, such as the lack of vitamin A, iodine, iron or zinc, are a major source of morbidity (increased susceptibility to disease) and mortality worldwide. These deficiencies affect particularly children, impairing their immune systems and normal development, causing disease and ultimately death. The best way to avoid micronutrient deficiencies is by way of a varied diet, rich in vegetables, fruits and animal products.
The second best approach, especially for those who cannot afford a varied diet, is by way of nutrient-dense staple crops. Sweet potatoes, for example, are available as varieties that are either rich or poor in provitamin A. Those producing and accumulating provitamin A (orange-fleshed sweet potatoes) are called biofortified*, as opposed to the white-fleshed sweet potatoes, which do not accumulate provitamin A. In this case, what needs to be done is to introduce the biofortified varieties to people used to the white-fleshed varieties. Unfortunately, there are no natural provitamin A-containing rice varieties.

Rice plants produce β-carotene (provitamin A) in green tissues but not in the endosperm (the edible part of the seed). The outer coat of the dehusked grains—the so-called aleurone layer—contains a number of valuable nutrients, e.g. vitamin B and nutritious fats, but no provitamin A. These nutrients are lost with the bran fraction in the process of milling and polishing. While it would be desirable to keep those nutrients, the fatty component is affected by oxidative processes that make the grain turn rancid. Thus, unprocessed rice—also known as brown rice—is not apt for long-term storage.

Even though all required genes to produce provitamin A are present in the grain, some of them are turned off during development. In rice-based societies, the absence of β-carotene in rice grains manifests itself in a marked incidence of blindness, disease susceptibility and premature death of small children.
 
The right to share in the benefits of science

Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
In 2008, 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries, 90 percent of them smallholders in less developed countries, were growing genetically modified crops on 125 million hectares, a number that has been constantly increasing for the last 12 years (see also ISAAA report).
«Damned if you do, damned if you don't»

That is the paradox situation faced by many scientists working to solve nutrition problems using Green Biotechnology. Critics of the technology often mention the lack of traits that address nutritional deficits in humans rather than those that are of more interest to farmers and seed companies. Golden Rice has often been criticised for not advancing faster in establishing its capacity to reduce vitamin A deficiency. Now, after years of thorough analytical work, the project is being criticised for risking lives by feeding humans with a genetically modified crop not yet approved for human consumption.

The shocking fact is that more than 10 million children under the age of five are dying every year. A high proportion of those children die victim of common diseases that could be avoided through a better nutrition. This number has been equated with a ‘Nutritional Holocaust’ (follow this link for the citation). Incredibly enough, these numbers are not bad enough to impress technophobes, who won't stop even for a moment to evaluate the potential of this technology to substantially reduce the number of children deaths. It has been calculated that the life of 25 percent of those children could be spared by providing them with crops biofortified with provitamin A (beta-carotene) and zinc.

 
Quantum leap: 
Golden Rice accumulates provitamin A (β-carotene) in the grain

In Golden Rice two genes have been inserted into the rice genome by genetic engineering, to account for the turned-off genes. This intervention leads in turn to the production and accumulation of β-carotene in the grains. The intensity of the golden colour is an indicator of the concentration of β-carotene in the endosperm.
Since a prototype Golden Rice was developed in 1999, new lines with higher β-carotene content have been generated. Our goal is to be capable of providing the recommended daily allowance of vitamin A—in the form of β-carotene—in 100-200  g of rice, which corresponds to the daily rice consumption of children in rice-based societies, such as India, Vietnam or Bangladesh. In other countries, Golden Rice could still be a valuable complement to children's diets, thus contributing to the reduction of clinical and sub-clinical vitamin A deficiency-related diseases.

According to the World Health Organization, dietary vitamin A deficiency (VAD) causes some 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Blindness and corneal afflictions are but indicators of more severe underlying health problems: more than half the children who lose their sight die within a year of becoming blind. VAD compromises the immune systems of approximately 40 percent of children under the age of five in the developing world, greatly increasing the risk of severe illnesses from common childhood infections.

In the most remote rural areas Golden Rice could constitute a major contribution towards sustainable vitamin A delivery mechanisms. To achieve this goal a strong, concerted, and interdisciplinary effort is needed. This effort must include scientists, breeders, farmers, regulators, policy-makers and extensionists. The latter will play a central role in educating farmers and consumers as to their options. While the most desirable option woud be a varied and sufficient diet, this goal is not always achievable, at least not in the short term. The reasons are manifold, ranging from tradition to geographical and economical limitations. Golden Rice is a step in the right direction in that it does not create new dependencies or displace traditional cuisine.

Golden Rice grains are easily recognisable by their yellow to orange colour, the stronger the colour the more β-carotene. While a yellow rice is still unfamiliar to most of us, it is hoped that the pleasant colour will help promote its adoption. Would you believe that once upon a time carrots were white or purple? Orange-coloured carrots are the product of a mutation selected by a Dutch horticulturist a few hundred years ago because it was the colour of the Dutch Royal House of Orange-Nassau!
Golden Rice will reach those who need it at no additional cost

Those who need the product of this new technology most are those who can least afford buying a mixed diet, rich in essential nutrients. This has been taken into consideration by the creators of Golden Rice technology, Professors Peter Beyer and Ingo Portrykus, and the crop protection company Syngenta, who have donated it for humanitarian use in developing countries, free of charge.
The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board encourages further research to determine how the technology may play a part in the ongoing global effort to fight VAD in poor countries. While Golden Rice is an exciting development, it is important to keep in mind that malnutrition is to a great extent rooted in political, economic and cultural issues that will not be solved by a technical fix. Yet Golden Rice offers people in developing countries a valuable and affordable choice in the fight against malnutrition.

This site is maintained by the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board for the purpose of providing information on the background and progress of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project.










Document Number: 9873
Why Golden Rice
How does Golden Rice fit into the equation
According to UNICEF the estimated annual number of children deaths precipitated worldwide by vitamin A deficiency (VAD) lies at 1.15 million. Many more show VAD-related syndromes, among them loss of sight and increased susceptibility to a number of diseases. Biofortification—the creation of plants that make or accumulate micronutrients—has the potential to reduce the number of deaths significantly. The aim of biofortification is to improve the primary food source of hundreds of millions of people by increasing the nutritional quality of staple crops.

Golden Rice is a good example of a biofortified crop. In this specific case biofortification was obtained by genetic modification of the rice plant to produce and accumulate provitamin A in the grain, a trait not found in nature. This feat was accomplished by Ingo Potrykus, professor emeritus of the Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland, and Professor Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg, Germany, in the late 1990s and has been in development ever since.

In developing countries 500,000 people, mainly children, become blind every year, 50 percent of which die within a year of becoming blind. Nearly nine million children die of malnutrion every year. VAD severely affects the immune system, hence it is involved in many of these children's deaths in the guise of a multiplicity of diseases. Recently, malaria deaths in children under five years of age has been linked with deficiencies in intake of protein, vitamin A and zinc (Caulfield et al., 2004).

Various public and international programmes are involved in supplementation (eg administering pills and capsules to small children), industrial fortification (eg adding vitamin A to butter or oil) and promoting diet diversification. These efforts have achieved substantial improvements but have difficulty in attaining full coverage and above all, sustainability. Biofortification through conventional breeding of genetically improved basic staple crops, offers a great opportunity to obtain a more inclusive coverage, especially among the poorest sectors of society.


Fig 1. Blindness is an easily recognisable symptom of VAD, but it is only the most visible of a complex set of life-threatening illnesses. These disorders include reduced immune competence resulting in increased morbidity and mortality (largely from increased severity of infectious diseases); night blindness, corneal ulcers, keratomalacia and related ocular signs and symptoms of xerophthalmia; exacerbation of anemia through suboptimal absorption and utilization of iron; and other conditions not yet fully identified or clarified (eg retardation of growth and development).
Fig 2. Cause-specific mortality and malnutrition. All causes of death are to some degree associated with malnutrition (total 54 percent). Zinc supplementation has a direct effect on preventing deaths from diarrhoeal disease, for example, while vitamin A helps prevent death from measles, malaria, respiratory and other infections ARI, acute respiratory infections. (Pelletier et al 1993).
In the developing world mortality caused by all major diseases is associated with malnutrition. In fact, 54 percent of all infants' deaths are related to deficient nutrition levels, and above all to a lack of essential micronutrients. Sufficient caloric intake can often be misleading when evaluating the nutritional status of children. The most important staple crops in the world are rich in starch but poor in vital micronutrients. This does not affect affluent people who can afford to buy a varied diet that includes vegetables and fruits.
"Half of the global population consists of people who are living on less than $2 per day. Thus there is an urgent need to achieve higher levels of productivity in agriculture everywhere to help alleviate these problems.

Any effort to deny access to technologies that are demonstrably helpful in feeding the people of the world must for this reason be judged from a moral and ethical point of view in relation to its reals, not imagined, effect on human welfare."

-- Dr Peter H. Raven, Pontifical Academician; Director, Missouri Botanical Garden.










Document Number: 4638
Socio-Cultural Issues
How white is my rice?
Carrots were originally white or purple in Europe, yet nowadays we cannot conceive of a carrot not being orange.
Cassava is not a native African crop, yet today, around 400 years after it was introduced from South America, the livelihoods of more than 500 million Africans depend on cassava. There are yellow, beta-carotene-producing cultivars in South America. The HarvestPlus Programme is trying to introduce the trait into local African varieties, hoping that these will be acceptable to people used to white varieties.

In some countries rice is made yellow by adding spices, like saffron or curcuma. We hope that the natural yellow to orange colour of Golden Rice will be acceptable to millions of people, especially after recognising its beneficial health effects.
We hope that in a near future farmers in VAD-affected regions will have the choice to harvest "gold".
Tell me what you eat and I'll tell you who you are
Eating preferences are markedly regional and it can be rather difficult to change long-standing traditions. For example, the colour and size of common beans in Latin America is indicative of the region where these are eaten. Small, black beans are preferred in Central America, while large beans of various colours are eaten in the Andean region. While nutrient content and taste of these beans are comparable it would take a major effort to change people's preferences in respect of the beans' external characteristics.
The capacity of Golden Rice to produce beta-carotene in rice endosperm is not restricted to a single variety, on the contrary the trait can be easily transferred to any variety by simple breeding. In this way any local preferences and adaptations will be catered for. The only difference between a preferred local variety and the Golden Rice bred for that given region will be the colour, which should not be an unsurmountable obstacle. In some regions, where the white colour is very important, additional promotion will be required.

In many popular dishes, coloured spices, like saffron or curcuma, are added to rice, but will people who like to eat their rice shiny white be willing to switch over to healthier Golden Rice? We believe that knowledge of its virtues and unaltered sensory characteristics will make Golden Rice acceptable to those who need it.









Document Number: 7373
Almost everything you wanted to know about Golden Rice
A number of issues are discussed in a paper which you can view or download by following the following link: «The Golden Rice Project»; these include a description of the nutritional problem posed by vitamin A deficiency, historical and scientific aspects of the project, matters of biosafety, and regulatory hurdles.
«Golden Rice» growing in the field and looking like … rice.
For general information about rice visit IRRI's Rice Knowledge Bank.
Golden Rice Q&A

Golden Rice and Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD)
Golden Rice is rice that has been genetically engineered to contain beta-carotene and other carotenoids in the endosperm (the edible part of the grain). This gives the grains a golden colour, as opposed to regular white rice, which is practically devoid of carotenoids. When the rice is consumed, some carotenoids are converted in the body into vitamin A.

Carotenoids (including beta-carotene) are natural plant pigments and are widely found in coloured fruits, carrots, and green vegetables. Plants do not contain Vitamin A, but only its precursor, provitamin A (beta-carotene). Animals, including man, synthesise Vitamin A from carotenoids eaten in the diet. Hence, animal meat products contain Vitamin A. People living on a poor diet are at risk of becoming vitamin A deficient, which can lead to life-threatening illnesses.

Who invented Golden Rice and how did the project start?
The inventors of Golden Rice are Ingo Potrykus, Professor emeritus of the Institute for Plant Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH, Zurich), and Professor Peter Beyer, of the Centre for Applied Biosciences, University of Freiburg, Germany with co-workers (Ye et al 2002). The search for a Golden Rice started off as a Rockefeller Foundation inititative in 1982. After years of research by various research groups a meeting of experts was convened in New York in 1992. There, Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer met for the first time, and subsequently decided to embark on the project that would lead them to develop Golden Rice in 1999. Their great contribution consisted in showing that a very complex biosynthetic pathway could be tweaked to enhance the health-promoting virtues of a crop. The breakthrough insight was that most of the pathway was already present in the rice grain and it only needed two genes to set the whole pathway in motion.

Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I (2000) Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303-305.  
Why is provitamin A important for health?

Only some carotenoids have provitamin A activity, but beta-carotene is the most common and important among them. Rice is the most important staple food for hundreds of millions of people in developing countries. Hence, delivery of beta-carotene with the help of Golden Rice could contribute to reducing chronic health problems caused by vitamin A deficiency (VAD). VAD is widely acknowledged to cause blindness, but more importantly, VAD exacerbates infections, including HIV-AIDS, measles, and other childhood diseases. This leads to an increased mortality rate, especially amongt children. UNICEF has estimated that 124 million children in the world are chronically deficient in vitamin A. The World Bank has estimated that VAD accounted for about one-quarter of the total global burden of disease from malnutrition (Dawe et al 2002).

Carotenoids are also associated with nutritional benefits that include the mitigation of various degenerative diseases in adults. Diets high in carotenoids have been associated with a reduced risk of age-related macular degeneration (affecting part of the retina of the eye most associated with visual acuity, eventually leading to blindness), skin and prostate cancers and cardiovascular disease.

Dawe D, Robertson R and Unnevehr L, Golden Rice: What role could it play in alleviation of Vitamin A deficiency? Food Policy 27: 541-560, 2002.
Will Golden Rice solve the Vitamin A Deficiency Syndrome?

Golden Rice alone is not expected to solve the problem, but its use could significantly reduce the incidence of the VAD syndrome. Rice provides as much 80 percent or more of the daily caloric intake of 3 billion people, or half the world’s population! Many people eat little else than rice. But other challenges such as poverty, lack of infrastructure and lack of education remain, and should be dealt with by governments and policymakers concurrently. Golden Rice is not a replacement for existing efforts to tackle the problem, but could substantially complement them in the future and make them more sustainable, especially in remote rural areas.

Critics of the technology have claimed that children in the developing world will have to eat an unrealistic amount of Golden Rice in order to reduce VAD. The numbers are based on the assumption that—for malnourished children—Golden Rice will need to supply the entire recommended daily intake (RDI) of vitamin A . The other wrong assumption was that scientists would not be able to go beyond the proof-of-concept stage and develop improved versions of Golden Rice. Both assumptions were essentially wrong.

VAD occurs as a result of a deficiency of vitamin A, not complete lack thereof. Therefore, adding beta-carotene in even incremental amounts to one of the staple foods of the developing world has the potential to substantially relieve VAD symptoms.

Is beta-carotene safe? Are any toxic effects to be expected from Golden Rice?

Beta-carotene is a natural component of many plant foods including all green vegetables and carrots, and is not known to be toxic. When intake is high the excess is stored in body fat as beta-carotene, or excreted, and only converted to vitamin A when needed by the organism. It is not possible to suffer from an overdose of beta-carotene, while the same cannot be said of straight vitamin A (Clevidence et al., 1997; Khachik et al, 1995).
There are just two reports of potentially adverse health effects from the consumption of beta-carotene, and both involve dietary supplements, not food. In these studies, beta-carotene was given at high levels of vitamin A or vitamin E, respectively. One of these studies suggested, but did not prove, that beta- carotene may, in certain circumstances, be harmful to smokers. Moreover, unlike with vitamin pills, there is no danger of vitamin A toxicity, as there is no vitamin A in Golden Rice, only non-toxic carotenoid precursors that enable the human body to make vitamin A as required.

The natural lipid membranes (of fatty nature) in rice seem to be enough to facilitate the absorption of vitamin A, even in diets with little or no other added oil. For many millions of people in the world, rice is not only a source of energy—which they obtain from the starch contained in the grain—but also a main source of essential lipids, in spite of the low fat content of rice grains.

Clevidence BA et al., Human consumption of carotenoid-rich vegetables, in Antioxidant Methodology, pp 53-63, 1997.
Khachik F et al., Lutein, lycopene, and their oxidative metabolites in chemoprevention of cancer, J Cell Biochem, Suppl 22:236-246, 1995.
What guarantees the safety of Golden Rice?

The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board is committed to the highest standards of safety assessment being conducted, and Golden Rice will only be made available for consumption after clearance by the relevant authorities and according to national legislation.
The seeds have been donated under the licensed terms of the technology and it is for national regulatory authorities to determine the safety requirements. Syngenta, whose scientist were involved in the development of the latest Golden Rice version, believes that the seeds are entirely safe. Carotenoids are not dangerous by any definition: they are widely available in the environment and in the human diet (especially in green vegetables). There is no reasonable argument that would support any public health, human toxicological or any other adverse affect in respect of carotenoids. Indeed, carotenoids are more generally associated with imparting important health benefits.

Regarding the genetic engineering step, conventional plant breeding involves the uncontrolled transfer and simultaneous random recombination of many thousands of genes between from all parents involved. Therefore, safety concerns in respect of the deliberate and controlled transfer of no more than two genes, as in this case, is unwarranted.










Document Number: 4914
The Alternatives
Limitations of Conventional Approaches

While it is true that blindness due to micronutrient deficiency can be prevented by a better diet or by distribution of vitamin A capsules, the global VAD burden continues for the reasons described below.

One current approach to reduce VAD in developing countries has been to supply pre-school children with 6-monthly oral doses of high levels of vitamin A in solution. Such programs reach only a fraction of the children in need and are not always continued, as the cost, need for education, medical staff and distribution infrastructure present significant logistic problems. Annual costs for a country the size of Nepal or Ghana are in the range of two million dollars (MOST 2004).

The real challenges to solve malnutrition in the developing world are poverty, poor infrastructure, lack of education and awareness, and not the lack of existing technology. All these issues are important too, and should continue to be addressed, as they have been for many years. However, solutions to these problems appear to be as far away as ever, and the situation is deteriorating in many places. Golden Rice, in combination with other efficient approaches, could lead to a highly effective, cheap, and simple contribution to the relief of a major health problem. The combination of approaches will depend on the particularities of the region.

MOST, USAID Micronutrient Program (2004) Cost analysis of the national vitamin A supplementation programs in Ghana, Nepal, and Zambia: A synthesis of three studies.
Why not eat unmilled (brown) rice?
The natural oil-rich outer layers of the rice grain—the bran and the aleurone—are rich in some important nutrients, including vitamin B, and yet rice is generally consumed in its milled form, i.e. with the outer layer removed. If not removed, the oils in those layers undergo natural oxidation processes and the grain becomes rancid, affecting odour and taste very rapidly, particularly in tropical and sub-tropical climates. Milling improves the long-term storability of rice without loss of taste.

The schematic shows the most distinctive structures of a rice seed.
Most people prefer to eat white rice
White rice is the most commonly consumed form of rice. Golden Rice will be more like white rice in that it will be consumed as milled or polished rice, but as opposed to brown rice it will be capable of providing its health benefits even after milling. Golden Rice grains have a pleasant bright yellow or orange colour, although its appeal in rural areas remains to be investigated. Coloured rice landraces are eaten in many places, and coloured spices, like saffron, are often part of traditional cuisine. Sensitive social educational programs will be an integral part of the Golden Rice deployment. Rice varieties with superior agronomic characteristics, i.e. that grow and yield well, will be not less important for the farmers who will grow the rice. Hence the importance of introducing the trait from the genetically modified lines into varieties grown locally by farmers in VAD areas. The trait is transferred from one rice plant to the other using conventional breeding techniques











Document Number: 7868
The Donation

How did Syngenta become involved in the Humanitarian Golden Rice project?
The inventors, Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer, recognized early on that while they had an important technical achievement in their hands, they required an additional set of skills and expertise to get their invention to those who needed it most. Syngenta was the inventors’ preferred partner given the company’s expertise in the field of carotenoids, their long standing involvement in joint EU-funded research programs, a track record of donation of such technologies to the developing world, and its long experience in regulatory affairs, licensing and intellectual property.

What has Syngenta donated?
Syngenta has produced many Golden Rice transgenic events and has identified and selected for donation those with high carotenoid levels and good agronomic characteristics. Seed from these plants and performance data were donated to the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. In the summer of 2004 Syngenta also conducted field trials of the first three selected Golden Rice events together with two other events generated in the public sector (published by Dr Hoa and co-workers, from the Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute in Vietnam). The field trials, which were conducted at Louisiana State University, were undertaken as a contribution to the Humanitarian Board and the Golden Rice Project. The donation is therefore a combination of technology, a full technical dossier, licences to enabling patents, and the best transgenic lines, and reflects the work done by Syngenta and its legacy companies on behalf of their humanitarian interests over several years.

More recently, additional higher expressing lines of Golden Rice (GR2) and based on new inventions, have also been donated to the Humanitarian Project (Paine et al 2005), A new version of Golden Rice with increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 2005).

Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R (2005) A new version of Golden Rice with increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23:482-487.
To whom has the donation of Golden Rice been made?

The donation of the Golden Rice transgenic events was made to the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board to carry forward the project and transfer the technology to target countries. The donation of the first events was officially made on 13 October 2004. The donation was put into effect by amendments to the licence agreements to the licensee network working with the physical materials. The licences remain free, do not create any new dependencies, and are necessary to maintain good stewardship of the technology.

What will happen to the donated transgenicGolden Rice lines?
The donated lines have been used to select the best-suited transgenic event and for breeding purposed. The selected event has already been crossed with some major, locally preferred rice varieties to give farmers the opportunity to grow rice containing the trait without having to change their agronomic practices or cooking habits. This work will be managed by the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board and by the public institutions that are licensees in target countries. No charges will be levied for the use of the trait. IRRI plays an important role as the hub of the Golden Rice Network and also conducts part of the breeding work.

What specific support does Syngenta provide to the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board?
Since the inception of the Humanitarian Board, Syngenta has provided significant support in their areas of expertise, which includeregulatory affairs, biotechnology research, product development, intellectual property management, stewardship and training. Dr Adrian Dubock (at present the Golden Rice project manager and formerly Syngenta’s Head of Public-Private Partnerships, is the person who initially negotiated the agreement with the inventors, at a time when Zeneca (one of the legacy companies which formed Syngenta in 2001) had a commercial interest in nutritional enhancement of rice), is the contact person for Syngenta on the Humanitarian Board.

If Syngenta has no commercial interest in Golden Rice, why then is it supporting the development work?
Syngenta has no commercial interest in Golden Rice in respect of its potential use or application in developing countries. Initially was investigating a potential commercial use in developed countries, but in the meantime it does not see a commercial market for it anymore. Nevertheless. The technology has been donated by the inventors and Syngenta to the resource-poor farmers of developing countries, and further development is now the responsibility of the Humanitarian Board and public institutes, which are the licensees. Golden Rice is being introduced into publicly-owned rice varieties via national and international public sector research institutions, to be made available by government institutions free of charge to resource-poor farmers. The farmers will then be able to grow, save, consume, resow and sell the resulting rice crop into the local economy. No new dependencies will be created.

This is the most significant donation that Syngenta has ever made. The potential benefits that the donation could bring are very substantial but also very difficult to evaluate (see eg Zimmermann and Qaim 2004). Previous donations by Syngenta have included smaller scale projects such as the Papaya Programme in Asia, in which Syngenta and the University of Nottingham (UK) collaborated through the donation of technology to an Asian biotechnology programme run by public sector research institutions in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Another example was the donation of antifungal proteins developed with the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, to benefit the post-harvest viability of bananas in Africa. Syngenta’s antifungal technology was donated to the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, IITA, in Nigeria. Ciba Geigy, another legacy company of Syngenta, has previously donated Bt technology for insect control in rice for humanitarian purposes to IRRI, in the Philippines.









Document Number: 4341
Administering the Golden Rice Project
What is the role of the Humanitarian Board in the Golden Rice Project?

The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board provides governance to the international Golden Rice humanitarian project, which is being carried out by a network of licensees and national research insittutions.

The humanitarian project is a public-private partnership created by the inventors in 2000 to assist in the development and deployment of Golden Rice. The humanitarian project is sponsored by HarvestPlus (which in turn is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Bank), the Swiss Development and Collaboration Agency, USAID, and the Syngenta Foundation, together with local research institutes and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board is responsible for the global development, introduction and free distribution of Golden Rice to target countries. The novel trait will be bred into locally adapted rice varieties for regional use. It is intended to introduce it into publicly owned rice varieties via national and international public-sector research institutions. It will then be made available locally, free of charge to resource-poor farmers. These farmers will be able to grow, save, consume, replant and locally sell Golden Rice.
Who are the members of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board?

The Humanitarian Board is an honorary body that benefits from the expertise of international authorities, including

Prof Ingo Potrykus (co-inventor of Golden Rice), professor emeritus from ETH Zurich, Chairman (public relations and information);
Prof Peter Beyer (co-inventor) Univ of Freiburg (scientificic advancement in the areas of biofortification for provitamin A and other micronutrients);
Dr Gurdev Khush, retired rice breeder from IRRI (rice breeding);
Dr Gary Toenniessen, The Rockefeller Foundation (food security in developing countries);
Dr Adrian Dubock, Golden Rice Project Manager, Agricultural Consultancy for Development GmbH, Switzerland 
(private sector approaches to project management);
Dr Howarth Bouis, Director of HarvestPlus, international Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali-Colombia, and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington DC (biofortification);
Dr Robert Bertram, USAID Washington DC (development in Third World agriculture);
Prof Matin Qaim, Professor and Chair in "International Food Economics and Rural Development" at the University of Göttingen, Germany (socio-economic aspects);
Prof Robert Russell, Laboratory for Human Nutrition, Tufts University Boston (vitamin A malnutrition);
Dr Robert Zeigler, Director General, IRRI;
Dr Sunkeswari R Rao Dept of Biotechnology, India (national cooperation in rice research);
Prof Jean Pierre Jeannet, Babson College, Massachussets (global marketing);
Dr Gerard Barry, IRRI (ex-officio member and Golden Rice Network Coordinator)
How is the project funded?
The initial research of Potrykus and Beyer was financially supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, together with the EU, the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science (1996-2000), and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Syngenta (formerly Zeneca) scientists contributed to the EU carotenoid research program of which Golden Rice had been a part since 1996. Syngenta supported the project by developing improved version of Golden Rice in their own laboratories. Funds have also been provided by USAID, the Syngenta Foundation, HarvestPlus, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.









Document Number: 5976
Contractual Issues

What is the nature of the licence agreement?
Initially, Syngenta (then Zeneca) arranged for intellectual property controlled by Novartis, Bayer, Monsanto, and Japan Tobacco to be licensed free of charge for the sole purpose of the Golden Rice Project. Syngenta, and the inventors entered into contractual arrangements whereby Syngenta licensed back to the inventors the combined package of enabling intellectual property and agreed to support them administratively in their endeavour to make the technology available to resource-poor farmers in developing countries, free of charge. Terms of use include royalty-free local production by farmers who earn less than US$10,000 annually, which applies so to say to 99% of those farmers. The inventors were also granted the rights to grant sub-licences for the same purpose.

Golden Rice is expected to become widely distributed through the farmers’ own supply and exchange networks. The contractual arrangements will guarantee free access for farmers to the technology. Farmers can keep the seeds for future sowing. This will reinforce seed distribution in a virtuous circle.

Have any restrictions been added to the agreement?
Instead of a new contract being introduced, a side letter was added to the original agreement. This letter contains certain new conditions that had become necessary, because of the substantial costs of regulation and licensing. Because of the immense costs involved, the Humanitarian Board needs to make sure that just one transformation event makes it through the regulatory process. The selected and approved event can then be cross-bred with any locally preferred variety.

Could the complex patent situation around Golden Rice affeect the deplyment of Golden Rice?

Patents are national in scope, not international. In the US a complex intellectual property situation exists around Golden Rice technology, which is not replicated in Europe or in developing countries. Analysis of the patent issues surrounding the initially invented Golden Rice has determined a far less complex position in developing countries than that previously reported by some analysts. Critics of the project originally mentioned more than 70 patents involved and potentially blocking the development of Golden Rice, a figure derived from a study conducted by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (Kryder et al. 2000). While the numbers are in principle correct, only 12 of these patents relate to developing countries, and all have been waived by their owners. The remaining patents do not restrict the inventors’ freedom to develop the project for the benefit of developing countries. The new constructs donated to the humanitarian project do not require access to any additional third-party intellectual property.

Kryder D, Kowalsi SP, Krattiger AF. 2000. 'The Intellectual and Technical Property Components of pro-Vitamin A Rice (GoldenRice™): A Preliminary Freedom-To-Operate Review', ISAAA Briefs No 20. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. 56 pp.
How will the technology reach developing countries?
The technology will be provided to international and national research organisations in developing countries under licence. The Humanitarian Board will provide strategic guidance in the application of the technology to locally adapted public rice varieties and the carrying out of biosafety and other assessments. The transformed seed has already been introgressed (bred) into locally widely consumed, public rice varities. When approved by the appropriate national authorities who will assess safety to man, animals, and the environment, the seed will be multiplied by conventional seed multiplication processes and distributed to resource-poor farmers for planting, harvesting, small-scale commercial activity (less than US$10,000 per annum, sale to neighbours and local markets) and consumption.

The Humanitarian Board will continue to grant licences as they judge appropriate to the National Agricultural Research Centres and other public sector research institutions, in developing countries. The National Agricultural Research Centres and related breeding enterprises in each country will distribute rice to resource-poor farmers. There will be no extra-charge for the trait. It will be up to governments ultimately to ensure the free distribution to farmers.











Document Number: 7586
Further developing Golden Rice technology

What are the levels of carotenoid in the donated materials?
Syngenta has donated not only the first generation of improved Golden Rice (GR1), but also a further improved version (GR2). GR1 had four times more carotenoid than the prototype version generated by Potrykus and Beyer in 1999 (Ye et al. 2000). In the first field trials conducted in 2004, rice grains from GR1 had carotenoid levels between 4 to 8 micrograms per gram total carotenoid, GR2 went even further, producing up to 23 times more total carotenoid than in the 1999 prototype (Paine et al. 2005).

Ye X, Al-Babili S, Klöti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I (2000) Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303-305.  
Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R (2005) A new version of Golden Rice with increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23:482-487.
How much Golden Rice is needed to combat VAD?
Most people affected by VAD have a so-called sub-clinical vitamin deficiency level. As would be expected, these people ingest some provitamin or vitamin A with their foods, but blood vitamin levels are not high enough to sustain a healthy status. What is needed is a top-up of provitamin A to a healthy level.

A GR2 line has been selected with provitamin A levels somewhere between the best GR1 and the best GR2 carotenoid levels obtained. This line was selected based on feeding trials that showed that provitamin A contained in such grains was extracted by the digestive system with high efficiency and were capable of fulfilling that top-up function.

Regarding stability during processing, it is known that provitamin A is rather stable at high temperatures and hence losses due to cooking are low.

Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R (2005) A new version of Golden Rice with increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23:482-487.
Why are the carotenoid levels in GR1 and GR2 higher in this Golden Rice than in the version published by Potrykus and Beyer?
There are several likely reasons. In both strains the gene constructs used by Syngenta were slightly different from the original construct. Whilst the two carotenoid biosynthesis genes are functionally the same, the genetic control element of one of the genes was exchanged. In the new strains the phytoene desaturase gene crtI is expressed using a seed-specific promoter rather than a constitutive promoter (i.e. active throughout the plant). This may have beneficially affected the amount of carotenoid that is accumulated in the grain.

In GR2 the Narcissus phytoene synthase gene psy used in the original construct was exchanged for a maize homolog. Also, in their work Syngenta was able to generate hundreds of individual Golden Rice transformants among which the probability of finding plants with particularly high levels of carotenoid accumulation was higher. Potrykus and Beyer produced far fewer plants, as theirs was the proof-of-concept phase of the project.

In addition, the rice variety used by Syngenta was different to that used previously, and this variety may be more suited to carotenoid production in the grain. The growing environment of the plants —light, water, nutrients— might also affect the amount of carotenoid accumulated in the grain.









Document Number: 6946
Golden Rice and the Environment
Is gene flow an issue with Golden Rice?

While the chances of outcrossing to non-transgenic rice are very low (but not zero) the relevant issue is what effect the genes would have if outcrossing occurred. No selective advantage for the recipient plants would be expected from the carotenoid genes from Golden Rice, especially since practically all plants produce carotenoids and hence no new chemical compound is being introduced into the environment. Without a selective advantage the introgressed genes would be quickly diluted in the population.

Research at IRRI (SS Virmani and HL Sharma) and many other studies have demonstrated that the chance of outcrossing from cultivated rice species is very low, as these varieties are essentially self-pollinating. Moreover, rice pollen is only viable for 3-5 minutes. Where this might be an issue, the likelihood of outcrossing can be reduced significantly by appropriate measures such as staggered flowering dates and by observing recommended distances to other rice fields.

Why was an antibiotic resistance marker (Hygromycin) used?
The inventors needed a way to recognise the presence of the desirable trait in the rice in their laboratory experiments, and used the hygromycin resistance marker gene (also called a selectable marker) as it was then available and suitable. Comprehensive studies have shown that the use of the hygormycin resistance gene would be safe to humans and the environment. Because of public perception reasons, the donated events have been constructed free of a marker gene (by co-transformation, a methodology in which two separate gene constructs are introduced concurrently, thereby allowing to breed out the selectable marker by conventional crossing) or they may have been produced using the sugar-based Positech® technology, licensed free-to-use by Syngenta. The latter is an alternative to antibiotic resistance marker genes and which utilises an innocuous non-metabolisable sugar as a selection agent. The transformation events being donated by Syngenta contain neither antibiotic nor herbicide tolerance selectable marker genes.

An alternative selection methodology: Positive Selection
With Positech®, Syngenta has recently presented a new selection technology for the identification of genetically modified (GM) plant cells. This system enables GM seeds to be developed without the use of antibiotic resistance markers. Transformed plant tissues are enabled to grow on a simple, otherwise non-utilizable sugar, hence positive selection. Positech has been put at the licence-free disposal of the agricultural research and development institute in Malaysia (MARDI) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, and is available for other humanitarian projects.









Document Number: 6274
The Future of Golden Rice
Field trials conducted since 2004 have confirmed that the provitamin A production trait does not affect agronomic performance of the rice plants.

In 2005 around 100 Kg of Golden Rice was harvested for further extensive testing of the grains. Tests included human nutritional work to investigate aspects of bioavailability and bioefficacy; carotenoid retention trials in rice food preparation (i.e. how much beta- carotene is left after processing, storage and cooking) with various forms of cooking; and tasting trials with trained rice tasters.

What could be the economic impact of Golden Rice in Asia?
Recent studies suggest significant net economic benefits to countries from the adoption of Golden Rice. These benefits stem from the expected reduction in disease and mortality incidences from VAD, and would by far surpass any adverse economic effects from barriers to exports into countries currently unwilling to import transgenic crops. The economic benefits result from better public health as measured by DALY’s (Disability Adjusted Life Years; see Zimmerman and Qaim, 2004) as well as from increased worker productivity (Anderson et al. 2004). The value of health improvements to the Philippine economy are estimated at US$16 – 88 million per year (Zimmerman and Qaim 2004). Annual net gains in Asia are estimated at US$6.3 billion (China), $2.3 bn (India), and $4.1 bn for the rest of South and South East Asia.

Anderson K, Jackson LA, Pohl Nielsen C (2004) Genetically modified rice adoption: Implications for welfare and poverty alleviation. Centre for International Economic Studies. Discussion Paper No 0413.
Zimmermann R and Qaim M (2004) Potential Health Benefits of Golden Rice: a Philippines Case Study, Food Policy 29:147-168. 
When are locally adapted Golden Rice varieties expected to be in the hands of resource-poor farmers?
GR2 has been bred into locally preferred varieties in India and in the Philippines. Field trials are being conducted and the regulatory process is in full motion. With time, the selected GR2 will have been bred in locally adapted public varieties in all target countries. The transfer of the technology to local rice varieties and the necessary biosafety and efficacy testing is is ongoing and will take another two to four years to complete. Much depends on the regulatory environment of each country.

When are the first health benefits of Golden Rice to be realised?

The health benefits should follow shortly after the rice seeds are available for widespread cultivation and consumption. The actual timing will also depend on the time required for regulatory clearance by the relevant authorities and seed delivery to farmers. It is hoped that by then farmers will have been informed of this development and will be prepared to adopt the "new old" seed—new in colour yet still the same sort of rice they have come to know and to like over time. The positive effect on the health of their children should help spread the word.










Document Number: 7680
Addressing safety concerns
One problem in dealing with opposition to GM technology is the lack of scientific argumentation. The largest “field trial” on earth comprises already more than 100-million hectares of agricultural land (almost 10 percent of all cultivated land on earth) that were dedicated worldwide to transgenic crops in 2006. No adverse effect to humans, animals or the environment have resulted from the growing or consuming of these crops. On the contrary, official reports from Australia, for example, show that pesticide use has been reduced almost 90 percent in the country since the introduction of insect-resistant Bt cotton.
It is most desirable that people who are seriously concerned about the risks of transgenic crops express their fears using concrete and solid arguments, in their own interest, because otherwise they might be missing great opportunities without a reason. Factual argumention can be dealt with, either by addressing the perceived problem and making adjustments to the techniques used, or by providing solid data countering those arguments. Very often objections are based on assertions presented as scientific data, even though the underlying experiments have not passed rigorous scrutiny by peers. These preudo-scientific reports are then cited in a circular fashion, and sadly, they spread very quickly and become credo, based purely on them being repeated in numerous fora.

This negative attitude has been condemned even by people who once were ardent fighters on that front, like Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace. While Mr Moore and we still fight for the original ideal of a world where people and nature can live in harmony, some movements have forgotten about their roots and end up entangled in futile politics and sensationalist stunts, with fundraising and grooming their own image becoming the sole reason of being. The negative impact of these actions has been well described by Mr Moore in a recent article in the Denver Post entitled « Extreme Agendas Harmful».

As an example of the controversy that has been created around Golden Rice we provide here a number of assertions posted by its opponents on the web under the title “Golden Rice is no technical improvement and more unsafe”, followed by short replies to those objections. The assertions start with saying that Golden Rice exhibits all the undesirable, hazardous characteristics of existing GM plants, and in added measure on account of the increased complexity of the constructs and the sources of genetic material used. The alleged hazards are highlighted below.
It is made with a combination of genes and genetic material from viruses and bacteria, associated with diseases in plants, and from other non-food species. 
 
Reply: The bacterial genome codes for anywhere between one and ten-thousand genes, only a few of them are involved in pathogenesis. The bacterial gene used in Golden Rice is clearly identified as a gene involved in the biosynthesis of carotenoids, and that is the only function it can carry out.
 
The gene constructs are new, and have never existed in billions of years of evolution. 
 
Reply: This can be said about any gene that has developed throughout evolution. Also note that there have been multicellular organisms on Earth only during the last one-billion years and that not one single organism has remained unchanged over time.
 
Unpredictable by-products have been generated due to random gene insertion and functional interaction with host genes, which will differ from one plant to another. 
 
Reply: Only individually selected, well characterised transgenic events have been released. Plants derived from one single event all behave the same way in respect of the introduced gene or genes. In these events, the introduced gene constructs do not interrupt any genes in the neighbourhood.
 
Over-expression of transgenes linked to viral promoters, such as that from caluiflower mosaic virus (CaMV), exacerbates unintended metabolic effects as well as instability (see below). There are at least two CaMV promoters in each transgenic plant of the 'Golden Rice', one of which is linked to the antibiotic resistance marker gene. 
 
Reply: The original versions of Golden Rice contained a CaMV promoter sequence, because during the proof-of-concept phase strong expression of the transgene was required. The new, released versions have only tissue-specific promoters that guarantee that the two transgenes are expressed only in the rice grain. Furthermore, the antibiotic resistance gene—which by the way has been proved to be harmless, as it is ubiquitous in nature—was introduced into a separate locus for the initial selection process, after which the gene was crossed out by conventional breeding. The final event contains only the two desired genes.
 
The transgenic DNA is structurally unstable, leading to instability of the GM plants in subsequent generations, multiplying unintended, random effects. Structural instability of transgenic DNA increases the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer and recombination. 
 
Reply: The transgene has been shown to be stable over several generations. The same applies to various gene constructs being commercially used all over the world in over 100-million hectares of agricultural land, 40 percent of it in developing countries.
 
Instability of transgenic DNA is enhanced by the CaMV promoter, which has a recombination hotspot, thereby further increasing the potential for horizontal gene transfer.
 
Reply: As stated above, there is no CaMV promoter in released versions of Golden Rice.
 
The CaMV promoter is promiscuous in function and works efficiently in all plants, in green algae, yeast and E. coli. The spread of genes linked to this promoter by ordinary cross-pollination or by horizontal gene transfer will have enormous impacts on health and biodiversity. In particular, the hygromycin resistance gene linked to it may be able to function in bacteria associated with infectious diseases. 
 
Reply: Most promoters in plants are functional across the whole kingdom. Nobody has yet come up with a scenario whereby the transfer of carotenoid biosynthetic genes, which are present in all plants, should have any effect on health or biodiversity. As to the antibiotic resistance gene, the hygromycin resistance gene is ubiquitous in nature and the antibiotic is practically not used in treatment of humans for that same reason (see also above). Moreover, the viruses like the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) are widespread in nature, and their promoters do not get integrated routinely. Conversely, whole viral genomes can integrate into plants and become a natural part of them, like in the case of banana, where the whole genome of Banana Bunchy Top Virus (BBTV) has long ago become part of the banana genome 
 
Horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA from GM plants into soil fungi and bacteria has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments. Recent evidence suggests that it has also taken place in a field trial site for GM sugarbeets, in which transgenic DNA persisted in the soil for at least two years afterwards. 
 
Reply: Horizontal gene transfer are natural events that occur at an extremely low rate. There is no reason why the Golden Rice genes should be preferentially transferred over 30-thousand-plus other genes in the genome, and if that happened those genes would only be able to participate in the biosyntesis of carotenoids, which all green plants do anyway. The DNA of transgenes is no more or less stable than any other DNA, it will be degraded in the ground at the same rate as the remaining genomic DNA.
 
Prof. Hans-Heinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena, has presented new evidence of horizontal gene transfer within the gut of bee larvae. Pollen from GM rapeseed tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate were fed to immature bee larvae. When the microorganisms were isolated from the gut of the larvae and examined for the presence of the gene conferring glufosinate resistance, it was found in some of the bacteria as well yeast cells. 
 
Reply: This study was widely publicised by opponents of GM technology, but eight years later the study has not found its way into any scientific peer-reviewed publication. Be reminded at this point that the gene studied in that case was that of a herbicide-metabolising gene commonly found in field bacteria. The bees in the study collected the pollen in an open field, which probably explains the source of the bacteria carrying the gene.
 
All cells, including those of human beings, are now known to take up genetic material. While natural (unmanipulated) genetic material is simply broken down to supply energy, invasive pieces of genetic material may jump into the genome to mutate genes. Some insertions of foreign genetic material may also be associated with cancer. 
 
Reply: Genomes of practically all living organisms are interspersed with pieces of DNA that they have acquired along evolution. This was not the result of man-made genetic manipulation. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that spliced genes are more prone to jump out of the genome and into other genomes.
 
Horizontal transfer of genes and constructs from the 'Golden Rice' will spread transgenes, including antibiotic resistance genes to bacterial pathogens, and also has the potential to create new viruses and bacteria associated with diseases. 
 
Reply: This statement has no scientic basis. Golden Rice, as it is being distributed to plant breeders around the world, has no antibiotic resistance genes nor viral promoters. And even if that were the case, there would be no reason to believe that undesirable dangers were looming. By the same token,we could argue that human DNA was dangerous because it could be taken up by microorganisms that could misuse it to disguise themselves as being body-own cells.
 









Document Number: 2108
Fact Sheets
Unpolished rice becomes rancid during storage
Dehusked, unpolished rice grains are covered by the nutrient-rich bran and aleurone layers. Because these layers are rich in lipids they oxidises rapidly when exposed to air, hence the grains turn rancid and untasty during storage. Polishing, on the other hand, produces rice grains devoid of the nutrients contained in the outer layers but not susceptible to changes in colour, odour and taste.
From bottom left, anti-clockwise: freshly harvested Golden Rice grains; dehusked rice grains; polished rice grains.
Parboiled rice
Parboiling is a process applied to rice to preserve some of the nutrients contained in the outer grain layers, which are normally lost during polishing (the bran and aleurone layers). After a short hot steam treatment part of the nutrients diffuse into the starchy endosperm, thus enhancing the nutritive qualities of the rice. The treatment results in rice that is slightly yellow, hence some parboiled rices carry the name "Golden Rice", which must not be confused with the one produced by genetic modification, as in the project described on this web site.
Because of its golden hue, parboiled rice is called "Golden Rice" in some countries, like the Colombian rice on the picture. While this rice has good nutritional characteristics, mainly due to the presence of soluble vitamins from the B complex, it is different from rice engineered to produce beta-carotene in the endosperm.

Clinical Significance of Vitamin A Deficiency
Vitamin A is stored in the liver and deficiency of the vitamin occurs only after prolonged lack of dietary intake. An early symptom of vitamin A deficiency is night blindness. Additional early symptoms include follicular hyperkeratinosis, increased susceptibility to infection and cancer, and anemia equivalent to iron- deficiency anemia. Prolonged lack of vitamin A leads to deterioration of the eye tissue through progressive keratinization (hardened cell layers) of the cornea, a condition known as xerophthalmia. The increased risk of cancer is thought to be the result of a depletion in vitamin A reserves. β-carotene is a very effective antioxidant and is suspected to reduce the risk of cancers known to be initiated by the production of free radicals. Of particular interest is the potential benefit of increased β-carotene intake to reduce the risk of lung cancer in smokers. However, caution must be exercised when increasing the intake of any of the lipid soluble vitamins. Excess accumulation of vitamin A in the liver can lead to toxicity which manifests itself as bone pain, hepatosplenomegaly (enlarged liver), nausea and diarrhea.

Rice consumption and VAD
The potential impact of Golden Rice depends on rice consumption patterns in a given country. Target countries for Golden Rice deployment have been selected based on dietary patterns by country. It is important to also calculate how much pro-vitamin A is obtained by consumers from other nutrient sources in their diet. This allows us to calculate the gap that must be filled by Golden Rice or else.
The data presented in the tables below are for adults. Children under 6 eat in average about half as much as an adult.


Countries consuming more than 400 grams per person per day

 
Country	 SVAD
%	TDCI
%	VAID
µg/day
Bangladesh	28	71	55.6
Cambodia	42	72	90.3
Indonesia	26	51	289
Lao PDR	42	66	141
Myanmar	35	68	86.8
Viet Nam	12	65	95.8
SVAD, Sub-clinical vitamin A deficiency in children under 6 (UNICEF); 
TDCI, total daily rice-based caloric intake (FAO); VAID, vitamin A intake from diet (FAO). 


Everybody needs vitamin A but small children are more susceptible to the lack thereof. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) for children 1-3 years of age is 300 µg per day. Supplying half that amount would maintain a healthy vitamin blood level.
Countries consuming approx 200 grams per person per day

 
Country	SVAD 
%	TDCI 
%	VAID 
µg/day
Brunei	 	28	216
Burkina Faso	46	6	65.2
China	12	29	288
Cuba	 	15	125
Guinea	40	33	229
Guinea Bissau	31	42	163
Guyana	 	31	55.5
India	57	34	124
Korea DPR	 	34	191
Korea, Rep	 	30	260
Madagascar	42	48	49.7
Malaysia	 	30	330
Nepal	33	38	144
Philippines	23	42	106
Senegal	61	30	106
Sierra Leone	47	45	331
Sri Lanka	 	39	34.9
Suriname	 	27	63.6
Thailand	22	44	114
Timor-Leste	 	 	 

SVAD, Sub-clinical vitamin A deficiency in children under 6 (UNICEF); 
TDCI, total daily rice-based caloric intake (FAO); VAID, vitamin A intake from diet (FAO).










Document Number: 5306
From prototype to product
The major micronutrient deficiencies in humans concern iron, zinc, and vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is widespread among rice-based societies, especially among the poor who cannot afford a varied diet. This becomes more acute in remote rural areas, where smallholders grow their own rice and little else. One main reason is that being dependent on a small plot to sustain the livelihood of a whole family the year over, necessarily leads to rice, the same way as it may lead to other starchy, storable crops in other parts of the world. Rice provides the necessary calories to cover the daily energy needs. It is also part of a millenarian culture, it is well adapted to the climate and soil conditions, and it is easily prepared in many ways.
Sadly, while rice grains contain other important nutrients, they do not contain provitamin A, not even the unpolished grains. Plants produce provitamin A, which is a precursor of vitamin A, as well as other related compounds, called carotenoids. Hence, dependence on rice as the predominant food source unavaoidably leads to vitamin A deficiency, most severely affecting children and pregnant women.

A major goal of the Golden Rice Project is to be capable of supplying the recommended daily intake of vitamin A to people living in rice-based societies. The tools necessary to achieve this goal are available since the development of an advanced version of Golden Rice known as GR2.The picture above shows the pleasant orange, translucent colour of GR2, which stems from an increased accumulation of beta-carotene in the grain as compared to the earlier GR1.
Golden Rice, which is the result of targeted genetic engineering, offers a partial solution to a world-wide problem. The approach is based on using precursor molecules present in the grain by filling an enzymatic gap in the pathway to beta-carotene production. This pathway is active in rice leaves but not in the grain. Thus, no new substance is being produced. The modification only consists in producing beta-carotene in a tissue where the plant normally doesn't produce it. The reason why it doesn't is because for the plant beta-carotene is only needed in photosynthetic tissues. Beta-carotene accumulation in carrots is the result of a mutation selected by a breeder and not the natural state of carrots, which are either white or dark purple. In the quest for more nutritious or higher yielding crops, farmers and breeders over the last ten-thousand years or so have selected characteristics that are not always of benefit to the plant but to humans, exactly as we're doing now with Golden Rice.

Our goal is to offer a useful tool to ongoing health programs, by increasing the coverage of vitamin supply, especially to remote rural areas. Our hopes are rooted in the fact that seed represent a sustainable approach to biofortifiied crops. Once farmers start growing Golden Rice, funds used to run some supplementation programs (in the form of pills and capsules) could be freed and redirected to other much needed programs. Experience over time has demonstrated that rice will stay a main caloric intake source for billions of people, because it is easy to grow, well adapted for long term storage, and cheap to obtain. Good beta-carotene sources are not grown everywhere where vitamin deficiency is a problem. Moreover, now know that bioavailability of beta-carotene from vegetables is more inefficient than previously thought, and thus the required increase in daily vegetable intake would be economically unattainable for many poor people.









Document Number: 4724
Filling in the gaps
Golden Rice technology is based on a simple principle. Notwithstanding the fact that rice plants synthesise β-carotene in vegetative tissues but not in the grain, all but two steps of the biosynthetic pathway are present in the grain. By addition of only two genes, phytoene synthase (psy) and phytoene desaturase (crt I), the pathway is reconstituted and β-carotene is consequently accumulated in the endosperm, ie the edible part of the grain.
Carotenoids and their derivatives include a vast number of molecules and accordingly a great number of enzymes and cofactors. Compounds derived from this important pathway include plant hormones, like abcisic acid and gibberellins, vitamin E, part of the chlorophyll molecule, and many natural pigments. A small number of carotenoids have provitamin A activity.
The underlying science in more detail

All plant tissues that accumulate high levels of carotenoid have a mechanism for carotenoid sequestration including crystallisation, oil deposition, membrane proliferation or protein-lipid sequestration. The non-carotenogenic starchy rice endosperm is very low in lipid and apparently lacks any such means for carotenoid deposition. Another restriction in Golden Rice could have been precursor supply. Also, many people believed that the whole carotenoid biosynthetic pathway—composed of many steps—was completely absent in the endosperm. 

For these reasons the generation of Golden Rice went through a long lag phase, until enough scientific data had been accumulated, which encouraged Peter Beyer and Ingo Potrykus to work together and try to engage in this seeminlgy unattainable endeavour. Their breakthrough showed that only two transgenes were required to turn Golden Rice into a reality, and that the feared restrictions described above did not apply (Ye et al., 2000). The first transgene encodes phytoene synthase (PSY), which utilises the endogenously synthesised geranylgeranyl-diphosphate to form phytoene, a colorless carotene with a triene chromophore (Burkhardt et al., 1997). The second encodes a bacterial carotene desaturase (CRTI) that introduces conjugation by adding four double bonds. The combined activity of PSY and CRTI leads to the formation of lycopene, which is a red compound due to its undecaene chromophore. Lycopene has never been observed in any rice transformant and different genetic backgrounds. Instead, alpha- and beta-carotene are found together with variable amounts of oxygenated carotenoids such as lutein and zeaxanthin. The carotenoid pattern observed in the endosperm revealed that the pathway proceeded beyond the end point expected from the enzymatic action of the two transgenes alone. A detail analysis of the underlying mechanism was recently published by co-workers from Peter Beyer's lab in the journal Plant Physiology (Schaub et al., 2005). Their findings are explained in some detail below.
The precursor molecule for carotenoid biosynthesis is geranylgeranyl diphosphate (GGDP). Horizontal bars delimit the steps of the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway that were overcome using the two transgenes phytoene synthase (PSY) and the multifunctional bacterial carotene desaturase (CRTI), rather than the two plant desaturases PDS and ZDS.
One explanation is that enzymes downstream along the pathway, such as lycopene cyclases (LCYs) and alpha- and beta-carotene hydroxylases (HYDs) are are being produced in wild-type rice endosperm, while PSY and one or both of the plant carotene desaturases—phytoene desaturase (PDS) and ζ-carotene desaturase (ZDS)—are not. Synthesis of lycopene by PSY and CRTI in transgenic plants provides the substrate for these downstream enzymes and consequently enables the formation of observed products. The fact that a PSY transgene alone led to phytoene accumulation but not to desaturated products (Burkhardt et al., 1997) is evidence for the absence of at least one active desaturase, namely PDS. Similarly, the expression of CRTI alone did not produce any color in rice endosperm, because of the lack of PSY activity.
The alternative explanation involves feedback induction of endogenous carotenoid biosynthetic genes as a result of the presence of the transgenes. This was shown to be the case in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) fruit upon expression of CRTI alone. Again, beta-carotene rather than lycopene increased, and endogenous carotenoid biosynthetic genes were shown to be upregulated, except for PSY, which was repressed (Römer et al., 2000). Such CRTI-dependent up-regulation may be based on the fact that the plant desaturases, PDS and ZDS, together produce a tetra-cis configured form of lycopene, termed prolycopene (Bartley et al., 1999), which is subsequently isomerized to the trans form by a recently identified isomerase, lycopene-cis- transisomerase (CRTISO; Isaacson et al., 2002, 2004; Park et al., 2002). In contrast, the bacterial CRTI leads to the exclusive formation of the all-trans form of lycopene. Likewise, an increased formation of specific carotenogenic mRNAs and proteins was consistently observed in daffodil flowers upon artificial accumulation of all-trans lycopene after inhibition of LCY, and the total carotenoid content was elevated (Al-Babili et al., 1999).

Plants containing a constitutively expressed crtI transgene were used to explain the Golden Rice phenotype. This was achieved by determining changes in the expression levels of endogenous carotenoid biosynthetic genes and their products. It was conceivable that the presence of CRTI provoked transcriptional activation of the carotenoid biosynthetic genes in the target tissue by a feedback regulatory loop. The loop could be initiated by the absence of tetra-cis-lycopene, normally produced by the two plant desaturases PDS and ZDS, or the constitutive presence of all-trans-lycopene, mediated by CRTI. Lycopene isomers would not only represent orthodox intermediates but would also exert a regulatory role. The newly identified carotenoid pathway enzyme of plants and cyanobacteria, CRTISO (Isaacson et al., 2002; Park et al., 2002), could have played an additional role as regulator. In such a scenario, Golden Rice would have been yellow due to the transcriptional activation of the entire carotenoid biosynthetic pathway.

In an alternative scenario, active downstream enzymes, such as cyclases and hydroxylases, might be present in wild-type rice endosperm, thus explaining the processing of lycopene immediately after synthesis by the introduced upstream transgenes. Wild- type rice endosperm displays low levels of all mRNAs required for xanthophyll formation, ie PSY, PDS, ZDS, CRTISO, β-LCY, ε;-LCY, β-HYD, and ε-HYD. Among these and given the sensitivity of the PCR method used, the PSY transcript was effectively absent and this is consistent with the fact that introduction of PSY is required—but not sufficient—to produce the golden phenotype. The expression of PSY alone results in the accumulation of phytoene (Burkhardt et al., 1997).

The essential requirement for CRTI apparently conflicts with the presence of PDS and ZDS transcripts in wild-type endosperm, as shown by TaqMan real-time PCR. This could be due to low level protein expression and enzymatic activity rather than mRNA levels. Due to the low expression, the complicated underlying reaction mechanisms of PDS and ZDS and the unavailability of radioactive carotene substrates, the investigations were done using a transgenic approach rather than in vitro reactions. The endosperm- specific expression of the PDS/ZDS system—instead of CRTI—in rice endosperm resulted in the formation of comparable levels of colored carotenoids. Thus, the rice endosperm provides the complex requirements for the activity of the plant desaturases.

PDS requires a redox chain, employing quinones, a quinone-reductase, and molecular oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor (Beyer et al., 1989; Mayer et al., 1990; Nievelstein et al., 1995) to which it is linked via an oxidase identified through the immutans mutation of Arabidopsis (for review, see Kuntz, 2004). This redox pathway is especially important in non- green carotenoid-bearing tissues like endosperm, while the photosynthetic electron transport is thought to play an analogous role in chloroplasts. Therefore, one interpretation is that colored carotenoids do not form in the endosperm with PSY as the only transgene because the expression of the rice PDS/ZDS system is too low. It has been shown that, in contrast to PSY, CRTI is not rate limiting and is capable of desaturating large amounts of phytoene, thereby increasing beta-carotene accumulation (Paine et al., 2005).

The primary sequence of CRTI is unrelated to the plant-type desaturases. This might explain simpler co-factor requirements and may therefore be more effective in rice endosperm than the plant-type desaturases. On the other hand, CRTISO, which is also active in rice endosperm seems to have originated from CRTI in evolution (Isaacson et al., 2002; Park et al., 2002).

PSY, PDS, and ZDS expression in rice endosperm installed the poly-cis pathway of carotene desaturation, but the beta-carotene formed was predominantly in the all-trans form, accompanied by the typical pattern of cis-isomers, the 9-cis form being the most abundant. Furthermore, endosperm from transgenic plants relying on CRTI-mediated desaturation yielded the identical isomer ratio of beta-carotenes, indicating that rice CRTISO catalyses the formation of these isomers at this specific ratio, consistent with its in vitro activity (Isaacson et al., 2004). The activity of CRTISO is also crucial with respect to the formation of cyclic end groups. In its absence, cyclic carotenoids and derived xanthophylls would not form in non-green tissues, as has been shown with the tangerine mutation in tomato fruit and in etioplasts from the Arabidopsis ccr2 mutant, both lacking functional CRTISO (Isaacson et al., 2002; Park et al., 2002).

Clearly, LCY activities and the activities of the divergent class of ß-HYD (for review, see Tian and DellaPenna, 2004) rely on the expression of the respective rice genes in the endosperm. In all rice genetic backgrounds tested so far, complementation with these activities is not required to proceed down the pathway. Moreover, the activity of rice LCYs never proved to be rate limiting, since lycopene did not accumulate. Thus, Golden Rice is yellow because of the activity of intrinsic rice cyclases. TaqMan real-time PCR analyses with RNA isolated from transgenic rice endosperm did not give any indication of a feedback regulatory loop that may affect the expression of rice carotenoid biosynthetic genes, because all the corresponding mRNA levels remained unchanged when compared to the wild-type.

The situation was similar in leaves of rice and Arabidopsis expressing CRTI constitutively, despite an increase in xanthophylls. In both cases, lutein decreased, partially compensated by an increase in ß-carotene and its derived xanthophylls. This was also the case in tobacco BY2 cells transformed with constitutively expressed CRTI, but here no comparable change in carotenoid composition was found, probably because BY2 cells do not accumulate lutein and zeaxanthin. The change in the xanthophyll ratio observed in rice and Arabidopsis leaves varied in an event-dependent manner and was inversely correlated to the CRTI expression level. The flux of substrate into either branch of xanthophyll formation is controlled by the two LCYs, which convert lycopene into β- carotene (β,β-carotene) and α-carotene (β ε-carotene). However, no significant changes in the levels of the trancripts of the cyclases were found that would mirror the change in carotenoid composition. It must therefore be assumed that the state of geometric isomerism in lycopene has a certain impact on the probability of β- or ε;-ring formation.

The lack of CRTISO in mutants of tomato and Arabidopsis also led to a predominance of the beta-carotene-derived xanthophylls in leaves (Isaacson et al., 2002; Park et al., 2002). Thus, the observed effect is most likely at the level of enzymatic catalysis and geometric isomerism of lycopene, but not at the level of gene expression. This effect is evident only in tissues exhibiting carotenoid biosynthesis in the wild-type, such as in leaves. It cannot occur in transformed endosperm, which lacks carotenoids in the wild- type.

The observed decrease in lutein in leaves might, in theory, have a negative impact on photosynthetic performance. Lutein, the most abundant xanthophyll, is primarily attached to the light-harvesting complex II. Using mutants of Arabidopsis, it has been shown that a decrease in lutein content leads to a reduction of PSII antenna size (Lokstein et al., 2002). This suggests that lutein has the ability to optimize antenna structure and stability to ensure efficient light harvesting. Therefore, we chose to express crtI under the control of a tissue-specific promoter in newer versions of Golden Rice (Paine et al., 2005; Al-Babili et al., submitted; TTC Hoa and P Schaub, unpublished results).

Golden Rice: The First Generation

The first breakthrough in the development of Golden Rice was the result of a collaboration between Peter Beyer and Ingo Potrykus and was obtained around Easter 1999 (Ye et al., Science 287:303-5, 2000). This paper provided the proof that beta-carotene could be produced in the rice grain. At the time it was still believed that, beside phytoene synthase and carotene desaturase, a third enzyme, lycopene cyclase, was needed to complement the biosynthetic pathway (see discussion and diagram above).
With the proof of concept in hands, the scientists immediately proceeded to develop ways of improving the production and accumulation of carotenoids in the seed, as it was recognised that at the levels attainable at the time (1.6 µg/g) Golden Rice would not be able to fully cover the daily pro-vitamin A requirements of the target population in the absence of a more varied diet. While some population strata in SE Asia do consume more varied diets, many of the poorest do not, in fact in some rural population rice makes up more than 80% of their daily caloric intake.

These efforts led to the development of what we could call the first generation of Golden Rice (after the proof of concept), also known as SGR1. This version only contained the phytoene synthase (psy) gene from daffodil and the carotene desaturase (crtI) gene from the bacterium Erwinia uredovora. Further, in this version both genes were expressed only in the rice endosperm. The levels of carotenoids obtained in the greenhouse were not very unlike the precursor version (1-2 µg/g) but in the field production and accumulation amounted to an average of 6 µg/g. This might have been due to improved growth conditions and to the selection process that the plants underwent. This level of carotenoids contents is expected to be able to cover the recommended daily intake values for children when taking into consideration a modest intake of vegetables and fish or other animal sources (as they are doing at present).
Gene construct used to generate Golden Rice. RB, T-DNA right border sequence; Glu, rice endosperm-specific glutelin promoter; tpSSU, pea ribulose bis-phosphate carboxylase small subunit transit peptide for chloroplast localisation; nos, nopaline synthase terminator; Psy, phytoene synthase gene from Narcissus pseudonarcissus (GR1) or Zea mays (GR2); Ubi1, maize polyubiquitin promoter; Pmi, phosphomannose isomerase gene from E. coli for positive selection (GR2); LB, T-DNA left border sequence.
A new Golden Rice generation

The first generation of Golden Rice was a valuable proof of concept, but it was recognised that to combat vitamin A deficiency more efficiently higher β-carotene accumulation levels would be required. As only two transgenes are required in the process, the logical approach was to identify the bottleneck of the biosynthetic pathway and fine-tune the enzymatic activities of the two gene products involved, phytoene synthase (PSY) and carotene desaturase (CRTI). This can be done by replacing the genes with homologues from other sources or modifying their regulatory regions.
In most multi-step biosynthetic pathways there is a rate-limiting step. Making a long story short, the bottleneck in this case was the enzymatic activity of PSY. After trying with PSY genes from different sources it turned out that the maize and rice genes gave the best results (Paine et al., 2005). In the process Golden Rice lines were obtained that accumulated up to 37 µg/g carotenoid of which 31 µg/g is β-carotene (as compared to the first generation Golden Rice where only 1.6 µg/g were obtained.

The recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin A for 1-3 year-old children is 300 µg (half the RDA is enough to maintain vitamin A at a normal, healthy level). Based on a retinol equivalency ratio for β-carotene of 12:1, half the RDA would be provided in 72 g of the new-generation Golden Rice. This is perfectly compatible with rice consumption levels in target countries, which lie at 100-200 g of rice per child per day.
 The image clearly shows the progress made since the proof-of-concept stage of Golden Rice. The new generation, also known as GR2 contains β-carotene levels that will allow to provide an adequate amount of pro- vitamin A in normal children's diets in SE Asia.










Document Number: 5506

Environmental Research
Assessing environmental impact
Two main concerns about potential environmental impacts remain the focus of public attention; these are, the possibility of a genetically modified crop becoming a weed, and the possibility of unwanted genes being transferred to wild relatives. Plants possess varying degrees of a quantifiable inherent weedy behaviour; the effect of a transgene on weediness will be mainly a function of this background. Weeds are mainly an agricultural problem requiring adequate management practices to be dealt with. The other main concern is with the displacement of related plants in the wild or the introgression of transgenes into those relatives, principally in centers of origin. One of the questions being debated is whether the introgression of a transgene into wild relatives could cause loss of biodiversity at all or be different in any way from traditionally bred commercial varieties.
Rice paddies harbour a plethora of organisms, including algae, microorganisms, beneficial insects, and sometimes commercially utilised crayfish. To maintain this diversity it is important to develop agronomical practices that minimise the use of biocidal compounds.The use of resistance genes, crossed in from other varieties or introduced by genetic engineering, eg Bt genes, is one way of managing threats to both the crop and the environment.










Document Number: 7317
Transgenic crops, the best-analysed plants in history
The role of a comparative approach as part of a safety assessment

In 1990, a joint consultation of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) established that the comparison of a final product with one having an acceptable standard of safety provides an important element of safety assessment (WHO, 1991).
In 1993 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) further elaborated this concept and advocated the approach to safety assessment based on substantial equivalence as being the most practical approach to addressing the safety of foods and food components derived through modern biotechnology (as well as other methods of modifying a host genome including tissue culture methods and chemical or radiation induced mutation). In 2000 the Task Force concluded in its report to the G8 that the concept of substantial equivalence will need to be kept under review (OECD, 2000).

The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology in 2000 concluded that the safety assessment of genetically modified foods requires an integrated and stepwise, case-by-case approach, which can be aided by a structured series of questions. A comparative approach focusing on the determination of similarities and differences between the genetically modified food and its conventional counterpart aids in the identification of potential safety and nutritional issues and is considered the most appropriate strategy for the safety and nutritional assessment of genetically modified foods. The concept of substantial equivalence was developed as a practical approach to the safety assessment of genetically modified foods. It should be seen as a key step in the safety assessment process although it is not a safety assessment in itself; it does not characterise hazard, rather it is used to structure the safety assessment of a genetically modified food relative to a conventional counterpart. The Consultation concluded that the application of the concept of substantial equivalence contributes to a robust safety assessment framework.

A previous Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety (1996) elaborated on compositional comparison as an important element in the determination of substantial equivalence. A comparison of critical components can be carried out at the level of the food source (ie species) or the specific food product. Critical components are determined by identifying key nutrients, key toxicants and anti-nutrients for the food source in question. The comparison of critical components should be between the modified variety and non-modified comparators with an appropriate history of safe use. The data for the non-modified comparator can be the natural ranges published in the literature for commercial varieties or those measured levels in parental or other edible varieties of the species (FAO, 1996). The comparator used to detect unintended effects for all critical components should ideally be the near isogenic parental line grown under identical conditions. While the comparative approach is useful as part of the safety assessment of foods derived from plants developed using recombinant DNA technology, the approach could, in general, be applied to foods derived from new plant varieties that have been bred by other techniques.

»Consensus document on compositional consideration for new varieties of rice (Oryza sativa): Key food and feed nutrients and anti-nutrients«
Risk assessment process: From Koenig et al. Food and Chemical Toxicology 42:1047–1088, 2004.
The role of familiarity in risk/safety assessment

The issue of scale-up also led to an important concept, familiarity, which is one key approach that has been used subsequently to address the environmental safety of transgenic plants.
The concept of familiarity is based on the fact that most genetically engineered organisms are developed from organisms such as crop plants whose biology is well understood. It is not a risk/safety assessment in itself (U.S. NAS 1989). However, the concept facilitates risk/safety assessments, because to be familiar, means having enough information to be able to make a judgement of safety or risk (U.S. NAS 1989). Familiarity can also be used to indicate appropriate management practices including whether standard agricultural practices are adequate or whether other management practices are needed to manage the risk (OECD 1993a). Familiarity allows the risk assessor to draw on previous knowledge and experience with the introduction of plants and micro-organisms into the environment and this indicates appropriate management practices.

As familiarity depends also on the knowledge about the environment and its interaction with introduced organisms, the risk/safety assessment in one country may not be applicable in another country. However, as field tests are performed, information will accumulate about the organisms involved, and their interactions with a number of environments.

Familiarity comes from the knowledge and experience available for conducting a risk/safety analysis prior to scale-up of any new plant line or crop cultivar in a particular environment. For plants, for example, familiarity takes account of, but need not be restricted to, knowledge and experience with:
the crop plant, including its flowering/reproductive characteristics, ecological requirements, and past breeding experiences;
the agricultural and surrounding environment of the trial site;
specific trait(s) transferred to the plant line(s);
results from previous basic research including greenhouse/glasshouse and small-scale field research with the new plant line or with other plant lines having the same trait;
the scale-up of lines of the plant crop varieties developed by more traditional techniques of plant breeding;
the scale-up of other plant lines developed by the same technique;
the presence of related (and sexually compatible) plants in the surrounding natural environment, and knowledge of the potential for gene transfer between crop plant and the relative; and
interactions between/among the crop plant, environment and trait (OECD, 1993a).
Golden Rice has been researched thoroughly

Golden Rice has gone through many tests since it was first obtained. Among the tests performed are:
In depth investigation and understanding of the endosperm carotenoid biosynthetic pathway modification, thus accurately explaining the golden colour of Golden Rice.
Less than 10 transgenic events (from about 2000 created) were carefully selected to be able to fulfil regulatory requirements regarding the genetic structure.
Gene expression profiling of thousands of genes was carried out, showing no unexpected changes or gross perturbances in the expression profile as compared to the parent material.
Allergenic potential has been ruled out at the prediction level using bioinformatic analysis of transgene proteins. The report is available online at Allergenonline.
High digestibility of the transgenic proteins in simulated gastric fluid has been demonstrated, further substantiating the claim of lack of allergenic potential.
It was shown that on a molar basis, Golden Rice diverts only a minuscule ampunt of the overall carbon into carotenoids, so that changes in compositional analysis are minimal.
Various taste trials were conducted showing no taste differences to the parent material.
Tests for beta-carotene bioavailability and bioconversion to retinol (the most significant source of Vitamin A) with deuterium-labelled Golden Rice fed to adults in USA and a small group of children in China have been conducted. The former were highly successful and the latter are being evaluated at present.
Feeding trials with human adults in China were carried out to measure the effect of fat in the diet, on bioconversion and bioavailability.
The Golden Rice project is already working with regulators in some target countries, planning to obtain regulatory approval at least in one country before 2011. Readers be reminded that regulation is only for commercial release purposes. Informed individuals are allowed to eat Golden Rice prior to regulatory clearance in a country. However, the Golden Rice project has been careful to severely restrict usage only to that essential to the objectives of the project. Fewer than about 50 people have tasted Golden Rice so far.
Current breeding work is aimed at event selection for Golden Rice with optimal nutritional characteristics. Human studies are essential to that understanding. A compositional analysis will be run with the final selected transformation event—the one that will go through the final regulatory process—in a stable germplasm background. Such analyses are not valid with segregating materials in breeding programs.

Animal testing is not mandated by FDA, and, as animals metabolise beta-carotene differently from humans, would not have answered the human bioavailability and bioconversion questions which need to be answered for Golden Rice relative to beta-carotene delivered in capsule form, or in spinach.











Document Number: 7280
Golden Rice Risk Assessment
A decision is arrived at after extensive testing
Some of the data provided with Golden Rice for transboundary movement

Before Golden Rice is exported to a country a risk assessments package is submitted to the approving authority in the receiving country according to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety .
Name and identity of the GMO (event number, OECD unique identifier etc), including domestic classification, if any, of the Biosafety level of the GMO in the exporting country. 

Events numbered 146, 309 and 652. 

Risk assessment classification: 

Class 1 

Information on the recipient or parental organism 

a.	Taxonomic status: 

Family name: Poacae
Genus: Oryzae
Species: Oryza sativa
Subspecies: indica, japonica
Cultivar/breeding line: Cocodrie 

b.	Common name: 

Rice 

c.	Centres of origin and centres of genetic diversity: 

Rice is grown worldwide and is a staple food for about half of the world’s population. The centre of diversity is thought to include the stretch from Assam in India and Bangledesh to Myanmar and Northern Thailand through to theYunan Province in China. This zone has both topographical and hydrological heterogeneity. 

d.	Point of acquisition or collection: 

Cocodrie is a variety that is registered by Lousiana State University, USA. 

e.	Characteristics related to biosafety, ie reproducibility, survivability (incl information on habitats where the parental organism is known to persist or proliferate), toxicity, allergenicity: 

Rice is an autogamous self-pollinating crop, replicating sexually through seeds and vegetatively through tillers in favourable temperature and water conditions. The life (viability) span of the pollen is short (3-5 minutes) and the majority of cultivated rice does not have stigmas that exert beyond the glumes. Rice is grown as an annual crop plants with a generation time of 4-6 months, a second crop can sometimes be obtained from the tillers or ratoon, under favourable water and temperature conditions. 

With regard to human health rice contains endogenous allergenic proteins. They are present in the albumin and globulin fractions of rice endosperm proteins and have significant homology with the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitor family from wheat and barley. Rice pollen, like pollen from all other plants can cause allergic reactions in susceptible individuals when inhaled. 

Information on the donor organisms: 

The donor organisms are described in the table below 

Element

Taxonomic status

Common name


Characteristics related to Biosafety, ie toxicity, allergenicity, pathogenicity

Coding sequence

Amaryllidacea

 

Narcissus pseudo­narcissus

Daffodil

Widespread in the environment.  Daffodil bulbs are toxic to animals and humans if ingested and can cause contact dermatitis

Coding sequence

Entero­bacteriacae

Erwinia uredovora

Syn:

 Pantoea ananas

A common plant pathogen of fruits and vegetables causing soft rot diseases.  Pectate lyases from Erwinia species share sequence similarity with the common allergen Amb alpha II

Non coding sequence

Caulimovirus

Cauliflower Mosaic virus

Widespread in the environment and human and animal diets
Non-coding sequence

Agrobacterium tumefaciens

Crown gall

Tumorigenic strains of Agrobacterium  causes crown galls diseases.  The strain used in non-tumorigenic. The sequences used are non-coding, so no protein product is produced to cause toxicity, allergenicity or pathogenicity.

Non coding sequence

Oryza sativa

Rice

Widespread in the environment and human and animal diets.  No known toxicity or pathogenicity associated with the donor organism.  Some susceptible individuals are allergic to rice
Coding sequence

Pisum sativum

Pea

Widespread in the environment and human and animal diets.  No known toxicity or pathogenicity associated with the donor organism
Description of the nucleic acid or the modification introduced, the vector and technique used and the resulting characteristics of the GMO: Agrobacterium-mediated transformation with a superbinary vector plasmid was used to introduce the plant and bacterial sequences into the rice plants to deliver accumulation of carotenoid in rice endosperm tissues. 

The specific and intended effect of the modification is to produce transgenic rice plants that have carotenoids expressed in the rice endosperm, where non previously existed. 

Information on the location, geographic, climatic and environmental characteristics of the receiving environment, including any centres of origin or biological diversity:

India 

The environment into which the transgenic rice plants will be introduced is a typically agricultural environment in the country listed above. Rice can establish itself outside the agricultural environment, which is illustrated by the establishment of weedy rice or red rice (O. sativa f. spontanea). In practice, the prevention of weed infestation by the weedy rice is managed by planting seed that is free of red rice and cultural methods are used to control its incidence. 

India is a centre of origin for rice, with common wild rice species such as O. rufipogon, O. nivara present as well as cultivated japonica and indica species. O. rufipogon is widely distributed throughout Asia and present in the majority of Indian states. 

Intended use of the GMO or derived products: 

The intended use of the GMO is for research purposes to allow the evaluation of and to compare the agronomic fitness and carotenoid composition of each line. 

Quantity or volume of the GMO to be transferred: 

Up to 500 g of seed of each line. 

A risk assessment report (see formats given in Annex 1 below) a.	Consistent with Annex II of Directive 2001/18 for exports out of the EU.
b.	According to Annex III of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol for other relevant movements. 

Suggested methods for the 

a.	safe handling: 
There are no specific differences between the seed /plants of the rice events compared to traditional rice except for the accumulation of carotenoids in the rice endosperm. Rice is widely grown commercially and therefore it is proposed to use similar practices as would be used for traditional rice varieties. 

storage: 
Storage will be in a secure location, with the labelled seed bags only being opened on the day of sowing. Sowing will take place under supervision of the trials officer. Excess seed, not required for the trials will be returned to seed store in labelled bags and/or returned to sender and/or destroyed. 

b.	transport:
The seeds will be packed and transported in such a way that no seed will escape. The seed will be sent in a sealed container, which will be placed in a second sealed container. 

c.	use, including packaging, labelling, documentation, disposal and contingency procedures where appropriate:
Each packet will be labelled with the event identifier. Seed will be stored and or returned to sender as detailed above. In the event of an emergency seed can easily be destroyed by autoclaving or incineration and plants can be destroyed by application of a suitable herbicide. Shipping documentation will contain the following text:
«;This shipment contains LMOs intended for deliberate release into the environment» 

d.	detection and identification and their specificity, sensitivity and reliability:
The seed of the transgenic rice can be visually distinguished as they have a yellow colouration to the endosperm. Traditional PCR techniques can be used to detect the genes of interest in the transgenic plants. These are research samples and as such event specific detection methods have not yet been developed (as required for commercial release). 

The regulatory status of the GMO within the country of export, including any restrictions, and if the GMO has been banned in the country of export the reason(s) for the ban: 

The events listed are research samples and have not received any regulatory approvals in the country of origin. All work that has been carried out in the UK has been in accordance with EC Directive 90/219 and amendments. 

Results and purpose of any notification by the exporter to other countries regarding the GMO to be transferred: 

The events have been imported from the UK to the USA (Import permit from USA 03-266-04N) and released into the field in the USA in 2004 (Permit Number 04- 036-01N ( SYN2004 -102). Purpose is for small-scale field trials for evaluation of agronomic characteristics of the lines in the field under the different growing conditions and to compare the agronomic fitness of each line. 

ANNEX 1 (a) Information required for the risk assessment consistent with ANNEX II of EC Directive 2001/18 for exports out of EU countries (Genetically Modified Higher Plants GMHP)
Likelihood of the GMHP becoming more persistent that the recipient or parental plants in agricultural habitats or more invasive in natural habitats. 

Rice is planted and harvested as an annual crop. Wild populations with which it could cross-pollinate are minimised by agricultural practice, as is red rice, or weedy rice, which can establish itself outside agricultural habitats. In practice red rice is controlled by cultural methods . The main form of dispersal is the seed, which may give rise to volunteer plants when there are favourable water and temperature conditions that allow germination. The introduction of the carotenoid biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm will not render rice weedy or invasive of natural habitats as none of the reproductive or growth characteristics have been modified. This is a small scale research trial and as such will be carefully managed within a controlled environment with appropriate isolation distances to minimise gene flow to wild and weedy rices. 

In conclusion, no differences between the transgenic and non-transgenic rice plants have been observed to date with the exception of the effect of the accumulation of carotenoids and therefore the reproductive and vegetative fitness of the transgenic events are comparable to the recipient variety.


Any selective advantage or disadvantage conferred to the GMHP: 

The rice plants have been modified to express the carotenoids biosynthetic genes in the endosperm by the introduction of two genes. There is a theoretical possibility that the accumulation of carotenoids in the grain endosperm could alter the attractiveness of the grain to pests and seed eaters. If this were to be the case it could be a potential selective advantage, if the transgenic rice became more unattractive than conventional rice or a selective disadvantage if the transgenic rice became more attractive that conventional rice. Phenotypic performance in the glasshouse and the reproductive and vegetative fitness described above shows no selective disadvantage to the transgenic plants. 

Potential for gene transfer to the same or other sexually compatible plant species under the conditions of planting of the GMHP and any selective advantage or disadvantage conferred to those plant species. 

Rice is generally considered a self-pollinator, however natural outcrossing can occur. Cultivated rice can cross easily with red rice or other rice crops to produce fully fertile hybrids. Rice pollen is short lived and in cultivated rice the stigma does not protrude beyond the glumes. The distribution of pollen from its source decreases considerably with increasing distance (Messeguer et al., 2001). In small scale field trials, management measures such as isolation distance are employed to prevent cross-pollination to either wild or weedy species of rice or cultivated rice in the vicinity of the trial site. 

In addition, there is no evidence that the viability of the pollen or other reproductive characteristics are changed compared to the recipient rice plants, thus there is no expectation that there would be alterations in out-crossing potential. Dispersal can also occur through the seed stage. Careful measures will be undertaken with regards to handling and storage of the seed. 

Potential immediate and /or delayed environmental impact resulting from direct and indirect interactions between the GMHP and target organisms, such as predators, parasitoids and pathogens (if applicable): 

There are no target organisms. 

Potential immediate and /or delayed environmental impact resulting from direct and indirect interactions between the GMHP and non-target organisms ( taking into account organisms that interact with target organisms), including impact on population levels of competitors, herbivores, symbionts (where applicable), parasites and pathogens: 

The inserted genes are isolated from naturally occurring organisms that are already widespread and prevalent in the environment, namely daffodil (Narcissus psedonarcissus), the soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora and a non-pathogenic strain of E. coli. Direct, immediate effects could arise from potential genetic instability or gene silencing which could cause the transgenic rice to revert to no carotenoid expression in the endosperm and hence be the same as unmodified rice. 

A large range of pests and diseases attack rice, with weed infestation being one of the most important sources of economic crop losses. One of the main weed species is weedy rice (O. sativa). In a rice field there are also numbers of beneficial predators and parasitoid species such as spiders, grasshoppers, ants, wasps and beetles that seek out eggs and larvae of pests. Integrated pest management solutions are often the preferred choice of the rice farmer as the use of pesticides can kill the natural predators, leading to an increase in the pest populations following pesticide applications. The introduction of genes from the carotenoid biosynthesis pathway, for expression in rice endosperm is unlikely to affect the populations of beneficial predators or parasitoids. One theoretical outcome of the expression of the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway into rice is that the colouration of the grain could lead to altered attractiveness of the rice grain to pests and or predators. In the small scale field trial a visual assessment will be made for any preference or avoidance of pests on the transgenic rice. 

Interactions with other organisms are largely limited to the agricultural environment. Rice seed could shatter before or during harvest and be moved off site by birds and rodents. The rice varieties being used in the trials exhibit little or no dormancy and as such are likely to germinate quickly if the water and temperature regime are favourable. If the seed falls in an environment where the temperature and water conditions are unfavourable then the rice seed is unlikely to survive. Agronomic practices and crop rotations would be likely to contain the spread of volunteer seed and plants. 

An immediate direct effect could be through cross fertilisation of the transgenic rice into weedy or other cultivated rice genotypes can occur if they are in close proximity. Studies have shown that this can occur at very low frequencies, but measures will be taken in the design of trials to reduce this low frequency still further, such as isolation distances. 

In conclusion, the transgenic rice will have the same interactions in the environment as non transgenic rice in this small scale research trial. 

Possible immediate and or delayed effects on human health resulting from potential direct and indirect interactions with the GMHP and persons working with, coming into contact with or in the vicinity of the GMHP release(s): 

These are small scale research trials and as such all plants used in the release will be destroyed at the end of the trial and will therefore not be used as human food or animal feed. Rice itself is a well-known food for much of the world’s population with a history of safe use. Rice contains a number of antinutrients including phytic acid, trypsin inhibitor and a lectin. All antinutrients are concentrated in the bran fraction and with the exception of phytic acid are heat labile. With regard to human health rice contains endogenous allergenic proteins. They are present in the albumin and globulin fractions of rice endosperm proteins and have significant homology with the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitor family from wheat and barley. Rice pollen, like pollen from all other plants can cause allergic reactions in susceptible individuals when inhaled. The introduced genes are from daffodil and the soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora. 

Daffodils are known to be toxic by ingestion to animals and humans due to the toxic alkaloids that they contain and can cause skin irritations and allergy in workers handling daffodils and other members of the Amaryllidacea family. 

Erwinia uredovora is a soil bacterium that is phytpopathogenic on a wide range of fruits and vegetables, causing soft rot diseases. The pectate lysase enzymes that are responsible for the pathogenic nature of the bacterial diseases caused by Erwinia species have sequence similarity with the AMB Alpha II allergen. Both the coding sequences of the introduced genes have been subjected to a search for homology with known allergens and toxins at an 8-amino-acid linear epitope level and no homology was reported. 

In conclusion, the possibility that the introduced genes could have toxic or allergenic effects on human health as a result of this small scale research trial is effectively zero. 

Possible immediate and or delayed effects on animal health and consequences for the feed/food chain resulting from the consumption of the GMO and any products derived from it, if it is intended to be used as animal feed: 

The trials in the importing countries will be small scale and all plants used in the release will be destroyed at the end of the trial and will therefore not be used as human food or animal feed. Rice products such as straw, bran and rough rice can be used as animal feed, but in practice it is not often used as it is high cost and low in nutritive value compared to other feeds. Rice polishings, a by-product of milling however does provide a nutritious feed product. Mixtures of carotenoids are widely used as animal feed additives for organoleptic properties and as colourants. There is no reason to believe that there will be any effects on animal diets that are different to conventional rice. 

Possible immediate and/or delayed effects on biogeochemical processes resulting from potential direct and indirect interactions of the GMO and target and non-target organisms in the vicinity of the GMO release(s): 

No direct, indirect, immediate or delayed effects on biogeochemical processes arising out of the interaction between the modified rice and non target organisms can be envisaged. 

Possible immediate and/ or delayed, direct and indirect environmental impacts of the specific cultivation management and harvesting techniques used for the GMHP where these are different from those used for the non-GMHPs: 

Cultivation and management techniques used for rice in the trials in the importing countries are the same as those used in normal trial practices in those countries. 

In conclusion, the environmental risk assessment concludes that the risk of potential adverse effects in the environment from small scale research trials is effectively zero.

A long and winding road: the path from the lab to the field.
Golden Rice inventors Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer examining the agronomic behaviour of greenhouse-grown transgenic rice plants.










Document Number: 2438

The Biology of Oryza sativa (Rice)
1.	Species composition and distribution

Northern India, Southeast Asia, and southern China are believed to be the centre of origin of Asian rice (Oryza sativa). The rice genus Oryza has a pantropical distribution and comprises approximately 23 species that include both diploids (2n=2x=24) and tetraploids (2n=4x=48), and ten different genome types: AA, BB, CC, BBCC, CCDD, EE, FF, GG, JJHH, and JJKK (Vaughan 1994; Ge et al 1999). The genus Oryza is distributed in Asia (eg O. rufipogon and O. nivara, both AA genomes), Africa (eg O. barthii, and O. longistaminata, both AA genomes), Australia (eg O. meridionalis, AA genome), tropical America (O. glumaepatula, AA genome, and O. grandiglumis, O. alta, and O. latifolia, all CCDD genomes) (Akimoto 1998; Sano and Sano 1990; Vaughan 1994). Asian cultivated rice (O. sativa) has the diploid AA genome. Wild progenitors of African cultivated rice (O. glaberrima, AA genome) are grasses endemic to West Africa.
2.	Environmental Safety Considerations

Outcrossing and Weediness Potential
Cultivated rice (Oryza sativa L.) is primarily an autogamous, self-pollinating plant, although gene introgression into other cultivated rice is possible. Cultivated rice is an annual, it does not shatter or disperse its seed, and has not acquired extended dormancy. Reported outcrossing rates are less than one percent and are limited by the biological characteristics of rice (Messeguer et al 2001). Factors including flower morphology, inability of pollen to remain viable longer than a few minutes, and a lack of insect vectors for pollen spread contribute to the low propensity of rice to cross-pollinate. Modern rice cultivars are often grown near older, traditional landraces in Asia, whereby only very low hybridization rates between these two groups have been measured (Rong et al 2004). This is consistent with recommended distances of six meters and less in certified seed production (Gealy et al 2003). Oryza species with different genome types have significant reproductive isolation, making them unlikely to hybridize with each other. Hybridization between species in different genera within the tribe Oryzeae is extremely difficult, even using artificial conditions such as embryo rescue.
In the United States, the only wild species known to be compatible to cultivated rice is O. rufipogon, which has been found in a single location in the Everglades of Florida, and red rice, a wild variant of cultivated O. sativa, thus it is considered very unlikely that cultivated rice would hybridize with O. rufipogon under such conditions.

Red rice, also known as O. sativa f. spontanea is considered a weedy species in the cultivation of rice, as the reproduction of red rice favours specific environmental conditions (such as flooded fields) that are typical in the cultivation of commercial rice. Outside of rice production areas, red rice is not a weed species. Gene flow from cultivated rice into red rice can occur, although the rate is likely to be very low with levels being dependent on the degree of overlapping of flowering periods. Weedy rice is readily found in tropical America. Weedy rice appears to be mainly composed of annual Oryza spp with feral traits including seed shattering. In contrast to Asia where manual transplanting is still predominant, direct seeding of weedy rice- contaminated seed is common for a high proportion of rice farmers in tropical America, ensuring field reinfestations and making it one of the most serious weed problems in this region (Fischer and Ramirez 1993).

Weedy rice is often referred to as red rice because of the red color of its pericarp, and it has been botanically classified as O. sativa f. spontanea, the same species as cultivated rice (Chu et al 1969; Diarra et al 1985; Ellstrand et al 1999; Langevin et al 1990; Oka and Chang 1961). Reports suggest that weedy rice may include other Oryza species including O. barthii, O. glaberrima, O. longistaminata, O. nivara, O. punctata, O. sativa, and O. latifolia (an American tetraploid) (Holm et al 1997). Hybrid swarms between the American form of O. perennis and O. sativa have been found in Cuba (Chu and Oka 1969). Weedy rice may also have evolved through the dedomestication of cultivated rice to weedy types (Vaughan et al 2003). In addition to seed shattering, weedy rice seeds may possess secondary dormancy, and some types are morphologically indistinguishable from rice varieties yet still shatter seed (Lentini and Espinoza 2005). Natural gene flow estimates in the field from herbicide-resistant rice into weedy rice under temperate conditions indicate hybridization rates of under one percent (Chen et al 2004; Estorninos et al 2002; Messeguer et 2004; Zhang et al 2003), as confirmed by genetic analysis. However, a cumulative hybridization rate (over a 3-year period) under temperate conditions may be from 1 to 52% (Guadaggnuolo et al 2001), indicating that genes from rice varieties may transfer and be quickly fixed into weedy rice if they have a selective value. The cumulative rate of introgression may be even higher under tropical conditions because of the lack of crop rotation and several crop cycles per year. Several biological, genetic, and environmental factors affect the level of outcross compatibility, including temperature, humidity, genotype, flower morphology, stigma receptivity, pollen viability, pollen germination, and tube development.
3.	Food and/or Feed Safety Considerations

Anti-nutrients in rice
Rice contains a small number of antinutritional factors that are concentrated in the bran fraction and which, except for phytic acid, are subject to heat denaturation (inactivation). these antinutrients include: phytic acid, which is a storage form of phosphorus in plant seeds but also chelates calcium, zinc, iron, and magnesium in the digestive tract of animals thus interfering with absorption of these nutrients; trypsin inhibitor; and lectins, which are a class of proteins with specific binding affinities for particular carbohydrate moieties present on glycoproteins present in cell walls and cell plasma membranes, and have been associated with a range of antinutritive effects and some disease pathologies.

Phytin: Phytin is an organic phosphorous compound contained primarily in the bran layer, and it exists as a mixture of calcium-magnesium salts of phytic acid. Free phytic acid (myo-inositol 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexakis dihydrogen phosphate) chelates nutritional metal ions such as calcium and iron ions, which reduces the absorbability of these ions into the body (Thompson and Weber 1981). It has been reported that phytic acid reduced platelet aggregation and had an inhibitory effect against blood clot formation which may cause thrombosis and atherosclerosis (Vucenik et al 1999). Phytic acid is considered to be an anti-carcinogen influencing signal transduction pathways, cell cycle regulatory genes, differentiation genes or suppressor genes (Shamsuddin 1999).

Oryzacystatin: Oryzacystatin has been isolated from rice bran (Abe et al 1987) and is considered a cysteinyl proteinase inhibitor (cystatin). It is inactivated by heat above 120°C (Juliano 1993).

Lectins: Lectins are carbohydrate-binding proteins which agglutinate cells that are able to precipitate glycoconjugates or polysaccharides (Goldstein et al 1980). The toxicity of lectins is due to their ability to bind to specific carbohydrate receptor sites on the intestinal mucosal cells and interference with the absorption of nutrients across the intestinal wall (Liener 1986). Rice bran lectin, haemagglutinin, has been found to be associated with agglutination of human A, B and O group receptors with specific binding to 2-acetamido-2-deoxy-D-glucose (Poola 1989). Rice bran lectin is heat labile at temperatures above 80°C (Ory et al 1981; Poola 1989). Mannnose-binding rice lectin is distributed in all parts of the rice plant, and it has a potential ability to agglutinate bacterial cells of Xanthomonas campestris pv oryzae, the pathogen causing bacterial leaf blight in rice, and also spores and protoplasts of Magnaporthe grisea, the rice blast fungus (Hirano et al 2000).

Allergens

While rice is not considered to be a common cause of food allergic reactions, allergic reactions have been documented, and certain proteins in rice have been identified as rice allergens. The first reported allergens in rice were 14-16 kDa proteins which were detected using sera from patients allergic to rice (Matsuda et al 1991). A 16 kDa protein was later recognized as a major rice allergen. This protein has significant amino acid homology to barley trypsin inhibitor and wheat alpha amylase inhibitor (Izumi et al 1992). Subsequently, rice seed proteins with molecular masses of 26, 33, and 56 kDa have been recognized as being allergenic. The 33 kDa protein has been recently characterized and identified as the enzyme glyoxalase I (Usui et al 2001).

Trypsin Inhibitor: A trypsin inhibitor has been isolated from rice bran and characterized (Tashiro and Maki 1979). There seems to be no standard way of reporting the quantity of the inhibitor, and it does appear to be heat labile. No trypsin inhibitor was detected in the grain or polished rice, but in the bran (AgrEvo 1999).

Alpha-amylase Subtilisin Inhibitor: The amino acid sequence of the bifunctional alpha-amylase subtilisin inhibitor from rice is known (Ohtsubo and Richardson 1992). Bifunctional inhibitors have been proposed to be associated with defence of the seed against insect pests and pathogenic microorganisms (Ryan 1990).











Document Number: 7175
The regulatory hurdle is the toughest thus far
Regulation must be revolutionized

Unjustified and impractical legal requirements are stopping genetically engineered crops from saving millions from starvation and malnutrition, says Ingo Potrykus in a Nature Opinion Paper .
 
It took ten years—from 1980 to 1990—to develop the necessary technology to introduce genes into rice. It took another nine years—from 1990 to 1999—to introduce the genes that reconstitute the pathway for provitamin A biosynthesis into the seed. That was the Golden Rice prototype obtained by Ingo Potrykus at the ETH in Zurich. After that, scientists in Freiburg and at Syngenta worked together to generate improved versions, which we now know as Golden Rice 1 and 2, respectively. The latter was announced to the public in 2004.
It will take at least until 2011 before the first Golden Rice obtains final regulatory approval and can finally reach the first group of small holders in a target country. Considering the enormous humanitarian potential of Golden Rice in reducing blindness (500,000 children per year) and children's deaths (2-3 million per year), it is hardly understandable that lobby groups and the authorities are not learning from the accumulated experience and making the regulatory process more science and experience based.

During the last 20 years a vast knowledge base regarding the production and commercialisation of transgenic plantshas been accumulated . While the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board understands that every new transgenic event must comply with regulations to guarantee the safety of a product derived from it, it has a hard time dealing with non-scientific arguments that unnecessarily delay the adoption of the technology vis-a-vis the human tragedy brought about by vitamin A deficiency. Countries where Golden Rice could provide health benefits should be provided with the opportunity to pursue their own independent decision-making process and not held hostage by unfounded and self-serving external pressures.

The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board supports efforts to develop appropriate risk management strategies that include acceptable risk levels, ie where the benefits outnumber the potential dangers by far, as is the case with Golden Rice. Reputed ecologists, including opponents of the technology, have so far concluded that Golden Rice poses no imaginable risk to the environment. All plants produce high amounts of carotenoids, thus their presence in the grain will not introduce any new substances into the environment nor will they provide any additional selection advantage.

This table taken from Koenig et al. (Food and Chemical Toxicology 42:1047–1088, 2004) gives a clear overview of the steps required to take an application through the risk assessment process. The aim of every single step is clear and sensible, their execution in detail and the inability of the regulator to learn from experience is not always as clear.
An unbearable financial burden

What are the regulatory requirements standing in the way of Golden Rice deployment? First of all, the application should be for a carefully selected, regulatory clean transgenic event. Criteria are not necessarily based on scientific grounds; they include a number of requirements pertaining to the introduced genetic construct, eg the inserted DNA fragment should not have undergone multiple integrations or rearrangements, there should be no read-through across the construct borders or any residual ballast DNA. This in turn requires the production of many hundreds of transgenic events using the same DNA construct, from which the regulatory clean event is then selected. The makeup of the construct itself must have been conceived taking into account the requirements imposed by the regulatory authorities. The carefully selected event can then be used to start a series of mandatory biosafety assessment experiments expected to prove or disprove any putative biosafety hazard. The consequence of this approach is that nearly 99% of all transgenic events, and often those with the highest levels of expression, must be discarded. Already, the first step of mass production of many hundreds of similar events and the subsequent destruction of most of them is beyond reach for most public research institutions, in developing as well as in developed countries, and funding agencies are not prepared to take over such costs.
The biosafety assessment starts with event-independent studies, related to the introduced genes and their function, and are valid for all events produced with these genes. These studies are followed by exposure evaluation tests for the novel trait, its intended use and bioavailability, as would be the case for a product like beta- carotene. This study alone takes about three years, because during the pre-field trial phase the materials have to be produced in dedicated plant growth chambers and greenhouses, which is very expensive and production levels are low. Next in line are protein production and equivalence analyses for the proteins encoded by the introduced genes. For this purpose the proteins have to be isolated from the plant, characterised biochemically, and their function confirmed. Further studies include a demonstration of lack of homology to known toxins and allergens, gastric degradation studies, heat stability, acute toxicity tests in rodent feeding experiments.

This all would seem reasonable if it were not for the fact that most people have been eating these genes and their products from a number of other food sources throughout their lives. At one point, somebody even suggested to analyse whether known daffodil toxins had been introduced into Golden Rice along with the daffodil gene used to reconstitute the beta-carotene biosynthetic pathway, which totally lacks scientific basis: what has been transferred is one defined piece of DNA which is analogous to genes in other organisms, and performing the same function, which has no relation to any toxin or allergen. These studies take at least two years of intensive work in a well equipped biochemistry laboratory. 

The event-dependent studies are even more cumbersome; they include:
Molecular characterisation and genetic stability: data on single-copy effect; marker gene at same locus; simple integration; Mendelian inheritance, including phenotypic and biochemical evidence for stability over at least three generations; no potential gene disruption; no unknown open reading frames; no DNA transfer beyond borders; no antibiotic resistance gene or origin of replication; insert size limited to the minimum necessary; sequencing of insert and flanking regions.
Expression profiling: gene expression levels at key growth stages; evidence of seed-specific expression.
Phenotypic analysis: field performance, typical agronomic traits, yield compared to isogenic lines; pest and disease status must be same as parent (unexpected improvements are not tolerated).
Compositional analysis: data from growing the event over two seasons at six locations in three replicates on proximates, macro and micronutrients, antinutrients, toxins, allergens; data must be generated on modified and isogenic backgrounds.
Environmental risk assessment: this type of analysis takes 4-5 years of work by an entire research team.
It is obvious that no scientist or scientific institution in the public domain has the potential, funding or motivation to perform such lengthy, expensive biosafety experiments. It comes as no surprise then, that virtually all transgenic events that have been carried through the deregulatory process so far are—directly or indirectly—in the private sector and are restricted to high-value crops. Humanitarian projects do not fall into this category, even though they would benefit millions of people. There is a lot of goodwill in the public and in the private sectors worldwide to exploit the potential of green biotechnology for the benefit of the poor. However, without a realistic risk assessment approach, funds for public research will not be capable of doing the trick. Scientific progress would become detached from product development and the population at large would not benefit from progress.









Document Number: 3504
Vitamin A is involved in many physiological functions and processes
”Improvement of vitamin A status in young child populations … leads to a reduction in all-cause mortality rates of about 23 percent”
United Nations, 1993
”Improved vitamin A nutriture would be expected to prevent approximately 1.3-2.5 million deaths annually among children aged under 5 years.”
WHO Bulletin, 1992

Excellent information about the health effects of vitamin A available at the «Sight and Life» website in their Manual on Vitamin A Deficiency Disorders.

Vision and good health go together with a bright smile. Impaired vision, a terrible condition in itself, is but one manifestation of the disorders caused by vitamin A deficiency (VAD). More than one million children a year die as a consequence of a number of diseases precipitated by VAD.
Vitamin A is involved in:


Vision (night, day, colour)
Epithelial cell integrity against infections
Immune response
Haemopoiesis
Skeletal growth
Fertility (male and female)
Embryogenesis
In keratomalacia the hyperkeratotic epithelium has become soft and may thus become secondarily infected.
Retinol content in some natural sources

Sources	
µg RE per 100 g
mango	 307
papaya	 124
carrot	 2,000
dark green leafy 
    vegetables	
685
red palm oil	 30,000
eggs	 830
milk	 140
liver	 15,000
cod liver oil	 18,000
Carotenoid content alone is not sufficient to tell how much will be taken up by the body, because other factors affect the bioavailability of carotenoids in the food, ie carotenoid species, concentration, the food matrix, dietary fat, and also the health status of the person, eg presence of parasites.
This world map taken from the «Sight and Life» site shows the impressive spread of clinical and sub-clinical VAD.
brown … clinical;
red … acute sub-clinical
orange … sub-clinical.

All developing countries are affected by multiple micronutrient deficiencies. In the case of vitamin A the most affected are Africa and SE Asia.









Document Number: 8087
The limitations of rice as a food source
Rice is a major food staple for over 3 billion people, being the major source of carbohydrate and even protein mainly in SE Asia, but also in Africa. Unfortunately, rice is a poor source of many essential micronutrients (Table 1). This is combined with poor bioavailability of some micronutrients. Thus, a rice-based diet is the primary cause of micronutrient malnutrition throughout much of the developing world. Iron, zinc, and vitamin A deficiencies are common in rice-consuming regions. These deficiencies account for decreased work productivity, reduced mental capacity, stunting, blindness, increased child mortality, and other effects. 
 
Table 1. Composition and dietary contributions from white, long-grain, non-enriched rice (USDA Nutrient Database, 2001).
Percent RDAs are derived from data from the Institute of Medicine/Food and Nutrition Board (2001); daily rice intake assumed to be 200 g DW/adult. DW, dry weight; RDA, recommended daily allowance.
Nutrient	µg/g DW	
% RDA 
(pregnant women)

Iron	9	7
Zinc	12.3	31
Vitamin C	0	0
Vitamin A	0	0
Vitamin E	1.3	2
 
Rice is the major energy source of more than half the world population, yet it lacks many life-supporting nutrients. People who cannot afford a varied diet suffer from multiple micronutrient deficiencies. Some important nutrients are lost during polishing, but unpolished rice cannot be stored, because the outer layer containing those nutrients is rich in lipids (fat) and is thus susceptible to oxidation processes that make the rice rancid and hence untasty.
Amelioration of micronutrient deficiencies can be achieved either by supplementation programs or by food-based approaches. Supplementation programs, while effective, are not sustainable without continuous funding, and do not always reach the neediest individuals. Food-based approaches include the fortification of common foodstuffs (during processing) or the consumption of micronutrient-dense foods (which may necessitate plant breeding/crop	management and social marketing). Micronutrient-dense cultivars can be selected from within existing germplasm, or can be generated de novo through genetic modification. In either case, scientists have coined the term “biofortified” for genotypes that deliver increased levels of essential minerals or vitamins. Biofortification, when applied to staple crops, such as rice, is a sustainable approach, provided that access to the technology in the form of seeds is unrestricted.
A shining example of biofortification was the creation of Golden Rice (GR), thus named for its ability to produce the provitamin A carotenoid β-carotene in rice endosperm. This was achieved by expressing two foreign genes (encoding phytoene synthase and carotene desaturase) in rice. These genes were driven by endosperm-specific promoters to restrict β-carotene accumulation to the grains (Ye et al. 2000). The first generation of GR produced provitamin A in the lower range required for fortification purposes (Beyer et al. 2002). Improved versions, with significantly higher β- carotene levels have since been generated. One version, GR1, lacks a selectable marker gene, making it more amenable to regulatory approval procedures or to secondary transformation with additional gene constructs.

A recent ex ante study carried out in the Philippines projected GR adoption would improve the nutritional status in a large fraction of the population suffering from vitamin A deficiency (Zimmermann and Qaim, 2004). In our ongoing project we will build upon GR and further enrich the grain with additional nutrients, specifically iron, zinc, high-quality protein, and vitamin E.

What other strategies have been tried? Biofortification can be considered a complement to the classic intervention approaches of supplementation or fortification. These different strategies are important, as no single intervention can solve micronutrient malnutrition, and there are limitations to each approach. For instance, although infrequent mega-doses of vitamin A can be used to replenish liver stores, this is not feasible for iron due to its limited bodily stores. Furthermore, the frequency required for an effective program for iron and zinc—preferably daily— increases the cost of the intervention and may be limited to opportunities for frequent contact (eg, children in school). For practical reasons, some programs have gone with weekly iron doses, but this is less effective than daily doses and not advisable during pregnancy. Unlike other interventions, biofortified staple crops could provide a daily, sustainable supply of dietary nutrients.

Plant scientists have taken other transgenic approaches, besides that of GR, to improve crop micronutrient status. Overexpression of the iron storage protein ferritin in rice grains has been reported to result in a three-fold (Goto et al. 1999), a two-fold (Lucca et al. 2001) in seed iron concentration. Similarly, overexpression of an Arabidopsis zinc transporter to manipulate zinc status in barley, resulted in a two-fold increase in seed zinc levels (Ramesh et al. 2004). These minor changes are not surprising, because they do not directly address the primary determinant of seed mineral content, ie the loading of metals into the phloem transport pathway (Grusak, 2002a). No genes are yet available for manipulating phloem metal loading, but plant breeders have begun screening germplasm collections for mineral content variation. Thus far, a four-fold variation for both seed iron and zinc has been identified across 1,600 rice accessions (Gregorio et al. 2000). Hence, part of our future strategy will be to use high-iron and high-zinc conventional rice germplasm, and cross it with plants containig other micronutrient traits (eg, β-carotene and vitamin E).

Another approach has been to alter the levels of compounds that inhibit mineral bioavailability, such as phytate (the major phosphorous storage compound in seeds) and tannins (condensed phenolic polymers) both of which can complex minerals and prevent their absorption during digestion (Welch and Graham, 2004). Mutational breeding has produced maize and barley mutants with low phytate levels (up to 95% reduction; Raboy, 2000), but only one mutant is currently known in rice (45% phytate reduction; Raboy, 2000), and it is questionable whether this is sufficient to improve mineral bioavailability (Glahn et al. 2002). An alternative approach has been the transformation of rice with a heat-stable phytase enzyme (Lucca et al. 2001), with the intent to have this enzyme survive the cooking procedure and degrade phytate in the food matrix. Unfortunately, this effort was not successful at the time, due to poor thermal stability of the fungal enzyme when expressed in planta (Lucca et al. 2001), but thermally stable phytases have been developed for industrial purposes and may become available in the future.











Document Number: 7986
Micronutrients Improvement
The limitations of rice as a food source
Rice is a major food staple for over 3 billion people, being the major source of carbohydrate and even protein mainly in SE Asia, but also in Africa. Unfortunately, rice is a poor source of many essential micronutrients (Table 1). This is combined with poor bioavailability of some micronutrients. Thus, a rice-based diet is the primary cause of micronutrient malnutrition throughout much of the developing world. Iron, zinc, and vitamin A deficiencies are common in rice-consuming regions. These deficiencies account for decreased work productivity, reduced mental capacity, stunting, blindness, increased child mortality, and other effects. 
 
Table 1. Composition and dietary contributions from white, long-grain, non-enriched rice (USDA Nutrient Database, 2001).
Percent RDAs are derived from data from the Institute of Medicine/Food and Nutrition Board (2001); daily rice intake assumed to be 200 g DW/adult. DW, dry weight; RDA, recommended daily allowance.
Nutrient	µg/g DW	
% RDA 
(pregnant women)

Iron	9	7
Zinc	12.3	31
Vitamin C	0	0
Vitamin A	0	0
Vitamin E	1.3	2
 
Rice is the major energy source of more than half the world population, yet it lacks many life-supporting nutrients. People who cannot afford a varied diet suffer from multiple micronutrient deficiencies. Some important nutrients are lost during polishing, but unpolished rice cannot be stored, because the outer layer containing those nutrients is rich in lipids (fat) and is thus susceptible to oxidation processes that make the rice rancid and hence untasty.
Amelioration of micronutrient deficiencies can be achieved either by supplementation programs or by food-based approaches. Supplementation programs, while effective, are not sustainable without continuous funding, and do not always reach the neediest individuals. Food-based approaches include the fortification of common foodstuffs (during processing) or the consumption of micronutrient-dense foods (which may necessitate plant breeding/crop	management and social marketing). Micronutrient-dense cultivars can be selected from within existing germplasm, or can be generated de novo through genetic modification. In either case, scientists have coined the term “biofortified” for genotypes that deliver increased levels of essential minerals or vitamins. Biofortification, when applied to staple crops, such as rice, is a sustainable approach, provided that access to the technology in the form of seeds is unrestricted.
A shining example of biofortification was the creation of Golden Rice (GR), thus named for its ability to produce the provitamin A carotenoid β-carotene in rice endosperm. This was achieved by expressing two foreign genes (encoding phytoene synthase and carotene desaturase) in rice. These genes were driven by endosperm-specific promoters to restrict β-carotene accumulation to the grains (Ye et al. 2000). The first generation of GR produced provitamin A in the lower range required for fortification purposes (Beyer et al. 2002). Improved versions, with significantly higher β- carotene levels have since been generated. One version, GR1, lacks a selectable marker gene, making it more amenable to regulatory approval procedures or to secondary transformation with additional gene constructs.

A recent ex ante study carried out in the Philippines projected GR adoption would improve the nutritional status in a large fraction of the population suffering from vitamin A deficiency (Zimmermann and Qaim, 2004). In our ongoing project we will build upon GR and further enrich the grain with additional nutrients, specifically iron, zinc, high-quality protein, and vitamin E.

What other strategies have been tried? Biofortification can be considered a complement to the classic intervention approaches of supplementation or fortification. These different strategies are important, as no single intervention can solve micronutrient malnutrition, and there are limitations to each approach. For instance, although infrequent mega-doses of vitamin A can be used to replenish liver stores, this is not feasible for iron due to its limited bodily stores. Furthermore, the frequency required for an effective program for iron and zinc—preferably daily— increases the cost of the intervention and may be limited to opportunities for frequent contact (eg, children in school). For practical reasons, some programs have gone with weekly iron doses, but this is less effective than daily doses and not advisable during pregnancy. Unlike other interventions, biofortified staple crops could provide a daily, sustainable supply of dietary nutrients.

Plant scientists have taken other transgenic approaches, besides that of GR, to improve crop micronutrient status. Overexpression of the iron storage protein ferritin in rice grains has been reported to result in a three-fold (Goto et al. 1999), a two-fold (Lucca et al. 2001) in seed iron concentration. Similarly, overexpression of an Arabidopsis zinc transporter to manipulate zinc status in barley, resulted in a two-fold increase in seed zinc levels (Ramesh et al. 2004). These minor changes are not surprising, because they do not directly address the primary determinant of seed mineral content, ie the loading of metals into the phloem transport pathway (Grusak, 2002a). No genes are yet available for manipulating phloem metal loading, but plant breeders have begun screening germplasm collections for mineral content variation. Thus far, a four-fold variation for both seed iron and zinc has been identified across 1,600 rice accessions (Gregorio et al. 2000). Hence, part of our future strategy will be to use high-iron and high-zinc conventional rice germplasm, and cross it with plants containig other micronutrient traits (eg, β-carotene and vitamin E).

Another approach has been to alter the levels of compounds that inhibit mineral bioavailability, such as phytate (the major phosphorous storage compound in seeds) and tannins (condensed phenolic polymers) both of which can complex minerals and prevent their absorption during digestion (Welch and Graham, 2004). Mutational breeding has produced maize and barley mutants with low phytate levels (up to 95% reduction; Raboy, 2000), but only one mutant is currently known in rice (45% phytate reduction; Raboy, 2000), and it is questionable whether this is sufficient to improve mineral bioavailability (Glahn et al. 2002). An alternative approach has been the transformation of rice with a heat-stable phytase enzyme (Lucca et al. 2001), with the intent to have this enzyme survive the cooking procedure and degrade phytate in the food matrix. Unfortunately, this effort was not successful at the time, due to poor thermal stability of the fungal enzyme when expressed in planta (Lucca et al. 2001), but thermally stable phytases have been developed for industrial purposes and may become available in the future.











Document Number: 6472
Grand Challenges in Global Health Project

by the ProVitaMinRice Consortium
The project described in this section is one of 44 projects (selected among more than 1,500 proposals for funding) being funded through the »Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative«. The initiative was launched by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2003 to encourage scientists to find the solutions that will revolutionize prevention and treatment of disease in developing countries. The initiative seeks to put to good use the extraordinary advances made by science in recent decades. This goal will be achieved by bringing together the world’s best minds in science and technology to find solutions to the problems that stand in the way of important advances against disease.
Guided by an international board of scientists and with US$450 million in funding, the initiative focuses on achieving breakthroughs in a set of 14 Grand Challenges in Global Health distributed in the following areas :

Improving existing childhood vaccines so they are easier and less expensive to use in developing countries
Creating effective new vaccines
Controlling insects that transmit disease
Improving nutrition to promote health (corresponds to Grand Challenge #9)
Discovering ways to prevent drug resistance
Curing latent and chronic infections
Measuring disease and health status in developing countries accurately
Four projects are being funded within Grand Challenge #9. They all are concerned with improving the micronutrients content of important staple crops. You may obtain information on the three other projects by following the links below:

BioCassava Plus
African Biofortified Sorghum Project, and
Micronutrient improved bananas
Our project addresses the problem of micronutrient malnutrition in rice and is a collaborative, international effort that includes seven working groups working together as the so-called ProVitaMinRice Consortium*.
Title of the Project :

»Engineering Rice for High Beta-Carotene, Vitamin E, Protein, Iron, and Enhanced Iron and Zinc Bioavailability«

Grand Challenge addressed : Create a full range of optimal, bioavailable nutrients in a plant
Lead Principal Investigator :	Prof Peter Beyer, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Germany.

Membership and Governance of the ProVitaMinRice Consortium : 
University of Freiburg, Germany, Peter Beyer;
Michigan State University, MI USA (Dean DellaPenna);
USDA-ARS and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX, USA (Mike Grusak);
Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute, Vietnam (CLRRI), Tran Thi Cuc Hoa;
PhilRice (Philippine Rice Research Institute), the Phillipines, Leocadio Sebastian;
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Phillippines, Gerard Barry; and
the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Samuel Sun.
All programme decision authority and related responsibilities are delegated to a Steering Committee. Membership in the committee reflects the basic structure of the project. Thus the committee consists of the PI (chair and proof-of-concept work); Dr Jorge Mayer (Project Manager), Dr Gerard Barry (product-related GMO and breeding work); Dr Michael Grusak (Iron and Zinc Bioavailability); and Dr Adrian Dubock (Syngenta company representative).

The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board acts as an external advisory board to the Steering Committee and the project as such, providing valuable expertise essential for product delivery,

Project Description
Micronutrient malnutrition is a global problem of dietary origin caused by low concentrations or poor bioavailability of specific vitamins and minerals in staple food crops, such as rice. To reduce this problem among a large share of the world’s population, the consortium will modify rice such that it can deliver more dietary nutrients. The project combines existing genes, transgenic events of Golden Rice and available molecular and biochemical knowledge. Where necessary novel genes will be identified and isolated and the underlying knowledge generated. The overall goal is to engineer rice with increased levels of provitamin A, vitamin E, high-quality protein, and iron. Knowledge will be generated to allow enhanced bioavailability of iron and zinc. Human studies will be conducted to assess mineral bioavailability in the engineered lines. Selected rice lines containing these combined traits in a single genetic locus will be used as the breeding stock to transfer the improved traits into locally adapted varieties.

Rice is the primary food staple for over half of the world’s population, but it is also a very poor source of essential micronutrients and protein. Accordingly, human micronutrient deficiencies are prevalent in many rice-consuming regions, especially throughout the developing world where poverty exacerbates the problem of insufficient intake of animal products and other nutrient-dense foods. To reduce the global incidence of these nutritional disorders, a transgenic approach will be applied to improve the nutritional value of rice, with a specific focus on combining provitamin A and vitamin E in the rice grain and to increase the protein content to achieve a balanced composition of essential amino acids. Golden Rice will be combined with high iron lines. In addition, the knowledge necessary to enhance the bioavailability of iron and zinc in target crops will be generated. This will be achieved by identifying the corresponding QTLs in the model plant Arabidopsis. Golden Rice and other engineered rice lines with stacked traits will be incorporated into ongoing breeding and seed delivery programmes for developing countries. The products generated will be made freely available to low-income farmers to address these deficiencies inherent to rice-based diets on a global scale.

Specific objectives 
(1) To stack multiple micronutrient/bioavailability traits into Golden Rice in one gene construct (a single genetic locus for breeding purposes); 
(2) to identify the genetic and biochemical basis of mineral bioavailability in plant-based foods; 
(3) to assess the bioavailability of iron in human subjects, using beta-carotene improved rice lines; 
(4) to improve the protein content and quality, and 
(5) to introgress novel traits from transgenic lines into regionally adapted rice cultivars through conventional breeding.

Research Goals
The expected outcomes include: 
(1) rice lines with significantly improved nutritional characteristics will be available by the end of the project;
(2) essential scientific information on the genetic and biochemical basis of micronutrient bioavailability that will be relevant to all crop plants; and 
(3) validation of the ability of improved rice lines to deliver bioavailable iron.

Meeting the Grand Challenge
The proposed research directly addresses the key issues of Grand Challenge #9 by developing lines of rice that contain in combination, elevated levels of provitamin A, vitamin E, iron and high-quality protein. The project will also deliver novel information on food matrix components that can be used to enhance mineral bioavailability to the benefit of developing countries where micronutrient deficiencies prevail. The research takes advantage of and integrates with ongoing efforts in rice (most notably with the international, multi-institutional biofortification programme of HarvestPlus) by using established beta-carotene containing lines of Golden Rice that are well advanced in the regulatory approval process. These lines are already being moved into international breeding programmes and are available to members of the Golden Rice Network. Golden Rice technology will serve as the platform for engineering all additional nutrition-enhancing traits in this project.

The involvement of national research institutions that are already members of the Golden Rice Network, such as the Cuu Long Delta Rice Research Institute (Vietnam) and PhilRice (Philippines), adds valuable capacity in rice breeding and genetic transformation of locally adapted varieties, and enables fast-tracking of local impact of the work. Apart from its hands-on contribution, collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute (Philippines), also a HarvestPlus and a Golden Rice Network member, is important because of its long-standing experience in interacting with national programmes and regulatory authorities. The interaction with Syngenta provides valuable help in legal matters, intellectual property management, obtention of regulatory approvals, and product-oriented expertise.

Distribution of tasks

The University of Freiburg and Michigan State University will be in charge of the multigene stacking and transformations.
Michigan State University and Baylor Colege will identity QTLs for iron bioavailability and assess bioavailability in model systems.
Baylor College will carry out the human iron bioavailability studies.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong will undertake work to enhance the protein quality/lysine content of rice.
IRRI (Philippines), CLRRI (Vietnam) and PhilRice (Philippines) will carry out introgression work into local rice varieties.
*ProVitaMinRice stands for rice enriched with high-quality Protein, Vitamins, and Minerals.

For one quarter of humanity rice is the main source of energy and nutrition. Hence, a rice plant capable of providing most necessary micronutrients to consumers will provide for a healthy diet capable of preventing malnutrition-related diseases.










Document Number: 1551
Cooking with Golden Rice
Love goes through the stomach or so the saying goes
What better way to share love than by improving the health status of millions of people? Getting to know the cuisine of different cultures is a way to get to know each other and a fantastic starting point to access those cultures. Golden Rice will be cooked just like any other rice, from using plain water to highly refined sauces and spices, and it will always taste good. Most people in the world eat rice on a regular basis, for half of them it represents the main caloric intake source, hence rice shows up in innumerable dishes of which we would like to share but a few with you. At some point, maybe new dishes will be created around Golden Rice, to honour its high nutritive value and not least because many people might find the colour attractive in itself.
Half the world eats rice as its main caloric intake source, about as many people suffer under malnutrition. With Golden Rice people will be able to stick to their preferred recipes—because of taste or as a matter of affordability—but with the difference that they will at the same time be able to cover some of their most important dietary needs.
Once Golden Rice has gone through the regulatory process in a country, the next most important task is for breeders to cross the Golden trait, ie the capacity to produce pro-vitamin A, into locally adapted varieties. Different regions in the world base their local varieties on different basic rice types, like indica, japonica or javanica. These basic types differ in a number of characteristics, like grain length, aroma and stickiness. The outcome of a recipe can therefore vary widely, depending on the rice variety you use, and in some cases a wrong choice may lead to unwanted results, so be warned and enjoy. Bon appetit!
Below you will find some very tasty international rice dishes. You may also go to Home Chefs of the World, where you will find a collection of recipes compiled by Ms Inderjeet K Virmani and located at the International Rice Research Institute website.












Document Number: 716
Tests performed on Golden Rice
It's just rice
A question that worries many people when dealing with genetically modified foodstuff is whether unintended changes have taken place in the final product. For many, this hard-to-define eventuality has been the major stepping stone to the acceptance of transgenic produce, but without a concrete fear there is of course no target to look for. Detailed molecular analyses have failed to find new allergens showing up as a consequence of having introduced a new gene into a plant, and determination of the expression levels of ten-thousands of genes have also shown that the only changes encountered are related to the introduced genes and those involved in related metabolic pathways. Gene expression levels vary probably less after the introduction of a foreign gene than after the traditional crossing of two varieties, where thousands of regulatory factors and pathways interact in unexpected ways.

Genetically modified plants destined for field release are some of the most in detail examined organisms worldwide, and this is not different for Golden Rice, in fact it is one of the reasons why it has not reached the people who need it yet. Many tests have been performed on Golden Rice and many are yet to be performed. A number of tests require kilogram amounts of seed; these tests have been unnecessarily delayed by the difficulties in being able to carry out field trials with Golden Rice, not enough seed can be produced when grown in the glasshouse.


Does it taste as good? This and many other questions must be answered before Golden Rice is released at the farm level.

In this section we will report on various tests conducted on Golden Rice and also on pending analyses. From the nutritional point of view the most important question is that of bioavailability. Terms like bioavailability and other are explained in the corresponding sections, but see also the FAQs section. Not less important are retention studies, taste and cooking tests, agronomic performance, storability of the seed and other tests.

Bioavailability

Bioavailability relates to the fraction of carotene that the body can extract out of a given foodstuff and make available for utilisation; it is determined to a great extent by the food matrix, however, within a plant tissue carotenoids can be stored in several ways:

Protein-bound, stoichiometrically (in light-harvesting complexes, in green vegetables); also in lobsters.
Protein-associated; by a protein that organises a proteolipid-carotenoid complex with a protein called fibrillin and homologs thereof, as in red pepper.
Free in membranes; in chromoplasts, like in daffodil (probably etioplasts and amyloplasts).
In plastoglobules, frequently met in flowers, algae (probably the most bioavailable form).
In crystals, as in tomato and carrot (this is probably the least available form).
Additional determinants may act as promoters or inhibitors of resorption.
This again means that a person can in principle obtain more utilisable ß-carotene from an orange-fleshed sweet potato which has ca. 18 µg/g ß-carotene than from carrots that have around 60 µg/g.

In a given human population there are also genetic factors that determine bioavailability of carotenoids. The expression/modification of the ß-carotene receptor determines availability and transport into the blood serum (and probably also into cells).

Bioconversion is fraction of available ß-carotene converted to the active form, ie retinol or vitamin A.

Bioefficacy is the capability of an individual —governed by individual internal factors— to convert ß-carotene (provitamin A) into retinal, retinol (vitamin A) and retinyl esters. It is expressed as the amount of ß-carotene required to yield one retinol activity equivalent (1 RAE).

The best way to determine bioavailability is by feeding human subjects and measuring the levels of retinol in the blood. For an excellent review on the determination of bioavailability and bioconversion see Yeum and Russell (2002).

Yeum K-J and Russell RM (2002) Carotenoid bioavailability and bioconversion. Annu Rev Nutr 22:483-504.
Tanumihardjo SA (2002) Factors influencing the conversion of carotenoids to retinol: bioavailability to bioconversion to bioefficacy. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 72:40-45.
Taste

Golden Rice has a pleasant yellow colour, very similar to rice prepared with saffron or curcuma, which are traditional condiments in many parts of the world. Naturally, the taste of an increased level of carotenoids is not that of condiments. At the concentration levels encountered in the present and future generations of carotenoids it is expected that these will not affect the taste of rice at all, but that must be demonstrated first by expert taste panels.

Taste trials not only involve an elaborate sensory analysis using its own descriptive language but also gas chromatographic and mass spectrometric identifcation of volatiles. For more details you may consult the cited liteture below. These trials have also been delayed by the reduced availability of Golden Rice seed and the ethical and safety requirements involved in the testing of genetically modified foodstuff using human subjects.

Champagne ET, Bett KL, Vinyard BT, McClung AM, Barton FE, Moldenhauer K, Linscombe S, McKenzie KS (1999) Correlation between cooked rice texture and rapid visco-analyser measurements. Cereal Chem 76:764-771.
Goodwin HL, Jr, Koop LA, Rister ME, Miller RK, Maca JV, Chambers E, Hollingsworth M, Bett K, Webb BD, McClung AM (1996) Developing a common language for the US rice industry: Linkages among breeders, producers, processors and consumers. TAMRC Consumer Product Market Research CP2-96. Texas A&M: College Station, TX.
Lyon BG, Champagne ET, Vinyard BT, Windham WR, Barton FE, Webb BD, McClung AM, Moldenhauer KA, McKenzie KS, Kohlwey DE (1999) Effects of degree of milling, drying condition, and final moisture content on sensory texture of cooked rice. Cereal Chem 76:56-62.
Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT (1999) Sensory Evaluation Techniques. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL.
Surles RL, Weng N, Simon PW, Tanumihardjo SA (2004) Carotenoid profiles and consumer sensory evaluation of specialty carrots (Daucus carota, L) of various colors. J Agric Food Chem 52:3417-3421.
Agronomic Performance

It would be very hard to convince a farmer to adopt Golden Rice if varietal productivity ran counter to its improved nutritional quality. This is especially understandable in developing countries where population density is high and the areas of production owned by single farmers are small. Moreover, consumers in those countries should not and would not be able to pay a premium for the Golden Trait. Carotenoids are isoprenoid derivatives as are vitamin E, chlorophyll and the phytohormones absiscic acid and gibberellic acid; diversions of the pathway could have consequences on the amounts of these compounds produced and hence on plant architecture or photosynthetic activity. Further, carotenoids are photosensitive compounds involved in light protection. For these reasons it is very important to determine whether the expression of the introduced genes has any deleterious effect on the agronomic performance of the rice plants.

The first Golden Rice field trial carried out in 2004 in Louisiana, gave us the first opportunity to determine its agronomic performance under real field conditions. Previous experiments in the glasshouse had not given any indication of reduced or altered performance, but varying conditions typically encountered in the field could have led to unexpected outcomes. Such varying conditions not encountered in the glasshouse are related to temperature, humidity, light intensity, and other biotic and abiotic interactions.

In the field trial, the Golden Rice plants stood side by side together with control plants of the same variety as well as azygotic siblings (genetically modified plants where the introduced trait had been crossed out). The reassuring result was that Golden Rice was no different from its progenitors and other controls in a number of agronomic parameters measured (plant height, days to flowering, seed set, 100-seed weight, total biomass, etc).

Retention Studies

The question to be answered here is, how much β-carotene is left intact after various typical ways of preparing rice, eg boiling or frying. It has been determined that, for most vegetables, the best way to make ß-carotene bioavailable is by cooking and adding some oil. Carotenoids are highly soluble in oil, therefore addition of oil or butter to boiled vegetables makes it easier for them to be taken up by the intestine. In general, carotenoids are quite heat stable, hence most of it—80% or more—remains utilisable after most typical cooking procedures applied to various vegetable sources. The losses are generally compensated by the increased bioavailability.

Beta-carotene content and stability

The first Golden Rice version (SGR1) produced an average of 1.6 µg β-carotene per gram seed dry weight. First field trial results indicate that it may be possible to obtain higher ß-carotene production levels—ca. three to four times higher—under field conditions. This could be related to higher irradiation intensities in the open, but this is speculative at present. Because of their chemical nature—several conjugated double bonds—carotenoids are susceptible to light and oxidation. The effects of light and air after harvest can be studied now that the first field trials have begun. From these studies it will be possible to make recommendations as to how and how long to store Golden Rice without losing its beneficial nutritive effects.










Document Number: 8352
Intellectual Property-Related Issues
A Public-Private Partnership and Humanitarian Licences
Patents are tools to protect commercial interests and investments, but as the Golden Rice example shows, they are not an impediment to the use and dissemination of a technology. Apart from being national in scope and limited in time, their owners can decide to whom to license and under what conditions. Notwithstanding the fact that a number of patented technologies were involved in the production of Golden Rice (Kryder et al. 2000), Syngenta Seeds AG was able to negotiate access to all pieces of the puzzle actively necessary for the intended humanitarian purposes, providing the Golden RiceHumanitarian Board with the right to sublicense breeding institutions in developing countries free of charge.
The patented key technology for Golden Rice production, invented by Prof emeritus Ingo Potrykus, of ETH-Zurich and Prof Peter Beyer, of the Univ of Freiburg, provided access to a package of ancillary technologies required to engineer the trait into rice. A license to those technologies was obtained from Syngenta. The package contained proprietary technologies belonging not only to Syngenta but also to Bayer AG, Monsanto Co, Orynova BV, and Zeneca Mogen BV.These companies provided access to the required technologies free of charge, for humanitarian purposes.

Eliminating reach-through rights and technologies that don't show up in the most recently developed Golden Rice versions leaves us with only a few patented technologies, all of which have been made available for humanitarian purposes free of charge. The licensing process was quick and simple, contrary to what many onlookers believe. Similar projects are looking at this licensing agreement as a good example of how this kind of arrangements between the public and the private sector can be made, especially for humanitarian purposes.

The heading of the PCT patent application representing the IP cornerstone of the Golden Rice Project. This one patent opened the door to a larger technology package.
 
Independent claims of Australian patent AU 776160 B2 issued to the Golden Rice inventors Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer. Independent claims define the scope of the patent in the broadest terms. 

Title of the patent: Method for improving the agronomic and nutritional value of plants 

CLAIMS 

1.     A method of producing plant cells that accumulate carotenoids which cells are normally carotenoid-free, said method comprising transforming plant material with an isolated DNA molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence which comprises: 

(a) an expression cassette capable of directing production in said cells of a phytoene synthase derived from a plant, a fungi or a bacteria; and 

(b) an expresion cassette capable of directing production in said cells of phytoene desaturase derived from a plant, a fungi or a bacteria wherein when said phytoene desaturase is derived from a bacteria said phytoene synthase is not derived from a bacteria 
and
selecting transformed plant material that comprises the cells that accumulate carotenoids. 

16.	   An isolated DNA molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence which comprises 
(a) an expression cassette capable of directing production in said cells of a phytoene synthase derived from a plant; and 
(b) an expression cassette capable of directing production in said cells of a phytoene desaturase derived from a bacteria.
The Basics of the Licensing Agreement between Syngenta and the inventors of Golden Rice
Universities are not set up to develop products. From the onset of the Golden Rice Project it was clear that in case of success during the research phase, a product should be developed, and that the product had to reach vitamin A-deficient people in developing countries. That means, it had to be a humanitarian project.
Industries are set up to develop products. Thus, an industrial partner was sought that would agree to the humanitarian purpose of the project. Such a partner was found with Syngenta, an agrichemicals and seeds company with headquarters in Switzerland. Syngenta was instrumental in converting the proof-of-concept results generated at the University of Freiburg and ETH Zurich into deliverable products. This contribution was based on the understanding that Syngenta would retain commercial exclusivity for the technology, including large agricultural setups in developing countries.

In 2005 Syngenta decided not to go commercial with Golden Rice in developed countries, a main reason being that there is practically no vitamin A deficiency in such countries. Thus, it would be probably a vitamin-enriched product with little commercial interest, even though antioxidants are very fashionable, and provitamin A is such an antioxidant. But still, Syngenta continues to support the project with advice and scientific knowhow.

The essence of the Sublicensing Agreement

The inventors have assigned their exclusive rights to the Golden Rice technology to Syngenta.
Syngenta added some further technologies, and arranged licences with other companies for some additional technologies to be included in the original Golden Rice.
Syngenta, in turn, has given the inventors a humanitarian licence with the right to sublicense public research institutions and low-income farmers in developing countries, to the full set of necessary technologies.
Syngenta retains commercial rights, although it has no plans to commercialize Golden Rice.
’Humanitarian Use’ means (and includes research leading to):
Use in developing countries (low-income, food-deficit countries as defined by FAO)
Resource-poor farmer use (earning less than US$10,000 per year from farming)
The technology must be introduced into public germplasm ( = seed) only (see below).
No surcharge may be charged for the technology (i.e. the seed may cost only as much as a seed without the trait)
National sales are allowed by such farmers (in this way urban needs can also be covered)
Reusing the harvested seed in the following planting season is allowed (the farmer is the owner of his seeds
Regulatory imperative and national sovereignty, i.e. Golden Rice may not be released in a country lacking biosafety regulations, and the decision to adopt the technology is a national matter.
No export allowed (except for research to other licensees): this is a humanitarian project, i.e. the seeds are meant to cover the daily requirements of the poor populations that are deficient in vitamin A.
Improvements to licensed technology:
Commercial rights of improvements to the technology go to Syngenta, but
Humanitarian Use of such improvements is guaranteed under the same terms of the original agreement (in this way any improvements to the technology will serve the humanitarian purpose).
No warranties are given by licensor(s) (this is also related the fact that every receiving country will determine what biosafety and agronomic requirements to impose before approval of a Golden Rice variety.
Liabilities and costs — each party is responsible for what it controls (this follows also from the fact that this is a humanitarian project and not a commercial enterprise).

Selection of locally adapted varieties as receptors of the Golden trait:
While countries adopting the technology are free to introduce the trait into their preferred varieties, there are some criteria on which strategic decisions for selection should be based. For example, receptor rice varieties should preferably be widely used by farmers. Those varieties should also be expected to maintain prominence over time and be grown by most productive farmers in vitamin A deficiency-prone regions (for local and regional supply). 









Document Number: 8113
Question: Wouldnt support of biotech wheat be a high-risk stand for the downstream wheat industry to take without clear support from consumers or producers?
Answer: If we demonstrate that the value is there, and that biotech wheat has passed the rigorous, science-based review of our regulatory system, food processors and retailers can help the U.S. wheat industry gain acceptance for biotech products. In 2007, for the first time, the U.S. baking industry became concerned about the high cost and tight supplies of wheat. This is due in large measure to the fact that wheat producers are converting their acreage to more profitable crops. Biotechnology would help increase yields and grower profitability, creating a win-win for the industry and the grower.
Question: Will consumers ever accept bread and other products made with biotech ingredients?
Answer: Many wheat-based food products sold today already utilize biotech ingredients. For instance, in a loaf of bread there is usually biotech soy flour or oil.  It may also contain sugar from biotech sugar beets. In fact, biotech yeast has been used in making bread in Europe, Japan, U.S. and many other countries for well over a decade. These products have been approved by regulatory authorities as being safe for human consumption, the same standard that biotech wheat will eventually achieve. Given biotechnology is already thoroughly incorporated into the food products we have been safely consuming for more than a decade, we see no reason to discriminate against wheat producers who need the benefits that biotechnology can offer. 
Question: Are other countries developing biotech wheat?
Answer: Absolutely. While the debate has raged on here in the U.S. other countries are developing biotech wheat programs of their own, including some of our export customers. Australia, China, Germany and Egypt are just a few of the countries that have research programs under way in wheat. Global acceptance of biotech crops and the value they bring to their economies is no secret. Developing countries are adopting biotech crops at a rapid pace  and growth in these markets isnt expected to slow down anytime soon.
Question: How is the safety of biotech crops determined?
Answer: At least three federal agencies  the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency  are involved in assessing the safety of biotech crops. First, the safety of the new gene is tested in laboratory studies. Then the entire plant is tested to ensure that inserting the new gene did not cause any unintended changes in the plants makeup. Every important nutritional component is compared with the conventional counterpart to determine that the biotech crop is substantially equivalent to and therefore as safe as the conventional crop. In addition, environmental studies are conducted to determine if the crop could have any adverse effects on wildlife, soil or other plants. This level of study is not required of crops that are modified through conventional breeding techniques. 
Question: Is biotechnology still largely unproven?
Answer: No. Biotech crops have been widely planted since 1996. In 2007, 12 million farmers produced biotech crops on more than 282 million acres in more than 20 different countries. The improved weed control and the ability to control insects without chemical pesticides have made biotech crops very attractive to growers, both large and small. In the United States, 91 percent of all soybeans produced were biotech, and 73 percent of corn acreage and 87 percent of all cotton acres contained one or more biotech traits. In more than a decade of widespread usage, there has not been a single documented case of adverse health or environmental effect
Question: Is GFB concerned that your use of biotechnology could cross-pollinate with crops of farmers who do not want to plant biotech seeds?
Answer: Our members recommend that growers who choose biotech crops make every effort to be good neighbors. For example, this may involve coordinating planting schedules with other farmers to minimize the potential for pollen flow, establishing buffers with non-biotech crops, etc. However, it is important to understand that when federal regulatory agencies complete their review of biotech traits they grant deregulated status to the trait.  That means the trait is free to move through commerce without any restrictions because the biotech crop has been determined to be as safe as the conventional crop. It also is important to understand that federal organic standards prohibit the planting of biotech crops (at the request of the organic industry) but they do not prohibit adventitious or unintentional trace levels of biotech traits in organic crops. Growers or companies that demand a zero tolerance are demanding something that federal law does not require.










Document Number: 9187 
Western innovator: Farmer leads biotech push 
June 21, 2011

When Doug Jones retired from farming he immediately started to look for something that would allow him to stay involved in the industry. 

He found it in a group called Growers for Biotechnology.


The organization is a strong advocate for research, development and acceptance of agricultural biotechnology through public policy outreach.

 

Jones' extensive farming background, coupled with two decades in the Idaho Legislature, made him a good fit as executive director, members of the group said.

"He brings a good perspective to an organization like ours that has a focus on broad policy issues," said Barry Bushue, a member of the organization's board of directors.

For farmers, influencing public policy "is what it's all about these days," said Bushue, who is also president of the Oregon Farm Bureau. "Doug brings an understanding of that process." Jones and Celia Gould, now director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, served together on the House Agricultural Affairs Committee. Jones was the chairman for 10 years. "Doug was always very active in agricultural issues in the Legislature," Gould said. "That was the primary focus for him." He was instrumental in pushing through legislation that strengthened Idaho's commodity warehouse indemnity law, Gould said. The measure helped protect growers from the financial fallout when warehouse operators fail.

"That legislation was very innovative at the time and still serves us well today," she said.

Jones owned and operated an irrigated row crop farm for 35 years near Filer, Idaho, with his father and brother.  In 2005, he accepted a position as vice president of agricultural services for Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co., a 37,000-acre plantation and sugar cane processing company on Maui. 
He managed all of the tillage, weed control and planting activity on the plantation.

"It wasn't something I planned," Jones said. "I was recruited into the job."

It was no vacation. "We farmed 24/7, 365 days a year," he said. "I'm glad I went. I learned a lot. But after two and a half years on the island, we were ready to come back home."

While biotechnology doesn't enjoy universal support among farmers, it's supported by the vast majority of producers, Jones said. "I think the technology has come a long ways in the past few years in terms of acceptance, certainly within the farming community," he said.

That strong acceptance can be seen in the high percentage of certain crops that are now planted with genetically modified seed, Jones said.

More than 90 percent of U.S. corn acreage and 85 to 90 percent of all soybeans are now biotech. Cotton and canola plantings are in the range of 80 to 90 percent biotech, and sugar beet plantings were about 95 percent last year, he said. "Those are extremely high numbers," Jones said.

Genetically engineered crops such as Monsanto's Roundup Ready varieties are helping farmers grow a higher-quality crop with less impact on the environment, he said.

"Yes, farmers are spending more money on (biotech) seed, but less on chemicals and tillage," Jones said. "Farmers are saving money on fuel, labor costs and tillage. That leads to better environmental stewardship, with less wind and water erosion," he said.

Jones is convinced that scientific research has shown biotech crops to be safe, despite critics who continue to express doubts. "These companies have spent tens of millions of dollars developing this technology, then have had to run it through the whole regulatory process of the federal government," he said. Government scientists wouldn't approve biotech crops if the technology hadn't been found to be totally safe, he said.

"We have the safest food supply in the world," Jones said.

Looking ahead, Jones fully expects to see more biotech crop introductions, both for large program crops and smaller specialty crops. Biotech wheat probably isn't far away. Farmers have found that they can make a lot more money growing genetically modified corn and soybeans than they can with conventional wheat, Jones said.

"Wheat acres are declining," he said. "The industry has recognized that they are going to have to do something or people are going to stop growing wheat if they have other options."









Document Number: 250 
	
Talk Of Productivity, Regulation Reform at Biotech Hearing
June 27, 2011


Agricultural applications of biotechnology can help feed the world and preserve resources, but the regulatory process the technologies must go through is problematic, witnesses said Thursday at a meeting of the House Agriculture Committees subcommittee with jurisdiction over the technology.

Three witnesses appeared at the hearing  Charles Conner, head of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and a former USDA official; Roger Beachy, former head of USDAs National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and former director of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center; and Calestous Juma, a professor at Harvard Universitys John F. Kennedy School of Government.

All three spoke to the enormous productivity gains possible in developed and developing countries with the responsible application of biotechnology in plants and, in some cases, animals. They also all touched on recent complications in the U.S. regulatory system, which is complex and subject to litigation that can delay a determination for years.

Regulatory approval of a new biotech trait is now estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars while the process between between trait discovery and approval can take up to 10 years.

The need to support this technology is not in question. The question is how to enable biotechnology to move forward to meet future needs, Conner told Members at the hearing. Legal decisions not based in science put the U.S. at risk of not being able to capitalize on the opportunities and benefits provided by biotechnology. They also represent an unnecessary drain on the resources of the federal government, commodity organizations and biotechnology companies.

Beachy was more direct in his comments. This is an exciting period of time in discovery and innovation. Unfortunately, it is not an exciting time for delivering new products of agriculture biotechnology to consumers or to those who would invest in the future of agriculture, he testified. While not all discoveries lead to innovation and new products, there are a growing number of examples of new inventions developed through genetic engineering that have good likelihood of success and that continue to be delayed in reaching the marketplace because of regulatory processes that are ill-defined and/or unpredictable, sometimes irrational, and always costly. This is an area for significant concern to inventors and entrepreneurs, and is worthy of attention and reform.

Beachy said that since 1987, more than 2 billion acres of biotech crops have been grown by 15.4 million farmers in 29 countries. The products of these crops have been consumed in billions of meals over a 20-year period, with no novel, negative consequence reported.

There is no commercialized biotech wheat anywhere in the world, but the wheat industry works on biotechnology issues because its leaders believe biotechnologys introduction into the wheat crop is necessary to increase productivity, attract acres back to the crop and feed a growing global population sustainably.










Document Number: 874 
Why Growers Choose Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans
 
The non-farming public probably has little idea about the importance of controlling weeds in agriculture.  And they likely have little knowledge about what it takes to control the various weed species (broadleaf and grasses) that threaten crop yields. As they drive down the highway, they see farm fields that are almost free of weeds, giving little if any thought to how the fields became so clean.
 
Without herbicides or frequent cultivation, the fields would be overrun with weeds. If left uncontrolled, these weeds could reduce soybean yields by 50 to 90 percent.  In fact, some farmers in the Northern Plains stopped growing soybeans prior to the advent of herbicide tolerant soybeans (Roundup Ready) because of weed pressure.
 
For nearly five decades, growers have used herbicides, along with various types of tillage or cultivation, to control weeds.  Before the advent of Roundup Ready soybeans, farmers had to use multiple herbicides to control the full spectrum of weeds in our fields. We would need one type of herbicide for grassy weeds and another type for broadleaf weeds.  Depending on the species present, we might have to use more than one broadleaf herbicide or grass herbicide, because not all species are equally susceptible.  Some soybean fields were treated with as many as four different herbicides.  Even then, some weeds escaped and had to be controlled later with cultivation. We had some perennial noxious weed problems that we simply could not control in soybeans, because any herbicide that would control them would also destroy the crop.  We used to have to wait until those bad weeds froze in the fall before we could even harvest the crop.  With the Roundup Ready program, those weeds are non-existent now. 
 
Unlike herbicides that control only grasses or only broadleaf weeds, glyphosate, the ingredient in Roundup herbicide, controls both types of weeds. But it also would kill the soybeans.   The soybean plant was improved through biotechnology to be tolerant to glyphosate . This allowed farmers to use one herbicide instead of several others to control nearly all weed species in the field without damage to the soybean plant.
 
Not only have we been able to reduce the amount of herbicides we use, we have reduced our passes across the field.  We make fewer herbicide applications and many growers have also reduced or eliminated fall and spring tillage completely, further reducing passes across the field.  This new method has dramatically improved soil structure, water conservation, and reduced the carbon footprint in soybean production.  Thats sustainability!!
 
In the past, farmers plowed or tilled their fields to turn over the soil and bury weed seeds in the fall. Then they  tilled the field to eliminate weeds prior to seeding..  Then they planted. Then they applied herbicides, often tilling again to incorporate, or mix, pre-emergence herbicides into the soil. All these steps were needed to ensure that soybeans could get a head start on weeds. And each step required a pass across the field and the fuel to make that pass.  With diesel fuel at $4 per gallon, it can cost $1,000 to make a single pass over a 500-acre field.
 
Now, with the ability to control weeds after the soybean plants have emerged, farmers do not have to take such early precautions.  Using special no-till equipment, we can plant Roundup Ready soybeans into untilled  fields. When weeds and soybean seedlings emerge, we can spray Roundup over the top, killing the weeds without harming the soybeans.  By reducing trips across the field, we drastically reduce our fuel consumption and, by leaving the soil undisturbed, we eliminate the threat of soil erosion and stream sedimentation.
 
We also greatly reduce our costs and improve our yields, because weed control is far superior to the system we used before. Even a few escaped weeds can reduce yields.
 
Sometimes we may have to use another herbicide in addition to Roundup to guard against weed resistance, depending on what weeds we see in our fields.  But there is no question that even then, Roundup Ready soybeans are a vast improvement to our costs, our yields and to the environment.
 









Document Number: 3931 
Why farmers choose herbicide-tolerant corn
 
University studies show that a typical farm field can have up to 100 million weed seeds per acre.  They can lie dormant for years and sprout at any time during a growing season. These weeds must be controlled or they will steal moisture and nutrients from crops and interfere with harvesting equipment.
 
Weed control in corn provides special challenges. Corn is planted in wider rows and grows straight up.  It takes several weeks for corn to provide a shade canopy that retards the growth of weeds.  Soybeans, which are planted in narrower rows, are broadleaf plants and spread out to more quickly provide a shade canopy.
 
In both crops, however, it is important to provide weed control early in the growing season. With soybeans, the weed control can come post-emergence (after the weeds and crop have emerged) because the developing canopy will help prevent a second flush of weeds.  With corn, however, it is important to prevent weeds from emerging to compete with the corn seedlings.
 
Corn growers traditionally use pre-emergence herbicides to prevent weeds from sprouting at planting. A few weeks later, a post-emergence application is required to control later-emerging weeds. Also, historically, one to two cultivations during the growing season were necessary to keep the corn field clean of weeds.
 
Before the development of herbicide-tolerant corn (Liberty Link or Roundup Ready), growers typically applied a pre-emergence mixture of two herbicides  one to control grasses (most often acetochlor or metolachlor) and one for broadleaf weeds (typically atrazine). This was followed a few weeks later by an application of up to three herbicides capable of controlling emerged weeds without seriously injuring the corn.
 
This standard program posed many challenges to growers. First, pre-emergence herbicides require incorporation into the soil and/or rain to become activated. If rain does not come at the right time, the soil-applied herbicides will not be effective, which allows weeds to compete with corn seedlings for scarce soil moisture.
 
The post-emergence application also was challenging. Federal label restrictions prevented applications after the corn was 12 inches tall, resulting in a narrow window when growers could enter their fields to rescue their corn from emerged weeds. Rainfall at the wrong time could result in little or no herbicide protection, requiring growers to cultivate their fields for weed control.  In addition, the standard post-emergence program could cause injury to corn plants.  The corn plants may recover from the injury, but not without a yield penalty.
 
The standard program also resulted in crop rotation restrictions because the residual effects of the herbicide program in the soil prevented farmers from planting certain crops.
 
Through biotechnology, corn has now been made tolerant to Liberty herbicide or Roundup herbicide.  Those products provide good to excellent control of nearly every grass or broadleaf weed typically found in cornfields, without injury to corn seedlings.
 
Liberty Link or Roundup Ready corn typically allows growers to reduce their overall herbicide usage by about one-third. Because of the excellent post-emergence control, growers are able to reduce the amount of pre-emergence herbicides they use.  In some cases, we have eliminated pre-emergence applications altogether.  And, instead of using three herbicides post-emergence, we now can use only one. In addition, the post-emergence application window is greatly expanded, for  farmers  to apply Liberty or Roundup  and still get superb weed control. And, because Liberty (glufosinate) and Roundup (glyphosate) do not have any residual effect, crop rotation restrictions are eliminated.
 
The assurance of post-emergence weed control has resulted in an expansion of no-till or minimum tillage corn acreage. By leaving the crop residue on the fields instead of plowing it under, we are able to reduce or eliminate soil erosion and runoff from fields, and greatly reduce the carbon footprint of the land.
 









Document Number: 6092 
 	
Why Growers Choose to Plant Insect-Protected Corn
 
Two insects  the corn borer and the corn rootworm  are responsible for the greatest amount of insect damage to corn.  These destructive pests, which can drastically reduce crop yield, can now be controlled without the use of chemical insecticides, thanks to biotech corn.
 
The result is that farmers do not have to spray for corn borers or spread soil-applied insecticides to kill rootworms.  We see higher yields and cleaner grain, and we save on fuel because we do not have to pass through our fields with tractors and application equipment.
 
Wildlife benefits as well, because the biotech corn contains a naturally occurring bacterial protein that is fatal to the targeted pest but harmless to beneficial insects, birds and mammals. Before the biotech corn was developed, farmers used a mixture of chemical insecticides that were harmful to nearly every insect as well as to birds and mammals that might be present during application.  Farmers also needed special safety equipment to protect themselves from effects of these chemicals.
 
The corn borer was very difficult to control before the advent of biotech corn. The borer is the caterpillar or larval form of a moth.  The moths lay their eggs in the whorls of corn plants, and within a week, the eggs hatch and the larvae bore into the stalk of the plant.  Once inside the plant, no chemical insecticide could control them.  This meant that farmers had to carefully scout their fields and immediately make insecticide applications once they saw evidence of borers.  If weather was bad during that critical window, applications could not be made. Even if applications could be made, they were not always totally effective.
 
Without control, corn borers tunnel through the stalk, reducing the uptake of nutrients or causing the stalk to break. The borers also move to the ear stems causing ears to fall off, and they feed on the kernels, causing rot and fungal diseases.
 
The biotech corn contains a protein from a soil bacterium known as Bt. This single protein is harmful to the larvae of moths and butterflies, but nothing else. Now, when a corn borer takes a first bite of a corn plant, it ingests the protein and soon dies. This provides season-long protection.  Desirable moths and butterflies do not feed on corn, so the Bt corn is no risk to them  unlike the insecticides that we sprayed in the pre-biotech days.
 
The corn rootworm is the other devastating pest.  This worm is actually the larva of a beetle. It feeds on the root tips of corn plants, preventing the corn from taking up moisture and nutrients. Fields infested with rootworms experience extensive yield loss. And without adequate root structure, plants can be blown over in the wind, which means that harvesting equipment cannot pick the ears.
 
Many farmers control rootworms by rotating crops each year. The beetles lay their eggs in the fall in corn fields.  In the spring, the larvae feed on the corn roots.  However, if the farmer rotates his field to another crop  soybeans for instance  the rootworms have no food source.
 
This method works for many farmers, but many other farmers produce corn every season for a variety of reasons.  They may need to feed livestock on their property, or other rotational crops are not a viable option. And, in recent years, a new phenomenon has been observed.  The beetles are outsmarting the farmers who rotate their crops.  They have learned to lay their eggs in soybean fields in the fall, so their offspring have a ready supply of corn roots in the spring.
 
All these scenarios require rootworm control. Before the advent of biotech corn, growers used soil applied insecticides, which came with risks to the applicator as well as to wildlife.
 
Rootworm resistant corn contains a protein from the Bt bacterium, a different protein than the once that controls corn borers. The Bt bacterium produces many different proteins that can control specific types of insects.  Organic farmers and home gardeners use these proteins in foliar sprays.
 
In production agriculture, growers must adhere to EPA-mandated requirements to protect the Bt insecticides from insect resistance.  Each season, we set aside a portion of our corn fields as a refuge for the moths or beetles. This provides a ready supply of susceptible insects to mate with any resistant insects that survived exposure to the Bt.  This ensures that the offspring of that pairing will remain susceptible.  Farmers who use the foliar sprays, including organic farmers, are not required to create such refuges.










Document Number: 179 
Why Growers Want to Plant Roundup Ready Alfalfa
 
Alfalfa is an excellent feed crop for livestock, especially dairy cows, but the nutritional value depends on the purity of the hay.  A nearly pure bale of alfalfa hay provides much more nutritional value than one that contains a high percentage of weeds or grass. And, of course, farmers who sell hay get more for high quality hay than they can expect from hay contaminated with weeds.
 
Producing a pure stand of alfalfa is a tough prospect for growers, but it would be greatly simplified if we were able to plant Roundup Ready Alfalfa, which has been approved by federal regulators but is now held up by an activist groups lawsuit.
 
Alfalfa is a perennial crop.  A stand typically lasts three to five years before it is destroyed and re-established. Weeds pose different challenges at different phases of a stands life. 
 
Weed control is especially critical and challenging during stand establishment. Alfalfa seedlings are poor competitors against weeds due to their small seed size and limited energy reserve. Its not at all unusual for the first cutting to have 50 to 75 percent weed content if weeds are not properly controlled during this critical stage. The big problem we have right now is that currently available herbicides can also damage the seedlings, further restricting their ability to establish themselves.
 
Many times a poorly established stand may never fully recover.  In cases like that, farmers either plow under the alfalfa or intentionally plant forage grasses into the alfalfa. This, of course, diminishes the purity of the hay, which means reduced nutritional value to livestock and a reduced payment to growers who sell their hay. When we plant grasses into alfalfa, we have to give up on trying to control grassy weeds like foxtail, which has sharp spikes that can harm the mouths of livestock, because herbicides that control grassy weeds would also kill the forage grasses we intentionally planted. 
 
If a stand is successfully established, weeds remain a concern in subsequent years. The higher the percentage of foreign plants, the lower the nutritional value. A combination of several available herbicides for grasses and broadleaf weeds may be used, but that program is full of pitfalls, including proper timing, rainfall issues and crop injury. Many farmers simply give up on trying to control weeds, especially in the final year of a stands life.  This is because currently available herbicides have a residual effect, which prevents us from rotating our fields to some other crop.  We simply take the expected dockage fee that comes from producing a low-quality crop.
 
Roundup Ready Alfalfa would give us an answer to all these problems.  If we could apply glyphosate herbicide over the top of tolerant seedlings, we could get rid of weeds at the establishment period and ensure a healthy stand.  We could remove any weeds that subsequently appear without harming the crop. And carryover issues would go away, because glyphosate has no residual effect in soil.
 
Alfalfa growers are anxious to plant this new biotech variety because we have heard about studies, which show higher yield and better nutritional value. Field trials show that Roundup Ready Alfalfa produces about a half ton more forage per acre than alfalfa treated with conventional herbicide programs. This is worth $115 per acre for the farmer.
 
Not only is there more hay, it is better quality.  Research done at the University of Minnesota found a dramatic difference. Based on yield and quality data, Roundup Ready Alfalfa would produce nearly 8 percent more milk per acre than conventionally produced hay.
 
 









Document Number: 9527
Why Growers Choose Biotech

Since the first biotech crops were introduced in 1996, the adoption rate among growers has been phenomenal. Today, more than 90 percent of U.S. soybean acres are planted with biotech seeds and nearly 75 percent of U.S. corn acres contain one or more biotech traits. Biotech cotton and canola also have been widely adopted in regions where those crops are grown. The reasons are clear:  Biotech traits enable growers to increase yields, reduce costs, lessen our environmental footprint and be more efficient. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that corn yields have increased 33.1 percent since 1996 and soybean yields have increased 16.7 percent over the same period.

But how do biotech traits work for growers?  Growers for Biotechnology have developed documents that explain how we have been able to change our agronomic practices because of herbicide tolerant soybeans, herbicide tolerant corn and insect-protected corn. We also have developed a paper explaining how herbicide tolerant alfalfa will solve tough weed control issues when that trait, approved by federal regulators but challenged by an activist lawsuit, ultimately becomes available.

We hope that these papers illustrate to the non-farming public that biotechnology is an invaluable tool that enables growers to produce abundant and affordable food for an ever-increasing global population.










Document Number: 8438
BIOTECH REPORTS

Understanding Roundup Ready alfalfa
 
Dr. Dan Putnam, University of California
Dr. Dan Undersander, University of Wisconsin
 
A number of concerns have been raised about the release of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa, the first biotech trait in alfalfa. Many of these concerns have been fueled by misinformation. In this article, we provide a scientific perspective on these concerns that we hope will inform.
 
Concern 1. Once you release this gene  you cant call it back.
Over 300,000 acres of RR alfalfa have been planted for hay over the past 2 to 3 years, with a limited amount planted for seed. The real question is whether you can continue to plant conventional alfalfa seed and the answer is a resounding yes  all of the seed currently for sale is conventional  and you only need to test it (or ask the seed company to test it) with inexpensive test strips to make sure it does not contain the gene if you dont want it. Conventional alfalfa seed will continue to be available after Roundup Ready alfalfa is released.
 
Concern 2. Wont contamination from neighboring fields result in all seed being Roundup Ready, eventually?
No. Seed production methods and isolation distances currently recommended by seed companies should keep adventitious presence at a very low level for seed. A gene will increase in a population only if the new gene gives the plant an advantage over other plants and the conditions creating the advantage are consistently present. Conversely, if plants are grown in an environment where the gene provides no advantage, the gene is more likely to remain in the population at very low levels or to be lost from the population. The formulas for computing these changes in gene frequency can be found in most books on population or quantitative genetics, such as Falconer and MacKay, 1996, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Longman Press. Thus non-GE seed will always be available.
 
Concern 3. Wont my neighbors Roundup Ready hay fields contaminate my conventional or organic alfalfa hay production through pollen and gene flow?
No. There is almost zero probability of gene flow among hay fields. For this to happen all the following must occur:
                         fields must flower at same time.
                         pollinators must be present to move pollen (it does not blow in wind).
                         plants must remain in field 4 to 6 weeks after flowering for viable seed production.
                         seed must shatter, to fall to ground and establish on soil surface.
                         seedlings must to overcome autotoxicity to germinate.
                         seedlings must to overcome competition from existing plants.
 
Pollen moves among alfalfa plants only when carried by pollinators such as bees, and honey bees do not like to pollinate alfalfa. Alfalfa seed takes many weeks after flowering to mature sufficiently to germinate and longer to shatter and fall onto the ground. Alfalfa seed does not readily spread. Alfalfa does not germinate well on the soil surface. Germination will be further reduced by alfalfa autotoxicity from existing planting in the hay field (this is why interseeding alfalfa to thicken a stand generally fails). Germinating seeds must compete with established plants for water, nutrients and sunlight. Data has shown that interseeded plants generally die during the first growing season. Thus, if a grower takes care to plant conventional seed, it is very unlikely that the Roundup Ready gene will move to their hay fields. (See Gene Flow in Alfalfa: Biology, Mitigation, and Potential Impact on Production, Special Publication of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) at http://www.cast-science.org/displayProductDetails.asp?idProduct=157 )
 
Concern 4. Will the seed companies be able to keep seed from being contaminated?
Yes, the greatest real potential for pollen flow and contamination is during seed production. The seed industry has agreed on a field tagging technique in areas where RR alfalfa seed will be grown so neighbors and other seed companies will know where RR seed is being produced. The bulk of non-GE alfalfa seed is produced for export by seed production companies and it is in their own best interest to control seed production to continue to produce the 30% or more of total production as non-biotech for export. This large volume of export seed production is much more significant economically than the less than 1% of total seed market for organic seed production. However, concerns and methodology for exported seed will allow organic seed production indefinitely, making non-biotech seed available to growers.
 
Concern 5. Wont feral alfalfa be a source of contamination?

 
Feral (wild growing) alfalfa can act as a bridge for moving genes from one seed field to another, and thus should be controlled to prevent gene flow in any area where seed production occurs, whether biotech or not. Feral alfalfa is primarily an issue in portions of Western states because little occurs elsewhere. Feral alfalfa will have low seed production for the reasons described in #3 plus damage from lygus bug and infection from seed-borne fungi when seed develops under damp conditions. Seed from any feral plants will contribute to new plants only over a very short term, but removing feral alfalfa from ditches and roads is a good idea for organic and export growers to prevent gene flow. If feral alfalfa is deemed a problem in a specific area, then it must be controlled as off types of alfalfa and other problem weeds are currently controlled using cultural and other herbicide methods.
 
Concern 6. Wont hard seed be a source of contamination?
Hard seed of alfalfa generally does not persist for more than one year in moist soils (Albrecht et al. 2008 Forage and Grazinglands), much less after years of hay production. To guard against hard seed carryover, seed growers take steps to eliminate residual alfalfa volunteers prior to planting. State Seed Certification Standards already require that the alfalfa seed field's history include a 2-year exclusion period before planting alfalfa for seed.
 
Concern 7. Much of hay in my area is cut late with mature seed  we have good farmers but weather, equipment problems force late cuttings.
Although late cuttings occasionally happen viable seed development is unlikely. However, plants must remain in field for 4 to 6 weeks after pollination of flowers for viable seed to form and longer for seed to shatter. Delaying harvest 1 to 2 weeks due to weather, equipment problems and other issues will cause little to no seed production in hay fields (see item #3). Furthermore, hay harvest should remove this small amount of seed so that it doesnt become a problem.
 
Concern 8. Organic producers may have difficulty growing organic hay.
No  there is no reason that organic growers cant continue to successfully grow organic hay. In fact the presence of Roundup Ready alfalfa hay in the marketplace may increase the value of organic hay, for buyers who are sensitive to biotech traits. Current demand for organic hay has been high, in spite of the introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa. There are a number of growers who currently grow both Roundup Ready alfalfa and organic hay on the same farm without difficulty. Organic growers should 1) select conventional seed that is tested for the trait if their customers have set a standard of no adventitious presence, 2) take simple steps to protect their crop from gene flow and 3) identify hay lots after harvest. Feedstuffs can be tested to ensure low biotech levels desired for these markets. Organic growers currently are certified to show that their crops are not grown with pesticides or non-organic fertilizers, and similar steps can be taken to show that they do not use genetically engineered crops.
 
Concern 9. Couldnt we lose our entire export market?
No. While export growers and buyers are sensitive to the presence of biotech traits in crops, they have developed market-assurance methods to demonstrate that they are marketing non-biotech alfalfa hay, including testing to assure buyers of the non-biotech status of hay. Japan, Taiwan, and Korea (main U.S. hay market) already use biotech corn and soybeans and have accepted some RR alfalfa hay. The European Union has approved use of certain biotech varieties of corn and soybeans in food and feedstuffs. While significant in some growing regions in the US, exported hay represents less than 1 % of total alfalfa hay production.
 
Concern 10. Isnt the research biased by the seed companies that stand to gain most?
RR technology at has been evaluated at many universities. This research is independent of the concerned commercial parties. The goal is to independently test a technology for its viability and environmental safety for farmers and for the general public. These studies must be well-designed, accurate and can only be published only after review by anonymous individuals from other institutions selected for impartiality.
 
Concern 11. Wont the Roundup Ready gene in alfalfa have a negative effect on insects, diseases, other biota, or the environment?
There is currently no evidence that this gene would have a negative effect on insects or animals, or the environment. The Roundup Ready gene has been thoroughly tested as other crops were released (corn, soybeans, cotton) and no impact on any other biota has been found. No toxicology issues have been identified with roundup ready alfalfa fed to animals. In the past ten years, billions of tons of corn, soybeans, cotton and alfalfa have been produced with this gene, and there has been no documented harm to animals, humans or wildlife. In fact the use of Roundup would replace some more toxic pesticides that have been used and found in ground water (e.g. Velpar).
 
Concern 12. Farmers cant/wont follow stewardship protocols.
All technology requires stewardship by farmers (e.g. fertilizer use, pesticide use, irrigation). Farmers must be educated about stewardship needed and required to use appropriate stewardship for any technology. The possibility of gene flow is no different in scope than controlling pesticide drift, fertilizer contamination from conventional farms, or for that matter, the influence of weeds from organic fields that may contaminate neighbors fields. Good farmers know how to do this.
 
Concern 13. Wont there be weed resistance to Roundup from use of RR alfalfa?
Weed resistance and weed shifts are issues with all herbicides. New management programs have always resulted in shifts in weed pressure. For example, no-till crop production has resulted in different weed problems than when crops were grown with conventional tillage. Resistance to glyphosate has occurred in row crop situations. Inclusion of alfalfa might actually slow increase of resistant populations of weeds because an additional mechanical control (frequent hay harvest) is being added to the weed management program. Techniques are readily available to avoid weed shifts or weed resistance using the Roundup Ready system as detailed in a recent article (Orloff et al., 2008).
 
Concern 14. Risk far outweighs reward/Do we really need this? Are we willing to take this kind of gamble?
There is also a risk with NOT moving ahead with a technology that has clear potential benefits to farmers and the environment. Currently, many animals are killed or hurt each year by weedy alfalfa fields  something that Roundup Ready technology could help address. Also, some of the conventional herbicides have been found in well water  something not true with glyphosate. Additionally, Roundup Ready alfalfa would allow farmers to control tough weeds for which no other good method of control exists (e.g. winter annuals such as chickweed, wild garlic, wild onion, perennials such as dandelion. difficult weeds such as nutsedge and dodder, and poisonous weeds such as groundsel).
Further, if this breeding methodology is permanently banned, it would mean fewer genetic advancements for alfalfa in the future. Some traits currently under development, such as a low lignin gene that could mean higher forage yield and fewer cuttings for farmers, a leaf retention gene to retain leaves through harvesting process, genes which confer pest resistance, or genes to increase bypass protein, would never be available to farmers. It is not reasonable or fair to farmers to restrict a technology from use in alfalfa that is available in other crops.
 








Document Number: 8740
Given the roots of the company, what was the attraction of biotechnology? Why was this an area that the company chose to go into?
Monsanto has been investing in biotech since the mid- to late 1980s. The big attraction for Monsanto was really twofold. One, we believed then, and believe very strongly today, that fiber development and pesticides was no longer a viable business opportunity. From an environmental point of view, it didn't really make sense, either. So we stopped all chemical investment, and really redirected our energy towards biotech. That was the first main thread.

	

		
He is chief operating officer for Monsanto. In this interview Grant addresses the issues of gene migration and pest resistance with GM crops, the refuge strategy, the U.S. public's perception of biotech products, the lessons of StarLink (the animal feed GM corn, which hadn't been approved for human consumption, that was found in taco shells), and the issue of labelling GM food products. (Interview conducted December 2000.) 
		


The second thread, the one that really drove our company to make the biotech investment, was a future view on food requirements. The answer that we developed was that we believe that the world needs about 35 percent to 40 percent more food produced on every acre. Chemicals weren't the answer to that next increment of production. It was in genetics. It was in better seed. So, really, that's been driving us for more than ten years now. . . . 

You're not selling the seed; you're selling something in addition to a seed, aren't you?

Yes. That's true. That's been a real breakthrough in the industry--we're selling information. When the farmer purchases Monsanto seed, or a biotech seed, he's purchasing a piece of information that allows him to grow crops either in a different environment, or to grow them with a reduction in the amount of pesticides that he uses. We charge for the use of that information. So that's a new development. 

How does the transaction work for a farmer?

It's a very traditional system. When he buys seed, he also enters into a licensing agreement with Monsanto for the use of that particular gene. The gene contributes to his production by allowing him to control insects more effectively, or control weeds more effectively, or, in the future, to grow a crop that has improved qualities in terms of oils or proteins. That's a license fee that he pays on an annual basis, and he pays depending on the use of that seed. 

And that's the intellectual property that you own, so to speak?

That's the intellectual property that we own that's quoted in that seed. To put it in perspective, you can't force a farmer into doing something that he or she doesn't want to do. That's been my experience around the world. We've seen these technologies growing very quickly. These are technologies that are generally cheaper than the existing technologies, or the historical system that he has used in the past. They're cheaper, more effective, and reduce the pesticide inputs. That's what, I think, has led to a very fast adoption. 

What about the first few products?

The first few crops for Monsanto have been soybeans and corn, and we've done work in rice and cotton and wheat. But the first commercial crop was soybeans. The breakthrough in soybeans was in making the crop tolerant to an application of Roundup, which, in turn, reduced the amount of herbicide that was applied in the crop, and reduced the input costs to the farmer. So it was about 30 percent cheaper and more effective than any system that he'd used previously.

Then the next broad platform of technologies was insect control, and that was insect control in corn and in cotton. BT cotton, or cotton that's tolerant to insects, has really been a breakthrough in how insects are controlled in the crop. Historically, the crop was sprayed eight to ten times with insecticide, usually flown over the top of the crop. Today, the cotton crop is grown with one or two applications, and the crop is made tolerant--the crop has a protein coded inside it where, if bugs chew on the leaves, they're killed. So non-target insects, bugs that shouldn't be killed, are left undamaged. . . . 

Now we've got this storm of activity in Europe.

Yes. I think I'd summarize it by saying we underestimated the consumer concern in Europe. Our approach at that time, three years ago, was very largely focused on the science, and ensuring that we had satisfied the regulatory authorities. We never looked at the broad stakeholders involved, and I don't think we entered into . . . a dialogue with a lot of the other non-scientific groups involved in this discussion. 

But things went very, very rapidly, and they got very far. They affected the ability to grow and import without labels, didn't they? Did the extent of what happened surprise you? It wasn't just a few protests in the field. It's actually had consequences, hasn't it?

Certainly compared to last summer in Europe, it's my perception that things have got better. They've got better because ... UK scientists are now prepared to stand up and talk about the potential benefits of these technologies. This isn't just about Monsanto. This is much broader. So, that wasn't there before. That's the first thing.

The second thing--and it's a continuing frustration, not just to Monsanto, but to the whole industry--is that there's a European regulatory system which is running very, very slowly at the moment. It's the relative fragmentation of that system, I think, that has led to some of the trade questions on our ability to export crops from the U.S. into Europe.

If you compare Europe, for instance, and Japan, the Japanese system is probably one of the best regulatory systems in the world today. . . . The Japanese system is very similar to the system here in the U.S. You have a USDA-FDA-EPA triangle, and it seems to work.

I think that there's a very distinctive difference between the U.S. and Europe. At the moment, consumer confidence continues to be very high here in the U.S. Consumer confidence in the regulatory system in Europe, in general, and the UK in particular, is very low at the moment. 

You have this very sort of exciting vision of agricultural biotech. You see people like Jeremy Rifkin talking about a "second genesis," or people using the phrase "Frankenfood," or Greenpeace says that there's a massive experiment going on. . . .

I guess what I would say in response is, over the last three years, these crops have continued to grow. There are more than 100 million acres of biotech crops worldwide. The reality is that 2.5 million farmers in China this year will grow BT cotton, and they'll grow it with less insecticides. I think we'll see the same in India. I spent a lot of time in India in the last few years. You get young people, usually women, walking through fields in a cloud of insecticide.

These are technologies that can change the way that small farmers farm. So I don't worry too much about getting caught in the crosshairs, as much as how do these technologies advance farming techniques, and what impact we can have on the world. I think that's how you have to focus. 

Why do you think that more hasn't been made of those successes in the public relations war? Why, for instance, do we hear about monarch butterflies, but not about the ability of BT corn to resist infection by fungal infections?

Monsanto, in particular, and the industry in general, need to do a better job of communicating the benefits of these end technologies. On a broader scale, when you look at regulatory bodies, there are probably more education needs in explaining to the consumer what biotechnology is. There are many, many very good examples of what these technologies can bring to society at large. We need to do a much better job of explaining what these technologies are. . . . 

One concern that is potentially always on people's minds--food safety--doesn't seem to be a feature of this so far.

From a food safety point of view, these are products, these are crops, these are technologies that have been more widely tested than any other food product that came before them in history. They are very, very widely tested--not just here in the U.S.--but in Japan, and even in Europe. If you look at some of our most recent technologies, they are moving through the scientific regulatory system in Europe with flying colors at the moment. The debate is moving away from food safety. I think the debate is moving, now, particularly in Europe, toward one of environmental impact, and about planting these seeds in other parts of the world. 

How would you test for allergenicity and toxicity?

There's a whole battery of tests generated around allergenicity. Monsanto's first product, Roundup Ready Soybeans, has been extensively tested for allergens and food allergens. It passed all the food allergen tests here in the U.S., and in Japan, and, incidentally, passed all the allergen tests in Europe four years ago. So despite a lot of the discussion at the moment, the soybean products have been in public commerce for almost five years. There are very, very wide degrees of testing. 

On the environmental issues that are raised, which go to the planting of crops and so forth, there are two issues that anti-GM groups touch on. One is gene migration, and the other is resistance. . . . How do you address a concern like gene migration?

When we look at growing these crops, what I've seen in terms of environmental impact varies, depending on where you are in the world. The discussion is the U.S. is a different discussion from the discussion in Europe, for instance. The European discussion is largely driven by the fact that agriculture in rural areas and leisure areas are intermingled.

If you look particularly at the UK, the UK government has asked for additional specific tests on the environmental impact within a UK context. I feel fine about that, because of crop rotations, because of the crop separation, and establishment of barriers. Finally, and most importantly, the highest level of pesticide use in the world today is in Europe. In the areas where . . . most of Europe's wheat is grown, the crops see eight to ten applications of fertilizers and pesticides in the growing season. Potentially, in the next three to five years, the introduction of biotech into these crops will reduce pesticide use. Potentially--that's what tests need to establish--biodiversity will improve. So as I look at some of the questions around biodiversity, I'm really interested in getting the trials done. My frustration is in not being able to generate the trials and the scientific data. 

Is that because there's now sort of a moratorium in effect in many countries in Europe?

Well, it's less the moratorium, because the moratorium permits field trials. It's more the destruction of field trials. A lot of the groups who are advocating more information and more scientific study are synonymously the same groups that are destroying the trials that generate that. . . . 

The other issue, which some groups, and organic farmers in particular get upset about is the idea of resistance. Because you're using BT, which is something they feel they own, and they're worried about increased capacity for resistance.

Resistance is something that we take very, very seriously. We've made investments in these technologies for a decade, so it's in our interests to make sure that they'll last for another 10 or 20 years. We've developed BT technologies. We've worked very, very closely with the regulatory systems here in the U.S., and now in Asia, China, and India, to guarantee that we have built natural refuge systems where we can ensure that there's no buildup of resistance. That's the first leg of the strategy.

The second leg is that we're constantly looking for new genes, so that we continue to present the insect populations with additional challenges to avoid the buildup of resistance. But it's something that, as a commercial enterprise, but also as a farming community, they take very, very seriously. Nobody wants to go back to spraying ten applications of insecticide. They're growing a cotton crop in Australia in some areas that they couldn't grow cotton before, because the insects had developed resistance to synthetic insecticides. So there's a community around the world that's very focused on avoiding the buildup of resistance. 

The refuge strategy depends on sort of compliance. Does the EPA require you to make sure the farmers grow the refuge? . . .

We set a contractual obligation with growers, when they buy our seed, to maintain refuges. That is monitored closely, and it's to the extent now in the U.S., that if a farmer does not abide by that refuge program, we refuse to sell him seed that second year. . . . 

What about the issue of labeling?

Labeling is an interesting discussion. Let me tell you the Monsanto view on labeling today. We believe very strongly, very strongly, that these products are safe. And in their safety, there is no need to label, and that's the position that has been held by the FDA. The FDA labeling requirements are really triggered by, if a product is essentially the same, then there is no labeling requirement.

In other parts of the world--again, in Europe, and in some emerging in Asia--labeling is a requirement, and we obviously follow those labeling requirements. If you take somewhere like the UK, the average supermarket in the UK today has 20,000 to 25,000 products or lines. Many of those today are labeled as containing a biotech or modified soy protein, and have been labeled for the last three years. The data that I've seen suggests that that hasn't changed consumer behavior at all. . . . And that would certainly be the case in Holland, which had blanket labeling regulations way before the UK.

My final point is that I think a voluntary labeling scheme here in the U.S. leads to food companies generating an extra expense by labeling. A consumer is presented with that expense in terms of a price, I would assume. The consumer learns the choice, and whether to select that product, and pays the premium associated with it. I think we'll probably see some form of voluntary labeling program emerging here in the U.S., in the future, in some select products. 

You're saying mandatory labeling doesn't really make any difference. So why not have mandatory labeling?

There's never been a requirement here in the U.S. As I said at the beginning, I don't see the need for it, when we've run through years and years of safety testing before these products are released. On that basis, from a consumer point of view, there is no substantive difference. . . .

I think that there are a lot of lessons in the StarLink issue. Here at Monsanto--StarLink isn't one of our products--we've had a number of internal policies which would have avoided that for us. One, we would never commercialize a product until we had food and animal feed approval. That's just been an internal policy, because of the difficulty in separating. So we would never go forward until we had both approvals. That's one thing.

Two, we would never commercialize a product until we had approval here in the domestic U.S. market and in Japan, because most of the export flows in commodities go from here to Japan. We would never commercialize until we had the secure export market established as well. I think that, for the industry in general, StarLink has been a pivotal turning point in the recognition that there are limits to what you can do in channeling. Before you commercialize a product, you just need food and feed approval. 

What is channeling--keeping things separate?

The identity preservation and keeping commodities separate, or trying to maintain separate fractions in grain. 

Didn't this reveal issues of farmer compliance? In practice, it's turned out to be quite a nightmare, hasn't it? They had rules that weren't necessarily being followed. Is it simply very, very difficult to make rules of that complexity stick?

I can't comment on what Aventis has done on their compliance. I can tell you what we've done here in the last couple of years in our channeling efforts. We audit every step in the process, and we're working this through web sites, through direct farmer communication, and all the way to the processors and receivers of that grain. But I think the broader view in this is, one, making sure that you have your export markets secured and clearly identified before you commercialize; and two, making sure that you food and feed approval before you take these products to market. . . . 

Why are you giving away your intellectual property, or allowing the use of your intellectual property on the "golden rice," for instance?

We successfully mapped the rice genome earlier this year, and surprised many scientists around the world by opening up access to that genome. So today you can access the whole mapped rice genome, free of charge. Whether you're in Beijing as a plant breeder, or whether you're in Bangalore, you can access the Monsanto rice genome and use that as a platform for additional research. . . . I think it helps society. It helps the rice crop--a third of the world still depends on rice as their daily staple. And in the long term, it potentially could help us by gaining further insight into the genetic makeup in rice, and through rice, into wheat and corn. . . .

The reality is that 24,000 people a day still die of hunger. The majority of that 24,000 are children. I believe that for corporations like Monsanto going forward, we've got a responsibility in how we use these technologies to benefit people that are less privileged than the West is today. So, golden rice, and recently announced golden mustard, provide a vitamin-enriched basic food source that helps prevent night blindness. It also makes contributions by strengthening the immune system that makes children less predisposed to immune diseases like AIDS. These are things, that three years ago, we as a company would never have considered. . . . 

Are you doing it because of the bad publicity? Or do you see this as a new model of the price of doing business in the twenty-first century? . . .

We are doing this not because of PR, and sometimes when we make these gifts, that's the first question. What we have seen today after a few months with the rice genome work and after a few months between Monsanto and Zenica with golden rice, is a recognition that this is a genuine gift given in good faith. And given the gift, it then allows people to make additional scientific developments without Monsanto being involved. I think that's the key. We give the gift, and then it's up to the recipient to develop it. So for us, there's no additional work required, other than making sure that it's a gift given in good faith. . . . 


 








Document Number: 3539 


The first history of any vaccine goes back to China, hundreds of years ago, for
smallpox.  The first experimental use of vaccines goes back 200 years to Jenner
in England, where he took a scab of cowpox from a cow and rubbed it on a cut on
the arm of a boy, and there was sort of a reaction to it.  And then--you never
do this today--but he challenged the kid with authentic smallpox.  And the boy
did not get smallpox, so he made the correlation.  

President emeritus of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University,  is working on making safer vaccines for viruses which kill millions in the developing world. He discusses his work developing edible vaccines (inside GM bananas, tomatoes, or potatoes). He also talks about Europe's opposition to GM foods and science's hopes for applying GM techniques to future foods, medicines, and environmental cleanup. (Interview conducted September 2000.) 


That was the first model of a vaccine where you used, in that case, a related
virus.  Today we call them attenuated viruses, because they're like the real
pathogen--a  thing that causes disease--but  they're either weakened, sometimes
killed, chemically inactivated--or there are relatives.  So it could be a virus
that attacks cattle but not people, but it still triggers an immune response.
So for 200 years, most vaccines have been built around this concept of using a
relative of what causes disease in us, or an inactivated form.  

Then along came molecular biology in the mid- to late 1970s.  The first vaccine
that came out of this was for hepatitis B.  The scientists  in that case looked
at the entire genome of the hepatitis B virus.  That was a pretty heroic
scientific feat, with the simple techniques they had about 25 years ago.  But
they found a gene in the virus that encodes, or it has the information for, the
surface of the hepatitis B virus.  

You can picture hepatitis B like a little tennis ball.  It's got a furry
outside and that furry stuff on the outside is protein.  That's what sticks to
a human cell and causes the virus to be taken up.  So these guys did take that
gene, moved it to yeast, and grew the yeast in fermentation vats.  Now the
yeast produces a furry little tennis ball, or a virus-like particle, but
there's nothing inside it, so there's no capacity for disease.  They purified
this furry little tennis ball from yeast, and now formulate it and put it into
an injectable form.  That was the first hepatitis B vaccine.  That came out in
1986.  It was licensed by the federal government as being very safe and very
effective.  That was the first of now what's appearing to be a flood of subunit
vaccines that are coming in.

The molecular vaccines are really safe.  Are there disadvantages?I don't want to emphasize that there are disadvantages to modern vaccines.  But
there  inconveniences, if you will, and those relate to the cost.
This is a pretty high-technology process.  It's not been very easy to transfer
it to developing countries.  The second point is that these new vaccines all
require refrigeration from the point of manufacture to the point of use.  If
you're trying to take a vaccine to a Third World country, that adds an enormous
cost, and adds a certain unreliability.  If this cold chain breaks down
someplace, you could lose the effectiveness of your vaccine.  So those are the
two biggest issues.   

In addition, the World Health Organization says, "We'd really like these to be
oral vaccines, because they're easier to implement."  Their model for that is a
polio vaccine--a simple thing that was developed more than two or three decades
ago.  You take the polio virus in a weakened form, but put it on a sugar cube,
and just put that on the mouth or the tongue of a kid.  It's an easy delivery
mechanism.  So the World Health Organization has been looking for the
equivalent of the sugar cube delivery system.



Well, syringes cost money.  Because they cost money, they're often
inappropriately used in developing world.  People try to clean them, and they
shouldn't.  They should be throwing them away, but at the cost, they add
significantly to the delivery system.  The World Health Organization estimates
that there are hundreds of thousands of deaths and disease incidents caused by
inappropriate needle use.  So they'd like to get away from that technology.

Given those hurdles, how can a plant get you through this?

With plant-based vaccines, we're not trying to replace the immunology side of
it.  We're totally dependent upon our friends who know virology and
bacteriology to figure out how to find the genes and find the right components
to make the vaccine.  I picture myself, as a plant biologist, as a
manufacturing specialist.   We can put the gene now into the chromosome of the
plant, so that every cell in the plant that comes back out of this has the
capacity to manufacture a new protein.  Then, even more, the plant itself is a
delivery system.  

So if you can simply eat it, now you don't have to do any complex formulation;
you don't have to do purification; and you don't have to deal with some of the
other issues about toxicants or other materials that could get into the
formulated vaccine.  

So plants offer a less expensive production system, and also, we believe, a
more efficient and effective delivery system.  Coupled with growing a plant and
using food-processing  technology to prepare the vaccine, we can now take
existing technology that's in the developing world--agriculture and food
processing that exists around the world--and adapt that to making a
pharmaceutical.  

Is it in a safe form in the plant?

When we started thinking about delivery systems, the one that I began focusing
on about eight years ago was bananas.  When you start peeling a banana, the
minute that peeling comes off, you are exposing a sterile environment inside.
There are no bacteria.  There are no fungi in there.  This is a self-contained
sterile container that also contains protein.  So you can think of it as a
sterile protein-manufacturing system.  If we can put genes into bananas and
cause them to produce the protein we want--in this case, a vaccine--in that
sterile compartment, then all we have to do is pop it open and deliver it.  

What is the process, from start to finish, of how you transform a
plant?

. . . We've spent the most time working on diseases caused by viruses or
bacteria that . . . cause diarrhea.  . . . Diarrheal disease is an enormous
problem in the developing world.  It causes deaths of about 2 million children
every year.  That comes from a variety of reasons: inadequate water
purification, public hygiene systems, etc.  That's one part of solving this
problem in the long term.  But in the short term, vaccines would be the best
route to prevent the disease.

Because the disease is endemic?

It's an endemic problem.  Diarrheal disease re-occurs, especially in the
developing world.  Whenever they enter the monsoon season and other problems
like that, it spreads more rapidly.  Enormous loss of life occurs from diseases
like cholera, enterotoxic E. coli, rotovirus outbreaks.  

You've identified a pathogen you're interested in?

. . . Let me try to describe how we make a vaccine for Norwalk virus.  Norwalk
virus causes diarrhea.  You get it in contaminated food, and we in the U.S. would
think of it as a case of food poisoning.  The Norwalk virus, when we take it in
with contaminated food, has a surface protein that binds to cells in our gut,
primarily in the intestine.  Once it binds, the viral material--which is genes
from the virus--is injected into the epithelial cells in our gut.  So,
essentially, the virus takes over and does genetic engineering in the cells in
our gut.  The result is massive diarrhea, with its inconvenience, discomfort,
etc.  

We in the U.S. generally do survive this, because we have rehydration therapy,
etc.  If you survive that, your immune system has been triggered, and the
immune system now starts producing antibodies that are secreted into the gut.
If that disease-causing agent comes along again, we're prepared for it.  The
antibodies bind to the virus and prevent the infection process.

What we wanted to do was take the gene for that surface protein, put it into
plant cells, and ask whether the plant would make a virus-like particle.  It's
a mimic, or a decoy, that looks like the virus, but with none of the genes
inside, so it can't cause disease.  First of all, we found that we could do
that.  We did that in collaboration with Mary Estes at Baylor College of
Medicine, who's an expert in this stuff.

Do you use a gene gun technique to get them in?

We use one of two routes to put the gene for Norwalk virus into plants.  We can
use the gene gun, so we essentially are shooting the piece of DNA into a plant
cell, where it gets integrated into the chromosome.  Or we use another
approach, called agrobacterium-mediated transformation.  That's where we first
take the gene out of the virus and move it into a plant pathogen.  Then the
plant pathogen is a bacterium, and that moves the gene into a plant cell.  

Each system has some advantages.  We can use either one.  But we end up with an
individual cell, which now has this new gene.  From that cell, we regenerate a
plant back.  So the first part of this has just become absolutely routine.
There's so much molecular biology going on around the world today.  We can
bring in a high school student and have them do the first part of putting the
genes into the plants for us.

The more complicated side of it then is to regenerate plants back out of this,
look at each one and say, "Is it producing the vaccine in the form we want it?
Is it producing it in the right place?"  For instance, we initially focused on
potatoes, and then tomatoes, and later banana fruit.  We want to make sure that
it's in the proper cells, that it's forming the right vaccine.

So the first one you did was the potato?That was the easiest to
transform?

. . . For a variety of reasons, the potato was simplest.  You can put the genes
in relatively easily.  More important for us, we knew how to cause the genes to
work in the potato tuber.  There'd been a lot of work by collaborators of ours.
So essentially, we had a good toolbox to work with, a molecular toolbox, so we
could create the gene we wanted.

The other nice thing about potatoes is that we can regenerate a lot of edible
plant material back quickly.  In about four to five months, we can have a pot
full of potatoes, and each pot will give us probably about a kilogram of
material.  That's enough to do a lot of mouse feeding studies.

In these potatoes, everything else is the same, but there's an additional
molecule being generated?Right.  When they put a gene into a potato, essentially all we've added is one
new protein.  For all practical purposes, that's invisible.  You don't see any
effect of it.  The way we determine that it is, in fact, there, is to do a
bioassay.  That means taking a piece of the potato and feeding it to a mouse,
and then taking blood samples from the mouse and saying,  "Does it get new
antibodies?  Does it get an antibody against this protein we're interested in?"


Once we'd shown that that works with potatoes and what the advantage of the
system was, we could save some of the potatoes and just cut them up into
pieces, replant them.  Now we get identical plants coming back out.  So we had
uniformity of our experiment.

The next step for us has been to move the same type of work into tomatoes.
That took a bit more work to build a toolbox, if you will, so we can create the
genes that will work in the tomato fruit.

Before that, how were you sure this is working in the potato?

The question is, "How do we know that the vaccine is there?"  The answer is
pretty simple.  We just peel it, cut it up into cubes, and feed the potato to a
mouse.  We then take blood samples from that mouse on a periodic basis, and we
ask if the mouse has serum antibodies, or is he now making antibodies against
that protein?  The answer was yes, we found them.  . . . 

In all mammals, we're producing secretory antibodies all the time--in our
lungs, in our saliva, throughout the gut.  We can detect those antibodies in
fecal pellets.  Sure enough, after eating our genetically designed potatoes,
the mouse would start making secretory antibodies. 

Is the mouse a good model then for humans?

Mice are the traditional model for human vaccines.  Once we had pre-clinical
data with mice, we then went to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and asked
for permission to try the same experiments with people.  They went through all
the regulatory issues, and the first time we tried this, it took about eight
months for us to get approval to guarantee safety for the volunteers.  But we
then had human volunteers eat some of our potatoes, and sure enough, got the
same result.  They got antibodies in the blood serum and secretory antibodies.
So we can tell that the human immune system can also be triggered by simply
eating raw potatoes that contain our vaccine that we've designed into them.

Do they have to eat raw potatoes?

Well, raw potatoes aren't bad.  I sat and ate raw potatoes when my mother was
peeling them.  I remember that as a kid.  Now, we perhaps did a bit more,
because some of the volunteers had to eat up to 100 grams of raw potato, which
is about the size of a tennis ball or so.  That's a big bowl of some starch.
But they did it, and we thanked them for it, and sure enough, they got the
proper immune response.

You were thinking that, because it was raw, this might not be the ideal
delivery?

Yes.  The reason we do raw potatoes is because many of these antigens or
vaccines that we're interested in would be destroyed by heating.  So if you
boiled the potatoes, if you made a mashed potato or a french fry, we anticipate
that all the activity would be gone.

So then you moved on to other plants?

Well, because you can't process or cook a potato easily, we decided that we're
going to try the same experiments in other plants.  The next step was to go to
tomatoes.  . . . One of the big reasons to try tomatoes is that they are easily
processed.  We can now start taking food-processing technology ... and just
make tomato juice, or more important for us, we're trying to freeze-dry the
tomato juice and just get a dry powder.

I want to emphasize, why should we go and make a dry tomato powder?  The answer
is really that this is a medicine.  We're not trying to make a new V8 juice.
We're trying to make a medicine.  If we're going to be successful, we have to
deal with things that are part of the pharmaceutical industry.  They talk about
proper dosage.  They talk about lot-to-lot variation, meaning, if you make up
100,000 doses at one time, the next lot has to be comparable in activity.  

The only way I can deal with that from a plant side of things is to start using
food-processing technology to get a dry powder, or ultimately, when we get to
bananas, I think something like a baby food puree.  You can make tens of
thousands of little containers of a banana baby food, and you can sample each
one and verify that the dosage is uniform--that they're free of any sort of
bacterial toxins or anything else--the standard sort of stuff that has to be
done with any pharmaceutical product.  Our switch on this is we can use
food-processing technology, which is available in the developing world, and
apply it to a medicine.

Assuming everything goes well, what is your vision?

Let's say we want to deliver vaccines against diarrhea in Africa, where they're
needed.  I'll tell you what I do not see: I don't see a village banana tree
with vaccines in it, where everyone goes up and takes one when they want to.
That, for a variety of reasons, would be impractical.  You wouldn't control
dosage, etc.  What I do see would be a company or a government organization
established in a country--maybe South Africa initially, because they have a
very good infrastructure.  I see them having their own vaccine companies in
South Africa, where they would take some of the plant material that's
generated, begin to grow it under confined, regulated conditions, and
manufacturing an herbal medicine of sorts.  It's very acceptable and they're
accustomed to it in Africa, and they're used to taking a dried plant material.


Let's say it was a banana.  Making a dried banana chip and delivering that in a
little package, saying, "This is a medicine" would be normal.  They have dried
banana chips around the world.  If we could just do that, or grind up this
dried banana chip and spike it into a little milk and give it to an
infant--that's something that could be done at a local level, without a lot of
high technology.  It would take an educational activity.  But this is something
that would be consistent with a type of medicine that they have today.



The question is, what would it cost to do this in a developing country?  I
think it's pretty obvious that the actual production of the material could be
extremely cheap.  The next step, having some sort of quality assurance, is
tougher for me to estimate.  You would want to make sure that you have the
systems in place, that the dosage is accurate and reliable, and that the
processing . . . is reliable.  It's hard for me to anticipate the cost to this.


But clearly it's something that's doable.  There has to be a will to accomplish
this.  First of all, it doesn't have to be expensive.  It simply has to be
something that's built into an organization in the developing world.  

It's for these sorts of reasons that our goal isn't necessarily to take this
first to a very poor country in Africa.  In fact, we've built our first
connections with extremely good, sophisticated scientists in Mexico.  There is
a demand for diarrheal disease vaccines in Mexico, and they have very good
in-country vaccine companies.  Some of these are already making and
distributing vaccines.  They have a very good public health system.  So our
goal is to try to collaborate with people in Mexico, transfer this technology,
test it there, demonstrate that it works, and do that in parallel with what
we're doing in the U.S.  I should emphasize--we're trying to do this first in
the U.S., not because I'm nationalistic, but because I don't want to be accused
of taking this technology and testing it on poor people someplace else in the
world.

We've had the rise of this controversy over genetically modified foods.  Did
this surprise you when it happened?  Has it affected your work?

The controversy over genetically modified foods really hasn't had any direct
impact on our research activities.  And I'm happy about that.  I keep
emphasizing, we're producing medicines.  Materials that generate as an edible
vaccine will never be in the grocery store, and we're building in controls to
ensure that that won't happen.

But in the broader issue, am I surprised at what has happened?  Perhaps not,
because I think this has been a surprise to the public.  They haven't seen all
this background science and technology being developed.  It's been something
that is so common to us in the scientific community.  I haven't seen anything
that's shocking or that concerns me about any sort of safety issue, but I've
seen it coming for the last 20-plus  years.  It seems obvious and routine to
me.  

But I certainly am aware, just from my conversations with family and relatives,
that they find it shocking that all these changes are possible.  It's sort of
science fiction stuff, and I guess whenever something comes along that you
hadn't thought about, it raises some concerns.

What potential in this technology people should be aware of?

Well, clearly the next generation of plants that are genetically modified are
going to be enormously different from the first generation that came out.
We're seeing a lot more activity that's focused around human health.  There are
a variety of reasons for that, but probably the greatest reason in the U.S. is
that we've got excess food today.  There's less return in just increasing
yields.  

What we have to focus on is how we make our foods better.  We can keep
reminding ourselves that we can do things that will improve the human health
value, that we're going to add value to society and to the products that
farmers are producing, and we're going to have a good economic impact all
throughout this food chain.

My own special interest is this area of producing actual pharmaceuticals in
plants.  Because of the institute where I am, it really hasn't been a focus on
the U.S. in particular.  It's been more a focus on the Third World.  How can we
deliver . . . a very effective vaccine, but make developing countries less
dependent upon philanthropy and big industry and things of that nature?  How
can we provide the technology so that a Third World country can make the
vaccines themselves?

Is this technology useful because it allows you to grow plants in
inhospitable soils?  What about the "golden rice" argument?

Well, if you start looking at specific examples  of where genetically modified
foods have a value in the developing world, I think number one is the issue of
food security--protecting  plants against  disease, so that they grow better.
Also, perhaps, virus resistance, sort of immunizing plants against viruses as
the number one example.  It's going to have the biggest effect in the
developing world.

But secondarily, as we have seen with the golden rice story, you can also
change the qualities of the plant itself.  We can put things like vitamin A
into a rice plant, as Dr. Potrykus and his colleagues did.  That's quite
incredible, and it's going to solve major problems in the developing world, as
to the availability of food materials for good nutrition. 

I know that a standard response is, "Well, they should just be eating more
green leafy vegetables."  I've been to India.  I've stayed in a very nice hotel
in the center of New Delhi.  And you see families living on the sidewalk on an
old patch of blanket out there.  This is part of this global migration of
families to the cities, as populations grow.  They no longer have a little
garden plot to grow their materials.  They're stuck in a concrete jungle
someplace.  They don't have access to green leafy vegetables and things that
they need, and they're living on a handful of rice every day.  

I see the Rockefeller Foundation and others recognizing this, and seeing that
we've got these global shifts in people stuck in desperate poverty, and the few
foods they can eat.  They have focused on issues  like, how can we change the
quality of that food that they do have available, and improve the nutrition of
these people?

Because the people aren't getting a balanced diet? get a balanced diet.  They're desperately poor.
They're part of this urban migration that is just dragging people into a
situation where they have no choice.  It would be nice to solve the poverty
issue.  That would be great.  But until we can do that, one of the
accomplishments of modifying our food is that we can help give these
desperately poor people something better to improve their health as they try to
dig their way out of the situation that they're in.

Greenpeace says that there's enough food to feed the world already--that the
problem is distribution.

Yes.  The argument that there's enough food in the world, but it's in the wrong
place at the wrong time--that's  a real argument.  But a lot of the food
sources we have are not easily shipped.  A fresh tomato isn't going to be
shipped from Iowa to Bangladesh.  Grains can be shipped--cereal , grains, and
legumes and things like that.   

But we tried some experiments of just shipping food and giving it away.  For
instance, in India and Bangladesh in the 1960s, when there was famine, if a
country like the U.S. comes in and just provides food, it further degrades the
capacity of the country itself to stimulate its own agricultural economy.  I
think we saw when we made those mistakes at one time, and then we shifted our
emphasis on providing the technology to people to produce their own food.
That's been much more successful.  

In a sense, we haven't even been involved in it so much in China, but you can
see the enormous advancements in China in feeding their own people.  It's been
through an implementation of good agricultural policy, using the best of the
new technologies that are available, and moving very rapidly.  If you travel in
China today, you don't see the starvation that is prevalent in other parts of
the world, especially in the poorer parts of the world today.

Is it your sense that India and China see a lot of potential in this
technology?

It's very interesting to compare India and China.  China has moved very
aggressively in all aspects of food technology, emphasizing things like
infrastructure for transport of foods, but also rapidly mobilizing to use new
genetic engineering techniques.  Essentially, they don't take just one part of
it.  Biotechnology is not a sole solution, but a whole structural analysis is a
solution.  

I've traveled a fair amount in India.  India has apparently just taken more of
a piecemeal part.  It's a highly democratic country, and some of the
disadvantages of democracy have come in not having China's sort of overall
planning system.  But India has done a remarkable job of feeding a population
that has doubled in the last several decades.  They're still feeding their
people.  They have been slower to adopt technology for genetic engineering, and
in part, maybe that's because they haven't had the demand yet.  They haven't
had the food demands that China has seen.

We have a projection over the next 100 years of a doubling of world
population.  Without new agricultural technologies, is that going to be
impossible?

Well, it's hard for me to talk about what's going to happen over the next 100
years or 50 years.  It's easier to picture what's going to happen over the next
two decades.  Now, we have the young people born on the ground today, who are
going to produce an additional 1 billion people each decade.  That many new
people every ten years is the size of India.  When you start thinking of this
massive food need that we have--and largely the population is increasing where
we don't have an adequate food supply--we're just going to exacerbate all the
problems we have today.

Of course we need new technology.  We can't just continue to plow up forests or
try to find new prairies to convert into farmland.  That doesn't exist in the
places we need it, and we don't want to shift the remaining natural areas of
the world that we have today and destroy them to get more farmland.  All we can
do is increase the productivity of the land that we have today, to meet this
enormous coming increase in population.

The other argument is that a more efficient type of organic farming should
be instituted, rather than developing new technology.

It's really baffling to me how anyone can say that we just don't need new
technology.  India is largely an organic farming nation today.  As they try to
take on new technology, the most successful  has been genetic technology.  It's
the improved rices that came out of international research activities, and the
improved wheats.  Taking genetically improved materials is what's allowed them
to feed their population.  

Some of that has been coupled with use of fertilizer, for instance, in India,
which has dramatically increased the rice yields.  What's missing in places
like India, for instance, is a lot of additional technology--like post-harvest
storage of the material, drying of the material, packaging of it, so they don't
have losses to insects or disease problems in the stored material.  

So I think people are fixated right now on, "Oh, my God, they're doing
something with genetics, and that's the problem."  But we have a whole suite of
things that need to be done in agriculture, and using the best of new genetics
is just part of the solution.  It's not a silver bullet that's going to work by
itself.  But it's just part of the overall solution.

We see the moratorium in Europe, and labeling laws.  And you see a few
companies in this country, like Gerber and Frito-Lay, deciding not to produce
these.  Do you have any concerns that this might be delayed, or stopped in its
tracks?

Clearly, the attitudes about genetically modified foods in Europe have delayed
its implementation in Europe.  I think their perceptions are based upon a
series of other things that don't have any relevance to genetic engineering per
se.



Such as, they have problems with BSE, the mad cow disease, which has caused in
England in particular a lack of confidence in their regulatory system.  A whole
series of other events in Europe has just caused people to be concerned about
safety of their food supply.  None of these have any relevance directly to
genetic engineering, but it's caused the public to question their governments
and what their governments can do.  In addition, the Europeans are affluent.
They have an excess supply of food, and they're subsidizing their farmers to
reduce production.  And I can understand this.  The whole notion of adding new
technology to add more food seems bizarre.  

. . . Why is it different in the U.S.?  Well, in part, I believe, even though
we have more food than we need, most folks here recognize that the food supply
from the U.S. is part of the global economy.  It's good for our economics, but
it's also good for the rest of the world.  Because if we just stopped exporting
food, it would have an enormous impact on other parts of the world.  So I see a
fundamental difference there in the acceptance of the technology.

Let's say that the U.S. and Europe would decide, "We're never going to do
genetically modified foods." . . . I don't think it's going to stop the
technology.  It's so essential for China, for India, for other parts of the
developing world to increase their food supply to meet their burgeoning
populations; it's going to happen.  We can't be so arrogant to think that we
determine what sort of science is going to be done on a global basis.

We can be pleased with ourselves that, in the U.S., we've really been the
leaders in developing the new technology and implementing it safely in this
country.  We haven't had so much as a headache from any genetically modified
food, and I think that's because we thought about these things.  We go back to
something called the Asilomar Conference, back in the 1970s.  Back in the
1980s, I was involved in government committees that dealt with safety issues,
about what type of genetic engineering we could do, how we would move
genetically modified plants into the field.  We've been working on this stuff
since the technology was developed.  

In the U.S. it's been science-driven.  We have had great cooperation between
federal agencies.  But we've had the scientists who understand this and who
developed it, working on this all the way through.

So, people who say that regulatory agencies are giving this a free ride--are
they wrong?

I think we've got a very efficient regulatory system in the U.S.  I believe
it's because we've focused on science, and we've had the scientists  who
understand this, engaged from the beginning--back  from the 1970s.  The idea
that the U.S. government is just letting things fly through--I can guarantee
you that it's not the case.  The amount of time we've spent in the last two
years just dealing with regulatory issues to test our plant-based vaccines . .
. at times, as a scientist, I'm ready to pull my hair out, saying, "Why don't
these people just let us move ahead?  Let's get on with it."  We've got
something that can solve a world problem, and they want us to write another
form to prove that this is safe, etc.  

At the same time, as a rational scientist, I've seen this stuff evolving, and I
also know that we have to do this.  While I'm absolutely convinced that the
products we're testing for vaccines are safe, I know that perception is a
crucial issue.  If we ever did something that would cause the public to lose
confidence in what we're doing, what I've spent the last nine years on could
just collapse.  Then I'd really be frustrated.  So I want to make sure that we
do this right.  

In spite of how frustrated I get with government folks at some times, I'm so
pleased they're there, because I know that, in the U.S., we have this process
in place.  I can always refer back to it and say, "Yes, we've done all these
things, we've considered all these things, and it works."

Are you concerned about safety and ecological issues?

Well, I'm very concerned about the perception issues.  From a scientific
standpoint, I don't see anything inherently unsafe about what we're doing in
putting genes into, say, a tomato, that would cause a tomato to produce a
vaccine.  But I am extremely concerned that someone might say, "Oh, he's
putting hepatitis B in tomatoes."  Well, we're not, of course.  But it's so
easy to make an incorrect assumption about this.  So what we're trying to do is
build in safeguards right now.  

We have funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a project that I
think is pretty neat.  We are taking our tomatoes, which now contain genes for
a vaccine.  We're crossing them into other genetic varieties that are
male-sterile--that means they don't produce pollen.  Furthermore, with these
plants now, we're crossing them so that we will produce seedless tomatoes.   .
. . So we can grow tomatoes now--and I would expect this would be done in
greenhouses, because that's pretty standard production system--but there would
be no pollen, no seeds.  There's no way that this stuff can inadvertently
escape into the environment.  

It's going to add a little bit of cost to the production, because we'll have to
make cuttings of our tomatoes to get the next generation, rather than
collecting seeds.  But I believe that to prevent misperception is much more
important.  So even though I don't see the safety need for this, I firmly
believe that we should move in this direction, to give the public confidence
that our vaccine-containing tomatoes are never going to show up in the
marketplace in their grocery store.

In addition to using plants for food, what are the things we might use in
the future?

We're just at the tip of the iceberg of an enormous number of things that will
be technically possible to do with plants.  Some folks are talking about how
they are going to change the qualities of plants so that they'll be able to do
bio-remediation and clean up toxic sites.  To some extent, that is a viable
technology, and it's a sustainable way of dealing with complex issues.  We're
clearly going to use plants to produce more nutritious foods, or actually
medicines themselves, as I've talked about.  

I see that we're going to also very rapidly move into biological systems to
produce industrial precursor chemicals.  Growing switchgrass, for instance, a
very easy, high-productive grass to make chemicals, which will substitute for
petrochemicals coming out of the petrol industry.  Now that petroleum is
upwards from $30 a barrel, this sort of interest gets more interesting.

All of these things . . . don't have to depend on genetic modification.  But
what we're going to find is that more and more examples will appear where, if
you could switch off a gene or an enzyme in a plant, or you could add some new
component, it's going to make it much easier to do.  If we can just cut down
the amount of lignin in the poplar trees that we're growing for paper pulp to
make newspapers, and get less lignin contamination in streams and waterways,
that makes a lot of sense.  

As time goes on, as we try more and more systems over the next two decades,
we're going to see a gradual replacement to using the power of genetics, a
sustainable modification of a biological resource, as the much preferred avenue
over using cost-intensive industrial processes to do the same things.

What's the idea in taking a quality from one organism into another?

. . . An example that's used a lot was the flounder gene into tomatoes.  The
background of it, from a scientific standpoint, is that we have a good
understanding of why some fish can tolerate cold, like the flounder.  We'd like
to have some of our fruits and vegetables tolerate cold, like strawberries, so
they don't get nipped by an early frost, or by a late frost.  So scientists
have done experiments trying to mimic the cellular environment of a flounder in
a strawberry.

These are really excellent basic science studies, and I should emphasize,
they've never gone beyond that.  No one's ever started a commercial development
of anything from it.  But I think the public responds negatively to that.  My
perception, after talking just to family members and others, is that you can
almost see their nose wrinkling up, because there's something about a fishy
smell to a strawberry.  It's a mental image.  More than anything else, it's
just, "Ooh, I wouldn't like that."  It has nothing to do with the science, I
believe.  It's just the way we're wired in our brain.  A fish is supposed to
smell like a fish, and a strawberry like a strawberry.  And just superimposing
words on each other--we back off.  We don't like that.  . . .

People don't see the connection between humans and the tomato in terms of
the shared genetic heritage.  Do you think we have a big educational job
here?

Genetics is a really complex issue for public acceptance, because almost all
the things we think about with regard to genetics have been bad.  It somehow
goes back to Hitlerism and something that has a negative connotation.  When the
positive stories about genetics have come out, about increasing the yields of
our crops or making larger tomatoes or strawberries that taste good, that's
genetics.  But those stories aren't linked to genetics.  We just have the wrong
connection of negative images, and I think that persists at the present time.


How do you educate the public?  That's being a little bit arrogant on the
scientific standpoint.  They should know as much as we do.  I'd say it's more
like, how do you interest the public in genetics, causing the public to want to
inquire more and understand more about it?  And I think that's going to be one
of the positive outcomes of all this genetically modified food, because once
the initial potentially negative response occurs, I think we have an
intelligent public overall.  They want to know more about this.  

As they begin to understand that it's just a continuation of what we've been
doing in crop improvement for the last 100 years, it's Burpee's tomatoes, you
know, the old seed catalogues  that our parents used to buy.  It's just in a
new formulation.  Once people realize this, then I think all of this is going
to calm down.

We had this controversy in medical research in the 1970s, and most people
now accept that genetically engineered insulin is a good thing.  Do you think
we'll get to that stage with agriculture?  It's not controversial anymore in
medicine.

I don't think in general that the public is concerned about the use of
biotechnology to make products for medicine anymore.  Clearly, there are still
issues with regard to the origin of stem cells for treatment.  There will be
more controversies that will come along in human medicine, but they're not
focused on the process of biotechnology.  I believe that's because of the
profound benefits that we've seen from some of the new products.  I believe, as
a new generation of products appears in the agricultural side, as the public
sees the immediate benefit and value from these things, we will slide into this
same sort of acceptance.  

Essentially what we're going to move to, rather than focusing on how it was
done, we're going to focus on, "What's the outcome?  What is the material that
we're going to get in the end of the day?  Is it better for my health?  Is it
better for the way we treat the environment?  Is it good for the developing
world and for solving problems of global importance?"  . . .



wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 








Document Number: 3262 


In the broader sense, biotechnology  is literally thousands of years old.
We've been modifying the world around us since we first realized we could make
such things as cheese and bread and, very importantly, brew alcohol.  . . . 

In the distant past?  Brewing alcohol thousands of years ago?
She is director of the Biotechnology and Life Sciences Informatics Program at the University of California,
Davis.  offers an overview of crossbreeding techniques over the centuries, how it compares with new GM technology, and explains how much of human genes already are shared with plants. She also addresses Europe's GM food fight, U.S. food safety and regulatory performance, and multinational companies' intellectual property rights on GM seeds. (Interview conducted August 2000.)

Yes.  They discovered shards of pottery outside Edinburgh that had the remains
of Neolithic beer.  . . . That pottery dated back to 6500 B.C.  We've also been
modifying plants and animals literally for thousands of years, through
selective breeding and culling of animals, for example, that didn't have the
traits we want. 

Why have we been modifying nature?  If we just took what was there, what
would we find?

If you took what was available in the wild, the population of the world would
be much smaller than it is.  The capability of generating sufficient food to
feed individuals from wild produce is very low.  You literally would still be a
hunter-gatherer society.  We wouldn't be settled; we definitely wouldn't have
cultivated agriculture; and we wouldn't have any of the technology we have
today.  Agriculture is the underpinning of advancement of mankind, because we
could now concentrate on doing more exciting things than just focusing on where
the next meal is coming from.

Comparing today's crops with their wild ancestors, what would we notice? . .
.

The ancestors of modern day corn or potatoes are so totally unlike the present
cultivars that they would be absolutely unrecognizable for most people.  There
are also obviously a lot of negative aspects with respect to the ancestors of
these plants, insofar as being able to supply sustenance.  They are very small.
They have poor yield.  They oftentimes taste pretty awful.  And in many
instances, actually, they can be quite toxic.  An example would be potatoes and
tomatoes.  They're all members of the deadly nightshade family.  . . . Over the
many years of breeding, we've managed to breed out most of these toxins.  . .
.

How does traditional crossbreeding work?

At first, it was a hit-and-miss process.  . . . You're looking for
characteristics in the parent plants that you want--traits like good yield,
good taste, a high level of disease and insect resistance.  And you're also
looking for something, of course, that you're going to be able to cultivate in
large fields, which is not always the case for many wild plants.  So what you
do is basically cross these plants to get the particular traits that you're
looking for.  It takes a long time to get rid of the traits you don't want,
because you are dealing with tens of thousands of genes, and you have no
control whatsoever at the molecular level.

So you take two plants and you just shuffle them?Yes.  You take the pollen from the male plant and put it onto the flowers of
the female plant to get the product, whether it be a seed or a fruit or
whatever. Then you backcross it to the parent plant that has the
characteristics you want. ...  

I'll give you an illustration.  . . . The normal tomato cultivar that's used in
processing is low in what's called soluble solids, which are the holy grail of
processing tomatoes.  There's a wild variety of tomato ... which ... has much
higher level of soluble solids.  This tomato, if you saw it, is really awful
looking.  It's small, it's green, it's pretty ugly tasting, it has poor yield,
and in fact it is a little toxic, because it's a member of the deadly
nightshade family.  It took 15 years of crossing with the good parent to
introduce the trait we wanted, which was the high soluble solids, and to get
rid of all the traits you didn't want.  Using biotechnology, this was done in
one step. ...  

What's new about so-called genetic modification? . . .

Over this century, we've been introducing an awful lot of technologies in
addition to the original selection and breeding.  I think a lot of people don't
realize this.  We've been using mutagenesis breeding since the middle part of
this century, and it's still done quite a lot.  . . . Several plants, in fact,
something like 1,800 cultivars, have been introduced using this mutagenesis
breeding approach.  . . . 

Another type of technology was introduced in the middle of this century--a
technology called wide cross, or embryo rescue.  In this instance, you're
crossing two plants that are not sexually compatible, that is, species that
would never interact in nature.  Basically you're using scientific tricks to go
in there and rescue that embryo that would normally be lost.  . . . It will
breed true after that.  . . . A large number of products come into the market
each year that are produced using these wide crosses.

These could never have been derived from traditional breeding?

These could not happen in nature.  Plus, you're also mixing huge numbers of
genes, tens of thousands of genes at the molecular level.  You have no clue
what you're doing.  With biotechnology, it's much more precise, much more
predictable, and much more controlled, because you're modifying single traits
or a couple of traits at a time.  So you know exactly what genes you're
modifying, and you know exactly what traits you're looking for.  

There's still, of course, the possibility of developing types of
characteristics that you don't want.  . . . The argument is often made that,
with using plant genetic engineering, you don't where the gene is inserted.
This is true using traditional breeding, too.  You don't know how these
chromosomes are going to mix.  But the technology is always evolving. Now we're
in the position of actually being able to use what's called site selection.
You can determine exactly where you're going to be able to put the gene in,
using some technological tricks.  So, in fact, this will make it even more
precise.  . . . 

Historically, genetic engineering was used for other applications, such as
medicine, and in making enzymes, and it didn't attract much attention.

About 200 million people worldwide have benefited from the products of
genetically engineered pharmaceuticals.   Diseases that were really
recalcitrant to treatment up until genetic engineering are now being treated
very effectively. For example, one of them is human growth hormone, which is
used to treat children who are suffering from human growth hormone deficiency.
Prior to genetic engineering, this had to actually be extracted from the
pituitary glands of corpses.  

Now, using genetic engineering, you're just making a copy of the gene, and
you're actually making human growth hormone in large fermenters.  It's easy to
purify, it's high effective, and it's much less expensive.  

Likewise, diabetes has been treated using genetically engineered insulin. Prior
to biotechnology, most insulin was produced using the pancreases of pigs.  Of
course, a lot of people were allergic to the product, because it wasn't human.
Now you make a copy of the human gene.  You put it into your microbe of choice
and grow it up again in fermenters.

Chymosin is another example.  About 90 percent of all cheese is produced now
using a genetically engineered enzyme.  Prior to that, you had to isolate this
enzyme from the forestomach of an unweaned calf.  . . . Using biotechnology,
you make a copy of that gene from the calf; you put it into your microbe of
choice; you grow it up in a fermenter.  It's actually secreted into the medium,
so it's very easy to make huge amounts of it.  It's also much easier to purify.
. . . It's much cheaper to keep microbes than to keep calves.  . . .

Detergents have about three or four different genetically engineered enzymes,
so that you can wash your clothes at room temperature.  

. . . In addition, there are enzymes that protect the quality of your clothes.
For example, there is a dye transfer enzyme that protects your clothes from
transfer of dyes. ...

But none of these things seemed to cause any fuss.

No, because nobody is even aware of the fact that they're in our products.
Indeed, there was no hullabaloo whatsoever when they were introduced, and they
have been continuously introduced over this last 10 years.  In fact, 90 percent
now of all industrial enzymes--used  in everything from food production to
leather tanning to paper pulping--use genetically  engineered enzymes.

The ones with the most publicity are input traits for farmers, such as
Roundup Ready traits and BT corn. What was the reason for doing this? . .
.

One, it's because that's what farmers wanted.  They wanted an alternative to
massive amounts of chemicals that are used today to produce our crop plants.
Farmers are incredibly productive, but it does come at a price.  There is a lot
of contamination of soils and groundwater with the excess use of chemicals that
are used to control weeds and insects and pests.  So this was an obvious area
that biotech could very quickly address issues of interest to the farming
community.  . . . 

At that point in time, the biotech companies weren't thinking specifically of
the consumer.  They really were thinking of the farmer.  The first traits that
are out there, the ones that have a high level of commercialization, or insect
resistance  . . . have been used by organic farmers for a long time to control
insects.   . . .

So this is a natural pesticide?

Yes.  . . . It's not toxic to you or to I or to animals, but in the guts of
these target insects, it turns into a toxin.  . . . Last year, 55 percent of
all soybeans were genetically engineered for another type of resistance gene,
and this was herbicide tolerance.  What this herbicide tolerance gene does is
allow a far more environmentally compatible herbicide--glyphosate--to be used
to control weeds. ... 

What kind of pathogens attack these corn and cotton crops?The main pathogen, especially for corn, is European corn borer.  That
particular pathogen comes up through the stalk of the plant itself.  It's very
difficult to get at, because it's literally inside the stalk. ... But with the
BT gene literally  the corn itself, when the larvae eat it, they are
immediately affected. 

If you look at the two plants--the control plant and the engineered plant--it's
like night and day.  The control plant is just completely infected with the
European corn borer.  The BT plant is completely clean. ... 

I've heard that 25 percent of the world's pesticide is for cotton.  Is that
accurate?

Yes, it is.  The amount of pesticides used in cotton is larger than pretty much
all other plants combined.  Again, I think people don't realize the intensity
of pest control, because it's so important.  . . .

But farmers still have to spray, even with BT cotton?

That's true using any of these systems.   I would never suggest biotech as a
panacea.  It's a very effective tool as part of an integrated pest management
program.  . . . 

A recent report from the U.S. National Food and Ag Council in Washington has
shown that, by using herbicide-tolerant soybeans,  farmers saved $280 million
in 1998.  This allowed them to use just a single herbicide.  They only had to
spray if the weeds emerged.  They didn't have to use multiple sprayings or
pre-sprayings.  Likewise, they didn't have to use complex cocktails of really
pretty nasty herbicides.  What about the argument that this is tampering with nature, playing God?
When you take a trait of a fish and put it into a strawberry, it seems to
people that something new is happening.

Yes.  . . . They were looking at taking a gene from the Arctic flounder to
increase the cold tolerance of tomato plants.  A similar type of gene exists in
plants as well. ...  It's a membrane protein that protects the integrity of the
cell, of the plant cell or the fish cell. ... 



It's not a fish gene.  Take an example.  There is a protein, 

cytochrome c, which is  a very important component of our respiratory
machinery.  Cytochrome c is identical in you, in a pea, in a cow.  It's the
absolute same gene. ... 

Tomatoes, flounders, humans.  People are not aware of how much is shared.
What percentage of our genome is common? . . .

If you're to look at it from a broad-based ballpark figure, we probably share
about 50 percent of our genes with plants, at the basic level.  You'll get
variations of everything from 20 percent to 80 percent, but it's in the middle
there somewhere.  With chimpanzees, we share 99.5 percent; there's a really
tiny level of difference there.  Much of the housekeeping genes--those that
help us breathe and metabolize food and live from day to day--are shared with
other organisms to a high degree.  

So from a genomic standpoint, it's not shocking to move . . .

No.  From a genomics point of view, it is not at all shocking, because you will
find these type of genes in nature being used in a similar way by all sorts of
different organisms.  This sharing has been going on for thousands of years.  .
. . 

What about food safety?  Some say that these new foods will be toxic or
allergenic. 

In fact, an enormous amount of research goes into every single product before
it even gets as far as the field, never mind before it gets to
commercialization.   It would be a very stupid company that would go ahead with
a product that may hurt its consumer.  That's not a very good business
strategy.  . . . 

For some, the bulk of the concern is ecological--gene migration, etc.
What's to stop some of these modifications getting to other plants?

With most of our crop plants, we actually are growing them in areas that are as
far away from where they originated.  However, of course, there are a few that
will have wild relatives in the area.  So the issue of potential gene flow--the
genetically engineered gene escaping into those wild relatives--has come up
quite a bit.  

First of all, we literally treat our crops like queens or princesses.  We
mollycoddle them.  We give them everything they want.  If they were to compete
in the wild, they would look very, very different.  For example, if you let
your cabbage grow wild, it would no longer be a nice, neat, compact green head.
It would be this long, stringy thing that you wouldn't dream of wanting to eat.
When these plants are competing in the wild, they're throwing off everything
that doesn't give them a selective advantage, because now they're competing.
. . . 

What about the buildup of resistance?

Of course, this is always a problem with biological systems.  Biological
systems are infinitely flexible and far smarter.  . . . They always seem to
manage to be very effective at overcoming whatever mechanism we use to try and
control them.  This has been the bane of the chemical industry forever.  You
constantly have to be one step ahead of the pest that you were controlling, as
it developed resistance.  And this is also a potential problem in biotech, if
you're going to be using single genes.  So several approaches are being taken
by researchers to address this area.

The first is one that's mandated by the EPA. Within these BT crop plantings,
you have to have at least 20 percent of the field planted to non-engineered
corn, for example.  By having this non-engineered corn, you're removing the
selective pressure.  So you're allowing these insects to grow up without
selection for resistance to BT.  So, effectively, what you're doing is diluting
out the resistance gene. ... 

Critics say that this is a case of corporations pushing things through too
fast with inadequate regulatory oversight.  What do you say?

I think the regulatory environment is very effective at looking at all the
potential problems, both from a consumer health point of view and an
environmental impact point of view.  The watchdogs in place at the USDA, EPA,
and FDA really look at all of the potential negative impacts of this
technology, and the checks and balances are in place to address this.

In many instances, the negative opinion of biotech is held because a lot of the
research and the commercialization, of course, are done by big multinationals.
It's as much a negative against the perception of  multinationals as it is a
fear of the science itself.  This notion that these multinationals are going to
hold on to the intellectual property components is really going to have a
negative impact on developing countries. ... 

Forgetting the corporations, regulatory agencies, and activist groups, how
would you characterize the position of agricultural scientists?

I think most agricultural scientists who are familiar with the science itself
and the technology itself are very supportive, seeing this as a new set of
tools that can be used to improve agricultural productivity, while minimizing
the impact on the environment.  . . . If you're going to look at increasing
productivity over the next 50 years, the demands on our soils and environment
are going to be enormous to be able to meet the world demands for these food.


If we're not going to resort to putting our national parks under the plow or
cutting down rainforest, we're going to have to increase productivity on the
land that's available right now.  We're going to have to be able to use
marginal soils that you can't use right now because of, for example, heavy
metal contamination, and because  of other environmental stressors, like
drought and cold and heat and high salt.  Using biotech, you can actually
develop crops that can grow in all of those types of severe high-stress
environments.  Without biotech, you couldn't do it.  . . . 

What is the future, the potential of this technology? ... 

There's an incredible probability of being able to use this technology to do
things you could never do in nature, for example, like producing nutriceuticals
in plants, therapeutics and vaccines.  For example, right now a company down
the road here in Vacaville, Large Scale Biology, is engineering tobacco plants
. . . to produce anti-cancer agents.  So now instead of 

In another example, Dr. Arntzen at the Boyce Thompson Institute is introducing
genes for vaccines against diseases that are really prevalent in developing
countries, like hepatitis B and cholera.  Right now he's producing these
vaccines in potatoes.  . . .  



These are edible vaccines.  Chewing on raw potato isn't exactly the most
palatable, but he's going to put these genes into bananas, so you're actually
going to be able to give these children bananas and vaccinate them against
cholera and hepatitis B.  Now, these will be controlled as medicines.  It's not
like you'll be able to grow your banana plant in your back yard and go out and
vaccinate yourself.  But it's an incredible way to be able to deliver these,
especially in countries where you can't maintain the cold chain, where
refrigeration is a problem.  . . .

Over the last few years, things have really gotten strained in
Europe.

I've seen the evolution, of the attitudes over there.  When I was over there
originally in 1993, 1994, it was really interesting.  When I went into Safeway
and Sainsbury's, I saw genetically engineered products on the shelves.  I saw a
can of tomato paste produced using a similar technology that Calgene used to
produced their Flavor-Saver tomato.  But, in fact, this was used to produce
processing tomatoes.  In addition to allowing the tomato to stay on the vine
longer, it actually built up the soluble solids and the flavors--all the things
you want in a tomato.  And the company, Zeneca, clearly labeled on the can,
"This product is produced using genetically engineered tomatoes grown in
California."  The tin was a little bigger than a normal tin, cost less, and it
was literally flying off the shelves.  People had no problem whatsoever with
buying it. 

But then mad cow disease struck and suddenly the whole country--in fact, the
whole continent--basically said, "Well, who's minding the shop?  Who's
protecting us?"  Mad cow disease, of course, had nothing to do with
biotechnology at all.  It just raised people's awareness. ... They really began
to say, "Hey, we're being left wide open here.  We don't have a regulatory
authority we can trust." . . . Perception is everything.  There was a major
backlash against all technology, and biotechnology got caught up in that whole
furor.   

There were, of course, several other issues and agendas--some hidden, some not
so hidden.  I remember one time asking a particular individual who's with the
group Genetic Concern, "If I could prove to you on every single count the
safety of this technology, both from a consumer perspective and from a
environmental perspective, would you accept it?"  And the individual said, "No,
because it's an American technology that's benefiting Midwest farmers.  Why
should we take any of the risks?" . . .

In Europe, they had scientific review panels, which said similar things as
were said here.  But in the balance, they got ignored, didn't they?

Yes.  Unfortunately, the science was ignored.  I'm quite familiar with many of
the scientists there, who were very frustrated by the fact that the reports and
recommendations that they put forward literally were ignored in favor of a
knee-jerk response to public opinion.  . . . There were some very loud groups
with a lot of rhetoric and a lot of time on their hands, and they were able to
put forward alternative views, even though those particular views were not
founded in science.

They stick to the idea that, although we've been modifying foods for
thousands of years, we're going to treat one process differently.  Is that
right

That's a complete departure, both from the original intent of regulations on
the U.S., and indeed on the European side, where the focus up until now had
been on the product, not the process by which it's produced.  If you look at a
package of sausages, it doesn't say, "This was produced using extrusion
processes."  Most people would never want to see how sausages are produced.  .
. . Agricultural practices or processing practices have never been a
requirement of labeling.  And now suddenly they are, which is a total departure
from the way regulations have been put into place on both sides of the
Atlantic.

So now they're singling out a particular process.  If it's produced using
recombinant . . .

Yes.  If it's produced using recombinant DNA technology, then you're required
to label it.  And there is a threshold level of 1 percent.  This decision, of
course, is made at a parliament level.  It had little input from the
scientists, because every scientist will tell you that it's impossible to
actually enforce those regulations because the type of tests that are out there
are notoriously inaccurate.  . . . [Researchers at] KPMG ... determined that
the overall costs of ... testing will put between 5 to 15 percent of cost that
will be passed on to the consumer, on all of these products.  Effectively, what
you're doing is imposing a tax on a technology that in fact is reducing
environmental impact and potentially increasing the healthfulness and safety of
our food. ...

Some of that fear of genetically modified food has spread to the U.S.  Some
individual manufacturers have been targeted.  What's happened for them?

There has been a very effective writing campaign to the food processors and
food manufacturers, because they are obviously the middlemen.  They're the
individuals who take the product from the producers, the farmers, and make it
available to grocery stores.  They feel they're in a very vulnerable position.
. . . Gerber, which is owned by Novartis, which has a huge focus on using
biotechnology in crop agriculture, decided that it's not going to use any
products of a recombinant DNA technology in its baby food. ... 

But purely from a food safety point of view, the raw material would be in
better shape if it was genetically modified, wouldn't it?

Yes, because you're not going to have the contaminants in there that you would
have if you're not controlling them.  The decision by Gerber had little, in
fact, had nothing, to do with science.  It had everything to do with public
perception.  . . .



The president of Frito-Lay happened to be visiting Europe and became aware of
the surge of anti-biotech feeling there, and called back and said, "We're
putting an announcement out that we're not using any GMOs."  Now, what they
were focusing on was GMO potatoes.  They're still using corn oil, which is
produced from GMOs.  . . . 

Can you imagine a scenario where things would be held back, where there
would be a rapid change in consumer feeling?

The only thing I could see that would do that is if there was some devastating
problem out there.  But that's interesting, because you've seen that happen
with other products, where food contamination has been an issue, and people
have died because of contamination.  With biotech products there hasn't been
one incident.  There's not been one negative instance from a biotech product in
25 years of research.  Any problems have been caught really early.  . . .

What about voluntary versus mandatory labeling?

Right now, as regulations stand, all food products that are approved by the FDA
do not require mandatory labeling, because what they focus on is the product,
not the process by which it was produced.  This particular stance, in fact, was
challenged in a number of lawsuits.  The one that had the highest profile was
the Ben & Jerry lawsuit some years ago in Vermont, where they were looking
at labeling milk produced from cows that had been treated with BST.  The judge
in that instance said, "If you were going to focus on labeling purely with the
notion of satisfying consumers' right to know, you'd have encyclopedias
attached to every single bottle of milk that's up there," and said that this
was not sufficient reason to demand labeling.  . . . 

There's such a huge public swelling of demand.  . . . So, from the companies'
point of view, it might be of value to these companies, as part of a public
relations effort, to say, "We will voluntarily label," so  have
control over what they're going to label.  There are a lot of problems with
doing that too.  . . . Every single term that you use is value-laden, and it's
really difficult to decide what is the most effective label that will inform
people as opposed to scare them.   . . . 

Some environmental groups argue for a return to another way of life.  "We
have enough food.  We just need to distribute it." They're not moved by your
environmental arguments, and they're trying to escape from your Third World
developing country arguments.

It would be wonderful if we could all live in a bucolic Turner chocolate-box
environment, where we all are back working on the earth, looking like a scene
from American Gothic.  But that's not a reality.  . . . The reality is, if
you're going to look at the productivity that you could achieve by going back
to zero-input agriculture, versus what you can achieve using biotech means,
they just do not balance up.  The costs would literally skyrocket.  You can
even see that today, with the cost of organic produce.   . . .

I would like to reiterate, I have no problem with organic produce whatsoever.
It is an alternative way of producing crops.  However, it is also an
alternative way that comes at a cost.  In many instances, it really is the
affluent who can afford the products of organic produce.  For many instances,
people living in inner cities would not be able to afford to pay the amount
that's necessary to be able to make organic farming a viable solution for all
agriculture.  . . . 

Poor farmers in developing countries are organic farmers, and they don't
want to be.

It's very difficult for them.  I always like to quote a researcher from Kenya.
Florence Wambugu has said that the real advantage of biotech is that it's
package technology in the seed.  You don't have to teach these farmers new
culture practices.  You don't have to get them to completely change the way
they do farming.  You just give them a seed, and that increases productivity in
that seed itself.  She said that for years, people have tried to change
cultural practices of these farmers, and it just hasn't worked.  It has been a
complete failure, because you have to modify infrastructure, you have to
re-educate them as to how to modify their farming practices themselves. 

But with biotech, the technology is in a seed.  All you have to do is give them
the seed.   At this stage, about 40 different countries are capable of
producing these biotech products.  They don't have to depend on the U.S. or
First World countries to provide them with this technology.

If they succeed in growing crops where they haven't before, that will
inevitably change those countries.

The complexities of food distribution are enormous.  They're affected by
politics, by local conflict, by so many other considerations.   I would never
suggest that biotech is going to be the answer to all of this.  You are going
to have to deal with the economic and political realities in the regions
themselves.  However, as I said, the advantage of biotech is that it can help
alleviate the situation.  . . . It definitely would be able to provide the
farmer with an alternative way of getting the nutritional requirements at a
sufficient level with minimum impact on the environment.  This, to me, is one
of the big advantages of biotechnology insofar as developing countries are
concerned.  . . .

Do you think some of the criticism of genetically modified foods has to do
with an issue of ownership as well?

Yes.  The whole focus on multinational corporations gaining a foothold or
gaining control of intellectual property is one of the big components, without
question, too.  . . . To give you an example, hybrid corn.  Hybrid corn has
been in existence for 50 years.  It's accepted the world over as a way of
producing vigorous corn . . . and it has been controlled by seed companies for
50 years.  

There's an interesting quote by a food scientist from 1940, who basically said,
"U.S. corporations are going to destroy agriculture the world over, because
they have this ownership of this new hybrid corn."  Of course, that hasn't
happened.  Everybody buys hybrid corn.  So I really think, if you look at
history, you do see the value--in fact, the necessity--of  having an exclusive
right to use a technology over a period of time, to be able to recoup the costs
of developing that technology.  Then it goes into the public domain.  . . .




wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 








Document Number: 6468 
Why has Greenpeace chosen to make this a signature issue?

We feel that this is a mass genetic experiment that's going on in our
environment and in our diets.  These genetically engineered foods have never
been subject to long-term testing, and yet there are millions of acres of them
growing in the United States and pervading the food system here.  What we're
most concerned about, obviously, is the environmental risk.  . . . Nobody knows
what the consequences are going to be, and the untoward side effects will be
irreversible.  . . .

As a campaign, it's been astonishingly successful, first in Europe.  What's
the state of play over there?
A genetic engineering specialist with Greenpeace,  criticizes U.S. regulatory
agencies' performance in monitoring GM foods, explains why GM technology
deserves special scrutiny, points out the developing world is not unanimous in
accepting biotech food, and outlines why Greenpeace's main concern with GM
crops is the environmental risk. (Interview conducted October 2000.)


In Europe five years ago, genetic engineering was virtually unknown.  When the
first genetically engineered soybeans went from the United States into the
European food supply, consumers in Europe first became aware that this new
technology was entering their food system, and they had a lot of questions
about it.  . . . The most interesting thing about Europe is how quickly food
companies responded.  . . . Today, virtually every major food company in Europe
and every major supermarket in Europe has a policy of excluding the use of
genetically engineered ingredients. 

In terms of planting new GM crops, what's the situation there now?

As of spring of last year, Europe has a moratorium on new approvals of
genetically modified crops.  There is minor acreage of genetically engineered
corn growing in a couple of European countries.  But by and large, European
farmers have become very wary of this technology. ...[Editor's Note: In
February 2001, the European Union voted to end the ban on GM crops.  In its
place, Europe is setting up a  rigorous system to regulate, label and track
GMOs.]What about importing and labeling?

Since September of 1998, Europe has had mandatory labeling of genetically
engineered foods, and that goes for any foods that are produced in Europe or
imported into Europe.  Since Europe instituted labeling, numerous other
countries around the world have also done so--Australia and New Zealand, Japan,
Russia, and several other countries.  The U.S. is actually becoming one of the
few countries left that doesn't require labeling.

Do you think labeling is the death knell of this?

I would say that the biotech industry is scared to death of labeling.  In fact,
biotech industry representatives have said that putting a label on genetically
engineered foods is like putting a skull and crossbones on it.  They clearly
don't want people to know that their food is genetically modified.  

What about the state of the campaign in the U.S.?  This isn't a front-page
issue. . . .

Public awareness has increased, and I think the situation in the U.S. now is
very similar to the situation in Europe a year ago.  We have mass street
demonstrations against genetic engineering.  In Boston, the biotech industry
held its annual meeting, and over 3,000 people protested in the streets of
Boston outside that meeting.  In Seattle, genetic engineering was a big issue
at the WTO protests, where tens of thousands of people were protesting.  . . .
One of the biggest differences, I think, is that the press really picked up on
this in Europe and kept it front-page news.  Here, it sort of vacillates in
terms of the press coverage.

What's been your strategy here?

It's to push consumers to get in touch with food companies to pressure food
companies to take a stand.  Last year, we did some product testing.  We pulled
food products off the shelves and tested to see if they contained genetically
engineered material.  A Gerber baby food tested positive for genetically
engineered corn and soybeans.  We sent Gerber a letter and let them know that
Greenpeace had concerns about genetic engineering, and we thought consumers
would share those concerns.  Gerber didn't respond to us, so we decided to go
public with our findings.  

A few weeks later, Gerber announced that they would stop using genetically
engineered ingredients in their products.  . . . It doesn't take decades of
protests and leaflet writing.  What it takes is for these companies to fear
that they're going to lose a little bit of their market share, and then they
can react very quickly.

What about some other companies you've been involved with.  What about
Frito-Lay?

Frito-Lay appears to have moved pretty much on its own accord.  The  did a front-page story on genetic engineering a few months
back.  And they said in the story, "We talked to the top executives of a dozen
major food companies, and asked them, 'What can you tell us about your
company's policies on genetically engineered food?'"  None of the companies
would talk to the  about their policies.  It tells
you that, behind the scenes, they're scared of this issue. 

Many companies deny any downside of this technology, but they still don't
want to be identified with it.  What does that imply to you?

They know consumers are going to have concerns, and they're afraid they're
going to lose market share.  Most of the big U.S. food companies are in pretty
tight markets, fighting the organic and natural products industry, which is by
far the fastest growing segment of the food industry.  Organics are growing at
about 20 percent a year, while the food industry overall is growing at about
one or two percent a year.  They see that market share slipping away, and they
don't want to be identified as anything that's anti-natural, anti-organic.  . .
.

In your view, what have been the most significant negative occurrences? . .
.

Again, nobody really knows.  It's very difficult to trace, and there could be
things happening.  In the UK, for example, the nutritional authorities last
year reported a severe increase in allergic responses to soybean products.
Now, nobody's been able to trace that for certain to genetically engineered
soybeans.  But it's interesting that that came just a couple of years after the
widespread introduction of that product.  . . . 

A major turning point was a study from Cornell University showing the effects
of engineered corn pollen on monarch butterflies.  It was the first time, I
think, that the public had an image of what could be the consequences of
genetic engineering in a sort of a user-friendly, family-friendly butterfly,
which most Americans are very familiar with.  . . . 

Are you optimistic that we may get a change soon?

Absolutely.  The U.S. consumer is learning more and more about this, and is
showing more and more concern.  The recent scandal with Kraft shows that food
companies are starting to buckle.  Kraft's product turned up contaminated with
an illegal variety of genetically engineered corn.  Before the FDA ordered
anything, Kraft ordered a recall of the product, took it all off the shelves,
and went a step farther, putting out a policy statement calling for tighter
regulation on genetically engineered foods.  That was an extraordinary moment
where one food company stepped outside of the united front.  . . .

You're not interested in better regulation?  You'd like to just eliminate
this?

That's absolutely correct.  Greenpeace's policy calls for a ban on the release
of genetically engineered organisms into the environment.  We absolutely
support labeling, strict safety testing, and the right for people to know
what's in their food.  But those are minimal steps in the right direction.
What we really need to do is to stop releasing these organisms into the
environment.

So you're against field testing?

Absolutely.  A field test is a release into the environment.  . . .

How do you escape from the logical conundrum that the technology is
untested, yet you're not allowed to test it?

A lot of testing can go on in contained environments.  Greenpeace doesn't have
an objection to the technology of genetic engineering.  There are a lot of
appropriate uses of the technology already in contained environments.  For
example, a genetically engineered drug that's produced in the laboratory goes
through years of testing, and is then only prescribed to people who need it, by
a doctor who's qualified to prescribe it.  That's obviously a very different
situation than putting these organisms into the environment, and releasing them
without any testing.

Is it impossible in your framework to have this agricultural application of
biotech go ahead? . . .

In a contained environment like a lab or a greenhouse, some testing could
proceed.  The flip side of the question, though, really is, what kind of food
do we want?  What kind of farming do we want?  Survey after survey shows that
when people are asked if they'd rather eat food produced with toxic chemicals
and pesticides, food produced with genetic engineering, or food produced
organically, people choose organic food time after time, in survey after
survey.  . . . The USDA spends almost $2 billion a year in research and
development on agriculture.  Less than 1 percent of that money goes for
projects for organic farmers.  We've got our research and development
priorities skewed.  If we're going to talk about testing and development, why
don't we talk about developing the right kind of foods that people want to eat?
. . .

Unlike the rest of the world, we have very good regulatory agencies.  Polls
show that people trust them.  The reason you have less success here is that we
trust these agencies and they do a proper job.The polls actually show that this is a complete myth.  In fact, the American
public becomes just as wary about genetic engineering as anybody else, as soon
as they know it's going on.  What the government really has done in the U.S. is
collude with the biotech industry to make sure that the public is kept in the
dark about this technology.  FDA refused to require labeling of genetically
engineered foods, against the advice of its own scientists.   In 1992, the
majority opinion of the scientists in the agency was that genetic engineering
is different and should be regulated differently.  But the FDA put out what was
a political document, not a scientific document, which said that genetically
engineered foods are no different than natural foods, and therefore they don't
need to be labeled or regulated any differently.  The other agencies pretty
much fell in line with that approach.

That is a consensus view among most agricultural scientists.  That's not an
unusual view, is it?

No, I don't think it is.  But I do think that the scientists who point out the
inadequacies in that consensus view haven't been answered.  When scientists
bring up the issues of the difference between genetic engineering and breeding,
they're sort of brushed aside by proponents of the technology, who say, "Well,
maybe those are issues, but we haven't seen them happen yet."  Nobody's really
looking for them yet.  

There's not really much monitoring of this technology once it's released into
the environment or into the food supply.  Any epidemiologist will tell you, the
first rule of evidence is that evidence lacking is not lack of evidence.

What about the USDA in this issue?  Have they been  cheerleaders, or have
they been protecting our interest?

The USDA has had over 5,000 applications for field trials of genetically
engineered crops.  They've never denied a single application.  The agency will
tell you, "Oh yes, but 13 were withdrawn."  That's their idea of strict
regulation.  It's a joke.  The USDA has virtually no regulation.  Field trials
go on when a company simply sends them a letter and says, "We're conducting a
field trial."  And then the approval is granted.  

Normally you're on the same side as the EPA in environmental issues.  . . .
In this case, they stressed the profound environmental benefits of GM crops.
What's your relationship to the EPA in this? . . .

It's important for folks to realize that most of the genetically engineered
crops in the U.S. don't come under the EPA's purview.  They have very little to
do with regulating them at all.  But there is one category of crops that they
regulate, and in 1999, we sued the EPA with a coalition of organic farmers,
calling on the EPA to cancel their registration of these crops.  Organic
farmers are very concerned, because these crops are a major threat to organic
farming.  

The only natural pest control that organic farmers have is a spray called BT.
The biochem industry has now genetically engineered plants so that they will
produce BT as they grow, throughout the entire growing season, at a very high
dose.  All the entomologists, all the insect scientists, agree that this will
lead to insects rapidly developing resistance to BT.  And once insects develop
resistance, a farmer who's growing a biotech crop will just move back to a
toxic chemical.  An organic farmer who can no longer use BT sprays is out of
luck.

So the biotech industry is vandalizing a natural resource?

Absolutely.  That was the contention of our lawsuit, that the use of BT was a
public trust that should be safeguarded in perpetuity, and shouldn't be worn
down by the biotech industry in just five or ten years.

So you see this as a threat to organic farming?

Absolutely.  The entire biotech industry has clearly put out genetically
engineered crops as a direct assault on organic farming, partly because of the
BT crops, and also because of the issue of pollen drift.  The biotech industry
knows that their crops will contaminate neighboring fields.  . . .

Farmers have been among the first beneficiaries of BT crops.  A cotton
farmer uses less pesticides and grows better cotton.  He's saving his
environment.  How do you answer him?

I would say that he's the exception rather than the rule.  . . . Even the
biotech industry's own study on BT crops showed that, at best, cotton farmers
are seeing about a 12 percent decrease in chemical applications.  . . . Once
those insects that are resistant to BT evolve, you're going to be stuck going
back to that biotech company, either for more toxic chemicals, or for the next
generation of genetically engineered crops.  They're going to be more and more
costly, and will keep you more and more dependent.  

It's the same kind of treadmill that farmers have seen from the pesticide
industry for 50 years.  The average lifespan of an agri-chemical is about three
to five years.  Then nature evolves, the chemical doesn't work anymore, and
farmers have to go back to the company for the next greatest thing.  We've
already seen some of the signs of that same treadmill with genetic
engineering.

Some crop pathogens don't have conventional solutions, though.  Scientists
have genetically modified Hawaiian papaya that's totally resistant to the virus
that was destroying all of the crops. resistant to it, depending on who you talk to.

Take my word, for the sake of argument.  . . . Is that an exception?  This
is a technical fix that is impossible by any other known means.

I would say you're probably right.  This fix may be impossible by other
technical means.  But there are certainly ecological means.  What farmers
around the world have seen is that, when you plant mixed varieties, even just
two varieties instead of one, you'll see the spread of that disease slow down
incredibly.  The more varieties you plant, you tend to see the disease slow
down more and more. What tends to happen in nature is that a virus will infect
one variety, maybe two, but certainly not three or more.  That's the ecological
approach to that problem, which I think could be successful in the long run, as
opposed to a genetic fix, which may have a very short life. 

In this case, you have farmers who were ready to abandon this crop.  They
get a fix, but now they're unable to export the GM papaya to Japan.  Do you
feel guilt about that? . . .

What farmers have said to me, even very confrontational farmers, is that the
bottom line is that the customer is always right.  Farmers have said this to me
again and again.  If the customer doesn't want to eat genetically engineered
foods, then farmers really need to look for alternative approaches, and can do
so hand in hand with consumers.

But they say that you're scaring their customers into not wanting it--that
if you left their customers alone, they'd be fine.

If consumers are afraid of biotech foods, it's because the biotech industry put
these on our shelves without any notice and without labeling, and tried to slip
this into our food supply without any public participation.  If those farmers
are upset about that, I think they should be pointing the finger at the biotech
companies, who decided to expose us to this experiment without our consent.

Regarding the role of biotechnology in the developing world, advocacy groups
have accused the industry of cultural imperialism. How do you respond?

I think it's important that voices from the developing world are heard in this
debate.  We met with the Ethiopian ambassador to the biosafety protocol
negotiations, the international negotiations for regulating the trade of
genetically engineered foods.  He recently wrote a letter saying he believed
that it was immoral to use the weakness of one group to sell a technology to
another group.  Biotech foods are being sold to the American public and to the
European public on the backs of the developing world, with this image campaign
that we need this technology to feed the world.  . . .

Do you think this is a real challenge to anti-GM forces?  It's difficult to
go up against golden rice without seeming unsympathetic.

Sure.  That's why I say it's important to hear from the developing world.  At
the international negotiations for regulating biotech foods, the developing
world was virtually united against the United States.  The United States wanted
the free flow of genetically engineered foods around the world, and the
countries of Africa, of Asia, of Latin America wanted the right to say no to
imports of genetically engineered foods.  . . .

Some people in the developing world, scientists, are for it. The Rockefeller
Foundation is actively promoting this.  It's not a fringe view.  You have to
deal with this constituency, which is more sympathetic than Monsanto.

Monsanto and the biotech industry have used this as a public relations tool.
There are certainly voices from everywhere in the world who will be supportive
of biotechnology.  But by and large, when it came down to their governments'
representatives, the developing world was united in saying, "We want the right
to say no to this technology."  

What people who are concerned about this technology point out is that the
biggest barrier to bringing abundant food with any kind of new technology isn't
activists.  It's the companies who want to profit from making food for rich
people.  They don't make a big profit from selling food or giving food away.  .
. . 

We live in a world today where 800 million people a year are going hungry, in a
world that produces enough food for almost 9 billion people, yet we only have 6
billion people on the planet.  Why isn't that food being distributed more
equitably?  It's because people who can't afford to buy food simply aren't
being given it.  . . .

But people in these countries don't want to be just fed food.  They want to
grow their own.

In almost every country in the world, there is enough productive growth right
now to feed the population of that country.  But many countries where people
are going hungry are exporting food.  That's because food gets sold for a
profit.  It doesn't get given away.  And if people in that country can't afford
to buy it, it's going to be grown and exported.

Greenpeace's campaign is against the seed companies, regulatory agencies,
NAS, and a large proportion of agricultural scientists. How is it possible to
get as far as you do in your campaign without a scientific consensus behind
you?

. . . I think it's because of the track record of the biotech industry.  People
have heard for 50 years about chemical pollution, about toxins in our food,
about food scares.  They know instinctively . . . that the industrial food
system is not the right way to produce food.  That's why the organic sector is
the fastest growing sector of the food industry.  It's not because organic is
cheap and abundant.  . . . More and more people in every income group want to
be eating organic food.  We really think that's where the food industry is
going to have to go in the next few decades.

Do you think really it will go that way?  At the moment, it's practically
impossible to avoid GM food.  China supports it.  Isn't it already too
late?

It can be stopped, and it will be stopped, because people want to eat natural
food.  China's an interesting case, because Hong Kong recently called for
mandatory labeling.  The largest consumer group in China recently called for
mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.  So I think it's a country
that's actually very conflicted on this issue right now.  

As people become aware of it around the world, they will push for food that's
safe, that's produced organically, that's produced by farmers who they can
trust--food that's produced regionally and seasonally and in tune with nature,
rather than in this battle with nature.



Any food product that's produced with a crop developed through genetic
engineering.

Would you include genetically engineered enzymes, which are in all cheeses,
bread, sodas, beers?

For Greenpeace, enzymes get into a different area.  . . . It's not the same as
a crop that's released into the environment.  Yes, it should probably say
somewhere on the label that the product was produced using genetically
engineered enzymes.  We basically have called for a sort of a two-tiered
approach to labeling.  An enzyme could be labeled as part of the ingredient
list.  But something that's produced from a genetically engineered crop should
be clearly and prominently displayed on the front of the label.  . . . 

Would an animal that had fed on genetically modified soybeans be
labeled?

Yes, I think that should be labeled as well.

That doesn't seem to me to make sense from a food safety point of
view.

Our main concern is the environmental risk of the technology.  In the U.S.,
consumer polls have shown that one of the main concerns people have when they
buy any product is the environmental stewardship behind that product.  That's
something that consumers have a right to know, just as they have a right to
know about food safety.  And there are lots of labels on food now that have
nothing to do with food safety.  "No salt" is not a safety claim, but you see
that on dozens of products.  Orange juice "from concentrate."  The label "from
concentrate" is required by the FDA.  That has nothing to do with safety.
That's simply a process label.  This would be another process label.   . . .
Is there no risk to Greenpeace on taking an issue like this?  It's
frivolous, not science-based.  Might this backfire?  It drums up membership,
but it doesn't go to the heart of the organization.

I would say this does go to the heart of the organization.  Is this a risk for
Greenpeace?  Yes, absolutely it is.  When Greenpeace started a campaign in the
early days against whaling, that was a big risk for the organization.  The
international community, the American public, didn't have a consciousness about
stopping whaling.  But Greenpeace took that issue on, and today, almost 30
years later, virtually the entire international community has united, calling
for a ban on commercial whaling.  

That's been the history of Greenpeace since the beginning, and I think that's
been the history of activism in this country since the days of the American
Revolution.  Activists who call for social change are a small minority opinion,
usually, at the beginning.  But pushing for change, taking risks for change,
can move public opinion until it becomes the majority. 




wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 








Document Number: 6309 
What first brought you to this issue?

Back in 1983, the United States government approved the release of the first
genetically modified organism.  In this case, it was a bacteria that prevents
frost on food crops.  My attorneys immediately went into the federal courts to
seek an injunction to halt the experiment.  The position I took at the time was
that we hadn't really examined any of the potential environmental consequences
of introducing genetically modified organisms.  
President of The Foundation on Economic Trends, he is a longtime opponent of
biotechnology.   outlines why GM food is radically different from classical
breeding and discusses how there are better ways to apply bioengineering to
agricultural products. He also counters the argument that GM food is a solution
in helping to feed a hungry world and talks about the threat of life science
companies like Monsanto employing antitrust tactics in their patenting of gene
technology.  (Interview conducted August  2000.) 

We were making the first step out of the age of chemistry and physics, and into
the age of biology.  All of our regulations had been set up in an era in which
physics and chemistry ruled.  It seemed to me that we needed to have a thorough
and thoughtful global discussion on the potential environmental implications
of reseeding the earth with genetically modified organisms.  At that time, the
only discussion that had been held was a 20- to 25-minute meeting in a
congressional committee that was overseeing this particularly genetically
modified organism for release.  

So my attorneys brought litigation in the U.S. federal courts.  The judge ruled
in our favor.  We had an injunction that barred the government from conducting
this first experiment.  Then the government appealed, and we won in the appeals
court.  . . .

Before this, you had GMOs in labs, but this was the first time they would be
released.  Why was this a bigger deal?

They had taken a bacteria that's normally found in nature, Pseudomonas
syringae, which plays a role, they believe, in the formation of rain.  They
took the actual gene out that allows ice crystals to form, and they created an
ice-minus  version of this bacteria.  The idea was to seed our agricultural
regions with the ice-minus bacteria, which would edge out the traditional
bacteria that makes frost.  



Absolutely.  . . . What concerned us was the commercial introduction of this
genetically modified organism.  What if ice-minus were introduced, as they
planned, across  entire agricultural regions of the world, and it edged out the
traditional ice-forming bacteria, which we think plays a role in rain patterns?
There could be significant long-term ecological implications.   . . .  

When you introduce a genetically modified organism into the environment, it's
not like introducing a chemical product, or even a nuclear product.  Remember,
genetically modified products are alive.  So at the get-go, they're inherently
more unpredictable in terms of what they'll do once they're out into the
environment.  Secondly, GMOs reproduce.  Chemical products don't do that.
Third, they can mutate.  Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide
regions.  And fifth, you cannot easily recall them to the laboratory or clean
them up.  So when we're dealing with genetically modified organisms, we're dealing with a
whole new genre of environmental and health questions, totally different than
when we introduce chemical or even nuclear products into the environment.  . .
.



There was a regulatory vacuum, and there is a scientific vacuum.  There has
been ever since.  Back in the mid-1980s, congressional hearings were held after
we brought this litigation, and held up the first experiment.  At that time, I
went in front of Congress, along with the major agencies involved with this.
And I asked Congress to make sure that, for every dollar spent in research and
development to put these GMOs into the environment, we spend an equal dollar on
the R&D to see if we can come up with a risk assessment  methodology to
judge the risk of introducing these into the environment.  At the time, all the
agencies--the  Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the National Science Foundation--pledged  that they would devote
whatever money was necessary to develop a methodology to judge risk.  . . .

Here we are 17 years later.  Those agencies  never did come through. Even the
USDA, the only agency that has a budget, spends maybe $1.5 million. You can't
even do one risk assessment  experiment with that amount of money.  . . .

What about the issues of liability? . . .

The public should know that the liability issues  here have yet to be resolved,
or even raised.  If you're a farmer and you're growing a genetically
engineering food crop, those genes are going to flow to the other farm.  You
can't stop that from happening.  So if a conventional farmer or an organic
farmer goes to market and they find that their finished product has genes for
herbicide tolerance or pest resistance, and they can't then sell their product,
who's liable for those losses?  The insurance companies aren't covering that.
Should Monsanto be liable for these losses?   Should the state government?
Who's going to cover the losses?  . . . The fact is, here's an industry with no
long-term liability in place.  

There is an analogy here with the nuclear industry.  In the early days, the
nuclear industry realized that the chances of an accident were small, but if an
accident did happen, the damages  could be enormous and not coverable.  So the
nuclear industry went to the U.S. Congress to pass the Price-Anderson Act.
This act legislates that the nuclear companies are only responsible for a
certain amount of the damages, and then the government pays the rest.  The
American taxpayer pays the bill.  There's no comparable legislation  in place
here.  And believe me, the public would never accept comparable legislation in
place here.  . . .

Why did this take off in Europe recently?

To begin with, the media played a very important role.  The electronic media
introduced this idea to the larger audience very, very quickly.  We spent years
and years and years meeting with activists all over Europe to lay the
groundwork for a political response, as we did here.  So this did not come as a
surprise to any of the nongovernmental organizations.   . . .

I think it hit on such a large scale in Europe because it touched the nerve of
two great political sensitivities: preserving biodiversity . . . and preserving
cultural diversity and the cultural identity of European food and European
agriculture.  . . .

This was an attempt to keep US products out, like McDonald's . . 

It's broader than that.  Remember, half of these life science companies are
U.S. and half are European.  We do have Monsanto and DuPont in the U.S., but we
also have Novartis and AstraZeneca and other companies in Europe.  This was not
a response to the U.S.  This was a response to these new global companies who
were beginning to embark on a radical new approach to agriculture that had
tremendous significance--culturally, economically, and socially.  

In an era where Europeans were feeling increasingly unable to control their
individual destinies, and when there was more talk about globalization and a
European Union, the last thing people felt they had some control over was their
diet.  So when Monsanto came in heavy and fast into the European market, the
response was immediate, from the UK to France.  The public said, "We don't want
these foods.  This isn't something that we have invited into Europe." . . . 

In this country, the health concerns and the environmental concerns are as deep
as in Europe.  All the surveys show that.  But here, we didn't have the
cultural dimension.  This is a fast-food culture.  There is not a seamless web
between culture and cuisine in the U.S. market.  So we had half the response
here.  . . .

But even in Europe, you didn't have the support of the scientific community
saying this was a safety issue.

Let me respectfully disagree with that.  There were different opinions being
expressed in Europe.  For example, the environmental ministers and those they
consulted with in the ecological sciences were very much critical and concerned
about the introduction of GM foods in Europe.  So there was a constant battle
in various countries between the environmental ministers on one side, and the
agricultural ministers and economic and trade ministers on the other.  . . .

How far do you think it's going to go in Europe?

Europe will not accept genetically modified foods.  It doesn't make any
difference in the final analysis what Brussels does, what Washington does, or
what the World Trade Organization does.  In fact, this is going to be an
interesting test on how ephemeral the power is of these new international and
inter-regional bodies are.  . . .

I think the introduction of genetically engineered foods in Europe and in parts
of Asia, and hopefully in America, is going to be considered one of the great
financial miscalculations in the history of introducing a new commercial line
into the marketplace.  They're swimming uphill at these life science companies.
 I ask the life science companies, "When you look down the line, and the public
response to genetic foods, do you see light at the end of the tunnel?"  They
can't tell me they do.  

The fact is, as the public in Europe and increasingly in the U.S. and Asia
learns more about genetic foods, they become more concerned.  Now, this is
important, because Monsanto argued all along, from the time we began this
discussion back in the 1980s, that people were just ignorant, and if you made
them aware and knowledgeable about genetic foods, they would tend to be more
supportive.  The new surveys show us the exact opposite, which I've always
believed.  The more knowledgeable people are in genetic foods, the more likely
they are to raise questions and be critical.  . . .

So countries will violate the World Trade Organization if they have
to?

Absolutely.  President Clinton personally lobbied Prime Minister Blair in the
UK to introduce genetic foods and Monsanto's products into the UK.  Of course,
Clinton and Blair are very much involved in third-way politics.  They believe
you have to move the marketplace and make sure there are no fetters to
introducing new technologies.  Both of these world leaders believe that the
information sciences and the life sciences are the route into the 21st century.
Blair went with Clinton, and championed introducing Monsanto's GMO seeds into
the UK.  The public reaction was instant and overwhelmingly in opposition, and
Blair was caught by surprise.  Here's a man who was wildly popular.  His
political cachet began to lose momentum the moment he sided with President
Clinton and Monsanto.  . . .

A few weeks later, the environmental ministers met in Europe to discuss a
moratorium.  . . . The result of that was a de facto moratorium on the
introduction of any further GMO foods in Europe.  This was a very, very
important turning point in this debate.  With Europe establishing a two-year
moratorium, it meant U.S. farmers had to rethink their choices on whether they
put genetic seeds into the ground.  Since Europe would not accept those foods
in export, American farmers didn't want to be caught holding the bag.  As a
result, in the year 2000 growing season, for the first time in the three or
four years since introduction, the amount of seeds being bought leveled off and
began to go down.  

What makes you think the public debate over GM foods is going to travel to
here?

Every survey that I have looked at in the last few years, when the public is
asked, "Do you want genetically engineered foods?" . . . a majority of the
respondents say they're concerned and 90 percent of the respondents in the
surveys say they want the mandatory labels so they can make a choice. 	The
industry's not stupid.  The industry knows that if those foods are labeled
"genetically engineered," the public will shy away and won't take them.  In a
sense, the industry's hiding from its own technology.  . . .

Obviously, voluntary labeling is one of things that will come.  . . . An example would be a company like Gerber, whose products would say
"This does not contain GMOs." . . .

Gerber is owned by Novartis, which is one of the two major players in the GMO
food industry.  Just this week, Novartis' Food Division announced that they
would not accept any genetically modified food in any of their foods; whereas
Novartis' Agricultural Division is one of the two or three major players in the
world producing genetically engineered seeds.  This is a great commercial
story, and I think the media missed this story.  Here you have a company where
the executive board of the company is at odds with itself.  . . . When a
company like Novartis--which is championing this technology--won't actually
accept the final product, what does it say about the product?

Obviously, humans have been modifying nature genetically for 10,000 years
with selection, breeding, mutagenesis.  Why is this qualitatively different? .
. .

In classical breeding, genes are turned on and off when you cross strains.  I
have no problem whatsoever with classical breeding, because it's worked itself
over 10,000 years and it's also part of the evolutionary schema.   . . .

What's different here is that we have now technologies that allow these life
science companies to bypass classical breeding.  That's what makes it both
powerful and exciting.  In classical breeding, you can cross close relatives.
Taxonomy is an anthropocentric discipline anyway.  You can, for example, cross
various wheat strains and corn strains, etc.  . . . You can cross a donkey and
a horse in classical breeding--they're  very close relatives--and  you can get
a mule.  

But you can't cross a donkey and an apple tree in classical breeding.  What the
public needs to understand is that these new technologies, especially in
recombinant DNA technology, allow scientists to bypass biological boundaries
altogether.  You can take a gene from any species--plant, animal, or human--and
place it into the genetic code of your food crop or other genetically modified
organism.  Crossing genetic information from one species to another is
something we've never seen in 10,000 years of classical breeding.  . . .

But we're taking very small bits of it.

Those very small bits can change in qualitative ways when GMO is introduced.
Let's say you take a human growth hormone gene and place it into a salmon.
That's just one gene.  But if the salmon gets out into the marine ecosystem,
and it's growing twice as fast and twice as big, it can destabilize millions of
years of relationships in the oceans.  So one gene can be very, very powerful.
. . .

Where you're placing a gene from an unrelated species into the blueprint of the
second species, it's like introducing exotic organisms from native to
non-native habitats.  Here in North America, we brought a lot of organisms over
to this ecosystem from all over the world.  Some of those organisms fit in;
some of them died out; some of them became pests.  If you're from the South,
you know about kudzu vine; or in the North, Dutch elm disease or gypsy moth or
chestnut blight or starlings.  These are all non-native organisms.  When we put
them into North America, they had no natural pest enemies.   We can't deal with
them, and they cause billions of dollars of damage.  Ecologists tell us that
when we introduce a genetically modified organism with genes from unrelated
species, it's somewhat analogous to introducing exotics.   . . .

There's a second generation of genetically modified organisms being readied in
R&D.  These organisms are plants that act as chemical factories to produce
genes that code for proteins to produce vaccines and chemicals and drugs and
vitamins.  . . . This all sounds very good, except no one has stopped for even
a moment and paused and asked the following question.

When we seed millions of acres of land with these plants, what happens to
foraging birds, to insects, to microbes, to the other animals, when they come
in contact and digest plants that are producing materials ranging from plastics
to vaccines to pharmaceutical products?  There hasn't been as much as a single
congressional hearing, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a single
parliamentary debate anywhere in the world on introducing this second
generation of pharmaceutical and chemical-producing plants. 

They're introducing plants--corn, soy, cotton--that have herbicide-tolerant
genes and pest-resistant genes.  If your corn has a herbicide-tolerant gene, it
means you can spray your herbicides and kill the weeds; you won't kill your
corn because it's producing a gene that makes it tolerant of the herbicide.
The problem here is that what makes it beneficial also makes it environmentally
harmful.  It means you're going to be able to kill a lot of weeds but not
damage your corn.  The problem is, you can't kill all the weeds.  That means
that the more virulent weed strains will become dominant and build up
resistance quicker even than you had with petrochemical-based farming.  . .
.

I visited a farmer in the Midwest, and they just used two applications of
Roundup Ready, one at the beginning of the season and one halfway through.  It
was much less than they've ever used before.  . . .

I know quite a few farmers all over the United States who have tried this and
have said the opposite, that they have to use more herbicides, not less.  The
same holds true with BT.  Monsanto says, "Look.  We're going to introduce a
little gene into the plant that codes for a pesticide."  Every cell of the
plant is producing that pesticide, so the insect tries to eat the plant and
dies when it tries to digest the material.  Monsanto says, "This is a leap
forward.  We're ending pesticides, groundwater contamination."  

Well, yes and no.  Yes, they're ending the use of pesticides.   But now they're
introducing more toxin than they ever introduced with pesticides.  When you
spray a pesticide, it's infrequent, it's periodic.  When you are putting the
same toxin in the form of a gene into the plant, that plant is producing that
toxin 24/7, perpetually over millions of acres.  . . . A major study just came
out in this year--a big study--showing
that, when you introduce the gene for toxicity, it is going into the ground
soil.  . . .

Regarding the issue of resistance, Monsanto and the EPA requires that
farmers plant a refuge.  . . .

A refuge is supposed to prevent what?  The genes from flowing out of sight?  .
. . This refuge idea won't stop insects from moving across boundaries.  That's
absurd.  How many farmers are actually creating these refuges?  . . . I've
talked to enough farmers that say that it's too much time and trouble to do it.
Even if they did do it, and followed it chapter and verse the way they're
supposed to by the licensing arrangement, insects will pass through refuges at
will.  The idea that you can constrain them is absolutely absurd.  Ask any good
ecologist worth their salt, who's not on the corporate payroll of Monsanto, and
they'll tell you what I've just told you.

The issue is not whether insects move across the refuge.  The issue is the
buildup of resistance, isn't it?

You're going to get insects all crossing the refuges.  The insects that are
vulnerable to BT will die.  Those that aren't--the more virulent insects--will
reproduce.  That one gene resistance cannot deal with more virulent strains of
the insects.

When you do classical breeding, you cluster for hundreds of genes in a plant
that allow it to be resistant to a particular insect.  Here, it's like one-gene
resistance.   It's like the French Maginot Line before World War II.  The
French thought they had a strong wall against potential German invasion, and
the tanks went right over the wall.  When you only have one-gene resistance, it
will only take a few growing seasons--we're not talking about generations--for
resistant strains of insects to build up and to overcome that one gene.  Then
the companies will have to come up with another gene, and another gene, and
another gene.  It's not defensible from a systems point of view. 

But these are empirical questions. We don't know whether a refuge works or
not.

Monsanto says it does know the answer.  The United States government that's
OK'd all of this says it knows the answer.  They're saying that refuges work.
My question back to the U.S. regulatory agencies and to Monsanto is, "You're
saying the refuges work.  Show me the results.  Where are the tests?  Have you
tested this across ecosystems around the world where this is going to be
planted?  Where is your risk assessment methodology that shows you that this is
safe?"  

There obviously have been tests, like in Arizona.

There's been virtually nothing.  The amount of field testing to develop a
methodology for risk assessment is almost nil.  What we have here is a lot of
rhetoric about protocols, but with very little science to back it up in the
fields.  . . . 

The other major problem with introducing GMOs is gene flow.  This is as
significant as buildup of resistance, probably more significant.  During
pollenations, genes flow everywhere.  Now, of course the company will say,
"Well, the genes won't flow offsite.  We have refuges, etc."  Nonsense.  There
has now been a number of peer reviewed studies . . . that show that genes will
jump way offsite during pollination, either by the wind or by transport by
insects, etc.  If you have a herbicide-tolerant gene, or a pest-resistant gene,
and it flows off a site, what happens when wild relatives of those crops are
invaded by that pollen?  . . . How do you deal with a whole ecosystem where
wild grasses and weeds have become herbicide-resistant, pest-resistant, and
viral-resistant?

There are a couple of potential technical fixes.  Take genetically modified
salmon, for example. You make your salmon sterile.  With plants, you make the
so-called terminator gene.  . . . If that was done, wouldn't this be reassuring
to you?

The problem is that we know very little about how genes code for proteins and
how they're turned on and off.  So when you talk about all these fixes that
they're going to come up with, you have to realize that whether a gene turns on
and off and mutates depends, a great deal of the time, on the environmental
factors and triggers.  You can't get a guarantee that genes are going to turn
on and off the way you want them to.  You're dealing with life.  It's too
unpredictable.  

If we had a risk assessment science in place, a really full-blown methodology,
then maybe you could make some of these suppositions.  But right now, these
companies are running blind, saying, "We're going to make this fix and this fix
and this fix." . . . 

When I talk to environmental scientists, they're very, very uneasy about the
idea that you can create a quick fix at each step of the way with this.  It may
be that everything the life science companies are telling us will turn out to
be right, and there's no problem here whatsoever.  That defies logic.  When you
introduce a powerful new technology that can radically change the environment,
as they hope these technologies will, it's naive or disingenuous  to think that
that same introduction won't create equally troubling disharmonies  and
destabilization. 

Remember, these are the same companies that brought us the petrochemical
revolution.  They used similar arguments to the ones they're using now, saying,
"Look.  We'll have a quick fix.  We'll make sure that the chemicals don't ruin
the environment. All of the alarm on the other side is unfounded and
misguided."  Now they're embarking on an adventure that's much more radical
than chemical introduction, and that is actually changing the genetic
instructions in microorganisms--plants and animals--and  placing them into the
environment, a lot of it through clonal propagation, on a very large scale.  .
. . 

Is food safety an issue here, as you see it?

Yes, because what we're dealing with is the introduction of new genetic foods
that have genes that code for proteins that we've never consumed.  So when you
place a Chinese hamster gene into your food crop, for example, and we consume
it in raw or processed food, we just don't know what the reaction's likely to
be.  The fact is, we know that with traditional foods, 8 percent of children
and 2 percent of adults have allergenic reaction to traditional foods.  We
spent a long part of our history testing various things we could eat, and a lot
of people have died as part of this grand experiment to see what we could
consume.  . . . 

Many of the genetically modified foods will be safe, I'm sure.  Will most of
them be safe?  Nobody knows.  The fact is, even the Food and Drug
Administration, in internal documents by their own scientists that were forced
out in a lawsuit, suggested that these foods could pose some potentially
serious allergenic and toxic reactions among consumers. 

But everyone's aware of allergenicity as an issue, aren't they?  This is not
a secret.  . . .

The American public is not aware that there might be potential allergenic and
toxic reactions.  . . . With regular food, at least people know which foods
they have an allergy to.  People know if they have an allergenic reaction to
peanuts, for example.  Here, you don't know, because the foods aren't labeled.
Because these genes that they're placing in the foods have never been tested in
the human diet, it's one big health roulette gamble.  . . .

Of course, you can remove allergenicity genes, can't you? . . .

Only if you know they are allergenic.  You can eliminate, for example, a Brazil
nut gene if you know that it will create an allergenic effect.  The problem
here is, they're going to be introducing hundreds, then thousands and thousands
of genes that code for proteins that we've never consumed.  We simply don't
know if they cause allergenic or toxic reactions.  . . .

But you just said there was no way, in practice, that we 

This is the Catch-22.  So do you want to take the risk when you don't need to?
Maybe at some point down the line, the new genetics will tell us a lot more
about the genomic makeup of all of our creatures.  . . . We may be able to know
which genes code for proteins against every single genetic profile on earth.
We don't have that now.  I don't think the activists in the public are
over-reacting.  I don't think there's any hysteria in the streets here.  What
there is, is guarded and careful response.  And I think the public is saying,
"Why should we be put in jeopardy?  Why should we be the guinea pigs in this
experiment?" . . .

With food, we don't have an absolute standard of safety, obviously.  The
food supply that we have is not safe.  So the question is about balancing risks
and benefits.  . . . One example is the papaya story, where a viral pathogen on
the Hawaiian Islands was destroying all of the crops. The only solution anybody
can think of is a transgenic crop.  Is that a good risk-benefit calculation? .
. . That's a risk-benefit where the benefits are immediate. . . .

This is the same thing we faced with the nuclear industry and the petrochemical
industry.  Obviously, there were short-term benefits in introducing nuclear
power and petrochemical-based technologies and agriculture.  The problem is,
nobody at the get-go wanted to look at the long-term potential environmental
and health risks down the line.  In the long run, we saddled the environment
and future generations with tremendous environmental and health costs.  So when
you talk about cost-benefit, the problem is, the benefits are always here and
now.  The costs always come later.  . . .

This is why I've been involved in this discussion for more than 25 years now.
I wanted to make sure that this be the first scientific and technology
revolution in history in which the public thoroughly discussed all the
potential benefits and all the potential harms, in advance of the technology
coming online and running its course.  

But your aim, then, isn't to stop it? . . .

The issue here is, how do we apply that science in the commercial arena, in our
social life, and in the political life of the country and civilization?  I
believe there's a hard-path and a soft-path way to move into the age of
biology.  . . . 

What's the hard path?  Genetic foods.  You turn that little piece of corn into
a soldier in the fields, a little warrior.  That little piece of corn is armed
with all sorts of weapons--a gene for pest resistance and viral resistance and
herbicide tolerance.  This is hard path, old-fashioned nineteenth-century
applied science.  It's reductionist; it's not a systems approach; and it won't
deliver ultimately in the field.

What's the soft path?  We could use this same information we're learning on
genomic nature of our plants and our ecosystems to create a sophisticated,
market-driven, cheap, efficient organic-based approach to agricultural
production in the 21st century.  In the soft path, there's no gene splicing
between species.  Instead, we upgrade classical breeding with state-of-the-art
genomic science.   . . . You use the genomic information in your plants to find
out which strains are best integrated into the environment.  The environment's
not the enemy.  The environment's the partner.  . . . 

What I'm suggesting to you is that this could be a renaissance.  We may be on
the cusp of a future which could provide a tremendous leap forward for
humanity.  Instead of playing God and being an architect and creating a second
genesis, and trying to rearrange millions of years of genetic blueprints, what
we ought to be doing is understanding the genomic makeup of the world around us
and how genes interact with environments and ecosystems.   Then we can be a
steward, so we can better integrate our social and productive activity into
nature's activity. . . . 

I haven't spoken to the chemical companies yet.  I have spoken to scientists
at Cornell, UC-Davis, mainstream academic agricultural scientists. . . . Some
of the mainstream agricultural scientists are not that concerned about the
production of GMOs.

Many of the mainstream agricultural scientists, especially at the agricultural
schools, but at all of our major universities, are tied into all sorts of
contractual relationships and consulting relationships  with the life science
companies.   There's been a growing debate in recent months about the close
commercial ties between our academic institutions involved in this research,
and the companies that are in the life science field.  You really can't find a
good molecular biologist or geneticist worth their salt who isn't involved in
some equity relationship or consulting relationship or involved in some startup
companies.  

You think they're compromised, in other words?

. . . You may have seen in the , where there's been some
big stories in the last few months . . . about the change in the relationship
between the academy and the academic sector and the commercial sector.  We have
biologists across the United States and around the world whose research grants
depend on corporate financing.  We have major players in the agricultural
field, as well as the other sciences, who are all involved in equity relations
and have stock options and are part of these companies.  You can find some
independent scientists, but they are few and far between.  We now have whole
labs, especially in our ag schools, that are contracted out to Monsanto and
Novartis.  . . . 

There's a lot of GM stuff out there--not just soybeans and corn-- but if you
include genetically engineered enzymes, there's also cheese, beer, bread,
sodas.  This revolution has happened.  What makes you think it's
stoppable?

One thing I've learned over these last 30 or 40 years is that people make
history.  There's no fait accompli to any of this. We're on the cusp of a
revolution in science.  . . . The biotech century is going to be as complicated
as the Industrial Revolution.  Remember, in the Industrial Revolution there
wasn't one agenda.  For every capitalist, there was a socialist.  For every
entrepreneur, there was a trade unionist.  For every Enlightenment philosopher,
there was a Romantic poet.  There were many agendas and issues.  It was
complex.  There was great upheaval.  . . .

We now have an opportunity, though, to do something we didn't do in the
industrial age, and that is to get a leg up on this, to bring the public in
quickly, to have an informed debate.  If ever there was a scientific and
technological revolution that cried out for everybody's involvement, this is
it.  This revolution affects the most intimate aspect of life on earth: our own
biology, and the biology of our fellow creatures.   . . .

But there is a huge constituency of agricultural scientists who see this as
enormous potential for the developing world, for the hungry, for feeding the
burgeoning population of the world.  They fear that the reckless action of
activist groups may kill this.

Let me take some responsibility, since I spawned much of this opposition.  It's
a little bit disingenuous for some of the life scientists to say they want to
feed the world, when they create terminator genes designed to made a seed
sterile so it can't be reused by farmers.  We are already producing enough food
to feed the world.  We already have technology in place that allows us to
produce more than we can find a market for.  Here in the U.S. and in Europe, we
pay farmers not to produce.  The issue here isn't producing enough food.  The
issue really with feeding the world is, how do we create the effective
mechanism, so the fruits of the technologies we already have in place can be
shared equitably? 

That argument's a little bogus, isn't it?

No.  If we really want to talk about feeding the world, we have to talk about
eating lower on the food chain.  The fact is, we've had a great change in
agriculture in the twentieth century.  . . . Today, one-third of all the food
grown in this world is feed grain, which is then consumed by animals, so that
the wealthier people on the planet can eat high up on the food chain with
grain-fed meats.  

The interesting thing is, while we die of diseases of affluence from eating all
these fatty meats, our poor brethren in the developing world die of diseases of
poverty, because the land is not used now to grow food grain for their
families. Rather, it's used to grow feed grain for the animal husbandry
industry.  If we would only find it in our hearts as a species to move down the
food chain so that we could free up the land, so that instead of a third of it
being grown for feed grain, it's grown for food grain, we could feed the world
today and tomorrow and for many years in the future. . . . 

Do you want to say anything last on patent issues? . . .

We have less than 10 life science companies in the world that have bought up
all the independent seed companies in the last several years.  They're now
turning those seeds into intellectual property, so they have a virtual lock on
the seeds upon which we all depend for our food and survival.  The issue here
is, can companies like Monsanto use their control of intellectual property to
force the rest of humanity to accept their terms in the commercial arena?  

When Monsanto provides a seed to a farmer, there's no traditional sale.
There's no seller, there's no buyer, there's no exchange of the property. When
Monsanto enters into a licensing agreement with a farmer, the farmer is being
given access to the Monsanto network and being allowed to use the intellectual
property in that seed for one growing season.  That means the new seeds at
harvest, which traditionally farmers have considered their own, now belong to
Monsanto.  If the farmer uses those new seeds, it's a violation of the
intellectual property agreement.  

Monsanto, if they had their way, would probably never want to sell another seed
again.  They'd much rather that every farm in the world enter into a licensing
agreement and have to access the seeds, the intellectual property in those
seeds, 24/7, every growing season.   . . . That's chilling in its potential
impact.  

Does that raise antitrust issues?

There is now a precedent-setting antitrust lawsuit in the federal courts.  The
10 largest antitrust law firms in the United States have gone into the federal
courts charging Monsanto with creating a global conspiracy in violation of the
antitrust laws, to control the global market in seeds.  The plaintiffs are
farmers in the U.S. and France.  . . .



Yes.  The antitrust litigation currently in the federal courts in the U.S.
against Monsanto will be the test case in the life sciences, just as the
Microsoft case was the test case in the information sciences.  As we move to a
network-based global economy, the real issue here is, can companies like
Microsoft in the information sciences, and Monsanto in the life sciences,
control these networks by controlling the intellectual property in the software
or the wetware?  

The difference is that the government was bringing the case against
Microsoft.

Interesting enough, the chief litigator for the government was David Boies.
His law firm is also involved in our litigation.  The litigation's being
spearheaded by Michael Hausfeld, one of the distinguished trial lawyers and
litigators in the United States.  So this is going to be a great test case.  .
. . I think it's going to set the framework, if you will, for the life science
revolution, as Microsoft and that case has set the precedents for the future of
the information science revolution.




wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 








Document Number: 7967 


The first history of any vaccine goes back to China, hundreds of years ago, for
smallpox.  The first experimental use of vaccines goes back 200 years to Jenner
in England, where he took a scab of cowpox from a cow and rubbed it on a cut on
the arm of a boy, and there was sort of a reaction to it.  And then--you never
do this today--but he challenged the kid with authentic smallpox.  And the boy
did not get smallpox, so he made the correlation.  

President emeritus of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University,  is working on making safer vaccines for viruses which kill millions in the developing world. He discusses his work developing edible vaccines (inside GM bananas, tomatoes, or potatoes). He also talks about Europe's opposition to GM foods and science's hopes for applying GM techniques to future foods, medicines, and environmental cleanup. (Interview conducted September 2000.) 


That was the first model of a vaccine where you used, in that case, a related
virus.  Today we call them attenuated viruses, because they're like the real
pathogen--a  thing that causes disease--but  they're either weakened, sometimes
killed, chemically inactivated--or there are relatives.  So it could be a virus
that attacks cattle but not people, but it still triggers an immune response.
So for 200 years, most vaccines have been built around this concept of using a
relative of what causes disease in us, or an inactivated form.  

Then along came molecular biology in the mid- to late 1970s.  The first vaccine
that came out of this was for hepatitis B.  The scientists  in that case looked
at the entire genome of the hepatitis B virus.  That was a pretty heroic
scientific feat, with the simple techniques they had about 25 years ago.  But
they found a gene in the virus that encodes, or it has the information for, the
surface of the hepatitis B virus.  

You can picture hepatitis B like a little tennis ball.  It's got a furry
outside and that furry stuff on the outside is protein.  That's what sticks to
a human cell and causes the virus to be taken up.  So these guys did take that
gene, moved it to yeast, and grew the yeast in fermentation vats.  Now the
yeast produces a furry little tennis ball, or a virus-like particle, but
there's nothing inside it, so there's no capacity for disease.  They purified
this furry little tennis ball from yeast, and now formulate it and put it into
an injectable form.  That was the first hepatitis B vaccine.  That came out in
1986.  It was licensed by the federal government as being very safe and very
effective.  That was the first of now what's appearing to be a flood of subunit
vaccines that are coming in.

The molecular vaccines are really safe.  Are there disadvantages?I don't want to emphasize that there are disadvantages to modern vaccines.  But
there  inconveniences, if you will, and those relate to the cost.
This is a pretty high-technology process.  It's not been very easy to transfer
it to developing countries.  The second point is that these new vaccines all
require refrigeration from the point of manufacture to the point of use.  If
you're trying to take a vaccine to a Third World country, that adds an enormous
cost, and adds a certain unreliability.  If this cold chain breaks down
someplace, you could lose the effectiveness of your vaccine.  So those are the
two biggest issues.   

In addition, the World Health Organization says, "We'd really like these to be
oral vaccines, because they're easier to implement."  Their model for that is a
polio vaccine--a simple thing that was developed more than two or three decades
ago.  You take the polio virus in a weakened form, but put it on a sugar cube,
and just put that on the mouth or the tongue of a kid.  It's an easy delivery
mechanism.  So the World Health Organization has been looking for the
equivalent of the sugar cube delivery system.



Well, syringes cost money.  Because they cost money, they're often
inappropriately used in developing world.  People try to clean them, and they
shouldn't.  They should be throwing them away, but at the cost, they add
significantly to the delivery system.  The World Health Organization estimates
that there are hundreds of thousands of deaths and disease incidents caused by
inappropriate needle use.  So they'd like to get away from that technology.

Given those hurdles, how can a plant get you through this?

With plant-based vaccines, we're not trying to replace the immunology side of
it.  We're totally dependent upon our friends who know virology and
bacteriology to figure out how to find the genes and find the right components
to make the vaccine.  I picture myself, as a plant biologist, as a
manufacturing specialist.   We can put the gene now into the chromosome of the
plant, so that every cell in the plant that comes back out of this has the
capacity to manufacture a new protein.  Then, even more, the plant itself is a
delivery system.  

So if you can simply eat it, now you don't have to do any complex formulation;
you don't have to do purification; and you don't have to deal with some of the
other issues about toxicants or other materials that could get into the
formulated vaccine.  

So plants offer a less expensive production system, and also, we believe, a
more efficient and effective delivery system.  Coupled with growing a plant and
using food-processing  technology to prepare the vaccine, we can now take
existing technology that's in the developing world--agriculture and food
processing that exists around the world--and adapt that to making a
pharmaceutical.  

Is it in a safe form in the plant?

When we started thinking about delivery systems, the one that I began focusing
on about eight years ago was bananas.  When you start peeling a banana, the
minute that peeling comes off, you are exposing a sterile environment inside.
There are no bacteria.  There are no fungi in there.  This is a self-contained
sterile container that also contains protein.  So you can think of it as a
sterile protein-manufacturing system.  If we can put genes into bananas and
cause them to produce the protein we want--in this case, a vaccine--in that
sterile compartment, then all we have to do is pop it open and deliver it.  

What is the process, from start to finish, of how you transform a
plant?

. . . We've spent the most time working on diseases caused by viruses or
bacteria that . . . cause diarrhea.  . . . Diarrheal disease is an enormous
problem in the developing world.  It causes deaths of about 2 million children
every year.  That comes from a variety of reasons: inadequate water
purification, public hygiene systems, etc.  That's one part of solving this
problem in the long term.  But in the short term, vaccines would be the best
route to prevent the disease.

Because the disease is endemic?

It's an endemic problem.  Diarrheal disease re-occurs, especially in the
developing world.  Whenever they enter the monsoon season and other problems
like that, it spreads more rapidly.  Enormous loss of life occurs from diseases
like cholera, enterotoxic E. coli, rotovirus outbreaks.  

You've identified a pathogen you're interested in?

. . . Let me try to describe how we make a vaccine for Norwalk virus.  Norwalk
virus causes diarrhea.  You get it in contaminated food, and we in the U.S. would
think of it as a case of food poisoning.  The Norwalk virus, when we take it in
with contaminated food, has a surface protein that binds to cells in our gut,
primarily in the intestine.  Once it binds, the viral material--which is genes
from the virus--is injected into the epithelial cells in our gut.  So,
essentially, the virus takes over and does genetic engineering in the cells in
our gut.  The result is massive diarrhea, with its inconvenience, discomfort,
etc.  

We in the U.S. generally do survive this, because we have rehydration therapy,
etc.  If you survive that, your immune system has been triggered, and the
immune system now starts producing antibodies that are secreted into the gut.
If that disease-causing agent comes along again, we're prepared for it.  The
antibodies bind to the virus and prevent the infection process.

What we wanted to do was take the gene for that surface protein, put it into
plant cells, and ask whether the plant would make a virus-like particle.  It's
a mimic, or a decoy, that looks like the virus, but with none of the genes
inside, so it can't cause disease.  First of all, we found that we could do
that.  We did that in collaboration with Mary Estes at Baylor College of
Medicine, who's an expert in this stuff.

Do you use a gene gun technique to get them in?

We use one of two routes to put the gene for Norwalk virus into plants.  We can
use the gene gun, so we essentially are shooting the piece of DNA into a plant
cell, where it gets integrated into the chromosome.  Or we use another
approach, called agrobacterium-mediated transformation.  That's where we first
take the gene out of the virus and move it into a plant pathogen.  Then the
plant pathogen is a bacterium, and that moves the gene into a plant cell.  

Each system has some advantages.  We can use either one.  But we end up with an
individual cell, which now has this new gene.  From that cell, we regenerate a
plant back.  So the first part of this has just become absolutely routine.
There's so much molecular biology going on around the world today.  We can
bring in a high school student and have them do the first part of putting the
genes into the plants for us.

The more complicated side of it then is to regenerate plants back out of this,
look at each one and say, "Is it producing the vaccine in the form we want it?
Is it producing it in the right place?"  For instance, we initially focused on
potatoes, and then tomatoes, and later banana fruit.  We want to make sure that
it's in the proper cells, that it's forming the right vaccine.

So the first one you did was the potato?That was the easiest to
transform?

. . . For a variety of reasons, the potato was simplest.  You can put the genes
in relatively easily.  More important for us, we knew how to cause the genes to
work in the potato tuber.  There'd been a lot of work by collaborators of ours.
So essentially, we had a good toolbox to work with, a molecular toolbox, so we
could create the gene we wanted.

The other nice thing about potatoes is that we can regenerate a lot of edible
plant material back quickly.  In about four to five months, we can have a pot
full of potatoes, and each pot will give us probably about a kilogram of
material.  That's enough to do a lot of mouse feeding studies.

In these potatoes, everything else is the same, but there's an additional
molecule being generated?Right.  When they put a gene into a potato, essentially all we've added is one
new protein.  For all practical purposes, that's invisible.  You don't see any
effect of it.  The way we determine that it is, in fact, there, is to do a
bioassay.  That means taking a piece of the potato and feeding it to a mouse,
and then taking blood samples from the mouse and saying,  "Does it get new
antibodies?  Does it get an antibody against this protein we're interested in?"


Once we'd shown that that works with potatoes and what the advantage of the
system was, we could save some of the potatoes and just cut them up into
pieces, replant them.  Now we get identical plants coming back out.  So we had
uniformity of our experiment.

The next step for us has been to move the same type of work into tomatoes.
That took a bit more work to build a toolbox, if you will, so we can create the
genes that will work in the tomato fruit.

Before that, how were you sure this is working in the potato?

The question is, "How do we know that the vaccine is there?"  The answer is
pretty simple.  We just peel it, cut it up into cubes, and feed the potato to a
mouse.  We then take blood samples from that mouse on a periodic basis, and we
ask if the mouse has serum antibodies, or is he now making antibodies against
that protein?  The answer was yes, we found them.  . . . 

In all mammals, we're producing secretory antibodies all the time--in our
lungs, in our saliva, throughout the gut.  We can detect those antibodies in
fecal pellets.  Sure enough, after eating our genetically designed potatoes,
the mouse would start making secretory antibodies. 

Is the mouse a good model then for humans?

Mice are the traditional model for human vaccines.  Once we had pre-clinical
data with mice, we then went to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and asked
for permission to try the same experiments with people.  They went through all
the regulatory issues, and the first time we tried this, it took about eight
months for us to get approval to guarantee safety for the volunteers.  But we
then had human volunteers eat some of our potatoes, and sure enough, got the
same result.  They got antibodies in the blood serum and secretory antibodies.
So we can tell that the human immune system can also be triggered by simply
eating raw potatoes that contain our vaccine that we've designed into them.

Do they have to eat raw potatoes?

Well, raw potatoes aren't bad.  I sat and ate raw potatoes when my mother was
peeling them.  I remember that as a kid.  Now, we perhaps did a bit more,
because some of the volunteers had to eat up to 100 grams of raw potato, which
is about the size of a tennis ball or so.  That's a big bowl of some starch.
But they did it, and we thanked them for it, and sure enough, they got the
proper immune response.

You were thinking that, because it was raw, this might not be the ideal
delivery?

Yes.  The reason we do raw potatoes is because many of these antigens or
vaccines that we're interested in would be destroyed by heating.  So if you
boiled the potatoes, if you made a mashed potato or a french fry, we anticipate
that all the activity would be gone.

So then you moved on to other plants?

Well, because you can't process or cook a potato easily, we decided that we're
going to try the same experiments in other plants.  The next step was to go to
tomatoes.  . . . One of the big reasons to try tomatoes is that they are easily
processed.  We can now start taking food-processing technology ... and just
make tomato juice, or more important for us, we're trying to freeze-dry the
tomato juice and just get a dry powder.

I want to emphasize, why should we go and make a dry tomato powder?  The answer
is really that this is a medicine.  We're not trying to make a new V8 juice.
We're trying to make a medicine.  If we're going to be successful, we have to
deal with things that are part of the pharmaceutical industry.  They talk about
proper dosage.  They talk about lot-to-lot variation, meaning, if you make up
100,000 doses at one time, the next lot has to be comparable in activity.  

The only way I can deal with that from a plant side of things is to start using
food-processing technology to get a dry powder, or ultimately, when we get to
bananas, I think something like a baby food puree.  You can make tens of
thousands of little containers of a banana baby food, and you can sample each
one and verify that the dosage is uniform--that they're free of any sort of
bacterial toxins or anything else--the standard sort of stuff that has to be
done with any pharmaceutical product.  Our switch on this is we can use
food-processing technology, which is available in the developing world, and
apply it to a medicine.

Assuming everything goes well, what is your vision?

Let's say we want to deliver vaccines against diarrhea in Africa, where they're
needed.  I'll tell you what I do not see: I don't see a village banana tree
with vaccines in it, where everyone goes up and takes one when they want to.
That, for a variety of reasons, would be impractical.  You wouldn't control
dosage, etc.  What I do see would be a company or a government organization
established in a country--maybe South Africa initially, because they have a
very good infrastructure.  I see them having their own vaccine companies in
South Africa, where they would take some of the plant material that's
generated, begin to grow it under confined, regulated conditions, and
manufacturing an herbal medicine of sorts.  It's very acceptable and they're
accustomed to it in Africa, and they're used to taking a dried plant material.


Let's say it was a banana.  Making a dried banana chip and delivering that in a
little package, saying, "This is a medicine" would be normal.  They have dried
banana chips around the world.  If we could just do that, or grind up this
dried banana chip and spike it into a little milk and give it to an
infant--that's something that could be done at a local level, without a lot of
high technology.  It would take an educational activity.  But this is something
that would be consistent with a type of medicine that they have today.



The question is, what would it cost to do this in a developing country?  I
think it's pretty obvious that the actual production of the material could be
extremely cheap.  The next step, having some sort of quality assurance, is
tougher for me to estimate.  You would want to make sure that you have the
systems in place, that the dosage is accurate and reliable, and that the
processing . . . is reliable.  It's hard for me to anticipate the cost to this.


But clearly it's something that's doable.  There has to be a will to accomplish
this.  First of all, it doesn't have to be expensive.  It simply has to be
something that's built into an organization in the developing world.  

It's for these sorts of reasons that our goal isn't necessarily to take this
first to a very poor country in Africa.  In fact, we've built our first
connections with extremely good, sophisticated scientists in Mexico.  There is
a demand for diarrheal disease vaccines in Mexico, and they have very good
in-country vaccine companies.  Some of these are already making and
distributing vaccines.  They have a very good public health system.  So our
goal is to try to collaborate with people in Mexico, transfer this technology,
test it there, demonstrate that it works, and do that in parallel with what
we're doing in the U.S.  I should emphasize--we're trying to do this first in
the U.S., not because I'm nationalistic, but because I don't want to be accused
of taking this technology and testing it on poor people someplace else in the
world.

We've had the rise of this controversy over genetically modified foods.  Did
this surprise you when it happened?  Has it affected your work?

The controversy over genetically modified foods really hasn't had any direct
impact on our research activities.  And I'm happy about that.  I keep
emphasizing, we're producing medicines.  Materials that generate as an edible
vaccine will never be in the grocery store, and we're building in controls to
ensure that that won't happen.

But in the broader issue, am I surprised at what has happened?  Perhaps not,
because I think this has been a surprise to the public.  They haven't seen all
this background science and technology being developed.  It's been something
that is so common to us in the scientific community.  I haven't seen anything
that's shocking or that concerns me about any sort of safety issue, but I've
seen it coming for the last 20-plus  years.  It seems obvious and routine to
me.  

But I certainly am aware, just from my conversations with family and relatives,
that they find it shocking that all these changes are possible.  It's sort of
science fiction stuff, and I guess whenever something comes along that you
hadn't thought about, it raises some concerns.

What potential in this technology people should be aware of?

Well, clearly the next generation of plants that are genetically modified are
going to be enormously different from the first generation that came out.
We're seeing a lot more activity that's focused around human health.  There are
a variety of reasons for that, but probably the greatest reason in the U.S. is
that we've got excess food today.  There's less return in just increasing
yields.  

What we have to focus on is how we make our foods better.  We can keep
reminding ourselves that we can do things that will improve the human health
value, that we're going to add value to society and to the products that
farmers are producing, and we're going to have a good economic impact all
throughout this food chain.

My own special interest is this area of producing actual pharmaceuticals in
plants.  Because of the institute where I am, it really hasn't been a focus on
the U.S. in particular.  It's been more a focus on the Third World.  How can we
deliver . . . a very effective vaccine, but make developing countries less
dependent upon philanthropy and big industry and things of that nature?  How
can we provide the technology so that a Third World country can make the
vaccines themselves?

Is this technology useful because it allows you to grow plants in
inhospitable soils?  What about the "golden rice" argument?

Well, if you start looking at specific examples  of where genetically modified
foods have a value in the developing world, I think number one is the issue of
food security--protecting  plants against  disease, so that they grow better.
Also, perhaps, virus resistance, sort of immunizing plants against viruses as
the number one example.  It's going to have the biggest effect in the
developing world.

But secondarily, as we have seen with the golden rice story, you can also
change the qualities of the plant itself.  We can put things like vitamin A
into a rice plant, as Dr. Potrykus and his colleagues did.  That's quite
incredible, and it's going to solve major problems in the developing world, as
to the availability of food materials for good nutrition. 

I know that a standard response is, "Well, they should just be eating more
green leafy vegetables."  I've been to India.  I've stayed in a very nice hotel
in the center of New Delhi.  And you see families living on the sidewalk on an
old patch of blanket out there.  This is part of this global migration of
families to the cities, as populations grow.  They no longer have a little
garden plot to grow their materials.  They're stuck in a concrete jungle
someplace.  They don't have access to green leafy vegetables and things that
they need, and they're living on a handful of rice every day.  

I see the Rockefeller Foundation and others recognizing this, and seeing that
we've got these global shifts in people stuck in desperate poverty, and the few
foods they can eat.  They have focused on issues  like, how can we change the
quality of that food that they do have available, and improve the nutrition of
these people?

Because the people aren't getting a balanced diet? get a balanced diet.  They're desperately poor.
They're part of this urban migration that is just dragging people into a
situation where they have no choice.  It would be nice to solve the poverty
issue.  That would be great.  But until we can do that, one of the
accomplishments of modifying our food is that we can help give these
desperately poor people something better to improve their health as they try to
dig their way out of the situation that they're in.

Greenpeace says that there's enough food to feed the world already--that the
problem is distribution.

Yes.  The argument that there's enough food in the world, but it's in the wrong
place at the wrong time--that's  a real argument.  But a lot of the food
sources we have are not easily shipped.  A fresh tomato isn't going to be
shipped from Iowa to Bangladesh.  Grains can be shipped--cereal , grains, and
legumes and things like that.   

But we tried some experiments of just shipping food and giving it away.  For
instance, in India and Bangladesh in the 1960s, when there was famine, if a
country like the U.S. comes in and just provides food, it further degrades the
capacity of the country itself to stimulate its own agricultural economy.  I
think we saw when we made those mistakes at one time, and then we shifted our
emphasis on providing the technology to people to produce their own food.
That's been much more successful.  

In a sense, we haven't even been involved in it so much in China, but you can
see the enormous advancements in China in feeding their own people.  It's been
through an implementation of good agricultural policy, using the best of the
new technologies that are available, and moving very rapidly.  If you travel in
China today, you don't see the starvation that is prevalent in other parts of
the world, especially in the poorer parts of the world today.

Is it your sense that India and China see a lot of potential in this
technology?

It's very interesting to compare India and China.  China has moved very
aggressively in all aspects of food technology, emphasizing things like
infrastructure for transport of foods, but also rapidly mobilizing to use new
genetic engineering techniques.  Essentially, they don't take just one part of
it.  Biotechnology is not a sole solution, but a whole structural analysis is a
solution.  

I've traveled a fair amount in India.  India has apparently just taken more of
a piecemeal part.  It's a highly democratic country, and some of the
disadvantages of democracy have come in not having China's sort of overall
planning system.  But India has done a remarkable job of feeding a population
that has doubled in the last several decades.  They're still feeding their
people.  They have been slower to adopt technology for genetic engineering, and
in part, maybe that's because they haven't had the demand yet.  They haven't
had the food demands that China has seen.

We have a projection over the next 100 years of a doubling of world
population.  Without new agricultural technologies, is that going to be
impossible?

Well, it's hard for me to talk about what's going to happen over the next 100
years or 50 years.  It's easier to picture what's going to happen over the next
two decades.  Now, we have the young people born on the ground today, who are
going to produce an additional 1 billion people each decade.  That many new
people every ten years is the size of India.  When you start thinking of this
massive food need that we have--and largely the population is increasing where
we don't have an adequate food supply--we're just going to exacerbate all the
problems we have today.

Of course we need new technology.  We can't just continue to plow up forests or
try to find new prairies to convert into farmland.  That doesn't exist in the
places we need it, and we don't want to shift the remaining natural areas of
the world that we have today and destroy them to get more farmland.  All we can
do is increase the productivity of the land that we have today, to meet this
enormous coming increase in population.

The other argument is that a more efficient type of organic farming should
be instituted, rather than developing new technology.

It's really baffling to me how anyone can say that we just don't need new
technology.  India is largely an organic farming nation today.  As they try to
take on new technology, the most successful  has been genetic technology.  It's
the improved rices that came out of international research activities, and the
improved wheats.  Taking genetically improved materials is what's allowed them
to feed their population.  

Some of that has been coupled with use of fertilizer, for instance, in India,
which has dramatically increased the rice yields.  What's missing in places
like India, for instance, is a lot of additional technology--like post-harvest
storage of the material, drying of the material, packaging of it, so they don't
have losses to insects or disease problems in the stored material.  

So I think people are fixated right now on, "Oh, my God, they're doing
something with genetics, and that's the problem."  But we have a whole suite of
things that need to be done in agriculture, and using the best of new genetics
is just part of the solution.  It's not a silver bullet that's going to work by
itself.  But it's just part of the overall solution.

We see the moratorium in Europe, and labeling laws.  And you see a few
companies in this country, like Gerber and Frito-Lay, deciding not to produce
these.  Do you have any concerns that this might be delayed, or stopped in its
tracks?

Clearly, the attitudes about genetically modified foods in Europe have delayed
its implementation in Europe.  I think their perceptions are based upon a
series of other things that don't have any relevance to genetic engineering per
se.



Such as, they have problems with BSE, the mad cow disease, which has caused in
England in particular a lack of confidence in their regulatory system.  A whole
series of other events in Europe has just caused people to be concerned about
safety of their food supply.  None of these have any relevance directly to
genetic engineering, but it's caused the public to question their governments
and what their governments can do.  In addition, the Europeans are affluent.
They have an excess supply of food, and they're subsidizing their farmers to
reduce production.  And I can understand this.  The whole notion of adding new
technology to add more food seems bizarre.  

. . . Why is it different in the U.S.?  Well, in part, I believe, even though
we have more food than we need, most folks here recognize that the food supply
from the U.S. is part of the global economy.  It's good for our economics, but
it's also good for the rest of the world.  Because if we just stopped exporting
food, it would have an enormous impact on other parts of the world.  So I see a
fundamental difference there in the acceptance of the technology.

Let's say that the U.S. and Europe would decide, "We're never going to do
genetically modified foods." . . . I don't think it's going to stop the
technology.  It's so essential for China, for India, for other parts of the
developing world to increase their food supply to meet their burgeoning
populations; it's going to happen.  We can't be so arrogant to think that we
determine what sort of science is going to be done on a global basis.

We can be pleased with ourselves that, in the U.S., we've really been the
leaders in developing the new technology and implementing it safely in this
country.  We haven't had so much as a headache from any genetically modified
food, and I think that's because we thought about these things.  We go back to
something called the Asilomar Conference, back in the 1970s.  Back in the
1980s, I was involved in government committees that dealt with safety issues,
about what type of genetic engineering we could do, how we would move
genetically modified plants into the field.  We've been working on this stuff
since the technology was developed.  

In the U.S. it's been science-driven.  We have had great cooperation between
federal agencies.  But we've had the scientists who understand this and who
developed it, working on this all the way through.

So, people who say that regulatory agencies are giving this a free ride--are
they wrong?

I think we've got a very efficient regulatory system in the U.S.  I believe
it's because we've focused on science, and we've had the scientists  who
understand this, engaged from the beginning--back  from the 1970s.  The idea
that the U.S. government is just letting things fly through--I can guarantee
you that it's not the case.  The amount of time we've spent in the last two
years just dealing with regulatory issues to test our plant-based vaccines . .
. at times, as a scientist, I'm ready to pull my hair out, saying, "Why don't
these people just let us move ahead?  Let's get on with it."  We've got
something that can solve a world problem, and they want us to write another
form to prove that this is safe, etc.  

At the same time, as a rational scientist, I've seen this stuff evolving, and I
also know that we have to do this.  While I'm absolutely convinced that the
products we're testing for vaccines are safe, I know that perception is a
crucial issue.  If we ever did something that would cause the public to lose
confidence in what we're doing, what I've spent the last nine years on could
just collapse.  Then I'd really be frustrated.  So I want to make sure that we
do this right.  

In spite of how frustrated I get with government folks at some times, I'm so
pleased they're there, because I know that, in the U.S., we have this process
in place.  I can always refer back to it and say, "Yes, we've done all these
things, we've considered all these things, and it works."

Are you concerned about safety and ecological issues?

Well, I'm very concerned about the perception issues.  From a scientific
standpoint, I don't see anything inherently unsafe about what we're doing in
putting genes into, say, a tomato, that would cause a tomato to produce a
vaccine.  But I am extremely concerned that someone might say, "Oh, he's
putting hepatitis B in tomatoes."  Well, we're not, of course.  But it's so
easy to make an incorrect assumption about this.  So what we're trying to do is
build in safeguards right now.  

We have funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a project that I
think is pretty neat.  We are taking our tomatoes, which now contain genes for
a vaccine.  We're crossing them into other genetic varieties that are
male-sterile--that means they don't produce pollen.  Furthermore, with these
plants now, we're crossing them so that we will produce seedless tomatoes.   .
. . So we can grow tomatoes now--and I would expect this would be done in
greenhouses, because that's pretty standard production system--but there would
be no pollen, no seeds.  There's no way that this stuff can inadvertently
escape into the environment.  

It's going to add a little bit of cost to the production, because we'll have to
make cuttings of our tomatoes to get the next generation, rather than
collecting seeds.  But I believe that to prevent misperception is much more
important.  So even though I don't see the safety need for this, I firmly
believe that we should move in this direction, to give the public confidence
that our vaccine-containing tomatoes are never going to show up in the
marketplace in their grocery store.

In addition to using plants for food, what are the things we might use in
the future?

We're just at the tip of the iceberg of an enormous number of things that will
be technically possible to do with plants.  Some folks are talking about how
they are going to change the qualities of plants so that they'll be able to do
bio-remediation and clean up toxic sites.  To some extent, that is a viable
technology, and it's a sustainable way of dealing with complex issues.  We're
clearly going to use plants to produce more nutritious foods, or actually
medicines themselves, as I've talked about.  

I see that we're going to also very rapidly move into biological systems to
produce industrial precursor chemicals.  Growing switchgrass, for instance, a
very easy, high-productive grass to make chemicals, which will substitute for
petrochemicals coming out of the petrol industry.  Now that petroleum is
upwards from $30 a barrel, this sort of interest gets more interesting.

All of these things . . . don't have to depend on genetic modification.  But
what we're going to find is that more and more examples will appear where, if
you could switch off a gene or an enzyme in a plant, or you could add some new
component, it's going to make it much easier to do.  If we can just cut down
the amount of lignin in the poplar trees that we're growing for paper pulp to
make newspapers, and get less lignin contamination in streams and waterways,
that makes a lot of sense.  

As time goes on, as we try more and more systems over the next two decades,
we're going to see a gradual replacement to using the power of genetics, a
sustainable modification of a biological resource, as the much preferred avenue
over using cost-intensive industrial processes to do the same things.

What's the idea in taking a quality from one organism into another?

. . . An example that's used a lot was the flounder gene into tomatoes.  The
background of it, from a scientific standpoint, is that we have a good
understanding of why some fish can tolerate cold, like the flounder.  We'd like
to have some of our fruits and vegetables tolerate cold, like strawberries, so
they don't get nipped by an early frost, or by a late frost.  So scientists
have done experiments trying to mimic the cellular environment of a flounder in
a strawberry.

These are really excellent basic science studies, and I should emphasize,
they've never gone beyond that.  No one's ever started a commercial development
of anything from it.  But I think the public responds negatively to that.  My
perception, after talking just to family members and others, is that you can
almost see their nose wrinkling up, because there's something about a fishy
smell to a strawberry.  It's a mental image.  More than anything else, it's
just, "Ooh, I wouldn't like that."  It has nothing to do with the science, I
believe.  It's just the way we're wired in our brain.  A fish is supposed to
smell like a fish, and a strawberry like a strawberry.  And just superimposing
words on each other--we back off.  We don't like that.  . . .

People don't see the connection between humans and the tomato in terms of
the shared genetic heritage.  Do you think we have a big educational job
here?

Genetics is a really complex issue for public acceptance, because almost all
the things we think about with regard to genetics have been bad.  It somehow
goes back to Hitlerism and something that has a negative connotation.  When the
positive stories about genetics have come out, about increasing the yields of
our crops or making larger tomatoes or strawberries that taste good, that's
genetics.  But those stories aren't linked to genetics.  We just have the wrong
connection of negative images, and I think that persists at the present time.


How do you educate the public?  That's being a little bit arrogant on the
scientific standpoint.  They should know as much as we do.  I'd say it's more
like, how do you interest the public in genetics, causing the public to want to
inquire more and understand more about it?  And I think that's going to be one
of the positive outcomes of all this genetically modified food, because once
the initial potentially negative response occurs, I think we have an
intelligent public overall.  They want to know more about this.  

As they begin to understand that it's just a continuation of what we've been
doing in crop improvement for the last 100 years, it's Burpee's tomatoes, you
know, the old seed catalogues  that our parents used to buy.  It's just in a
new formulation.  Once people realize this, then I think all of this is going
to calm down.

We had this controversy in medical research in the 1970s, and most people
now accept that genetically engineered insulin is a good thing.  Do you think
we'll get to that stage with agriculture?  It's not controversial anymore in
medicine.

I don't think in general that the public is concerned about the use of
biotechnology to make products for medicine anymore.  Clearly, there are still
issues with regard to the origin of stem cells for treatment.  There will be
more controversies that will come along in human medicine, but they're not
focused on the process of biotechnology.  I believe that's because of the
profound benefits that we've seen from some of the new products.  I believe, as
a new generation of products appears in the agricultural side, as the public
sees the immediate benefit and value from these things, we will slide into this
same sort of acceptance.  

Essentially what we're going to move to, rather than focusing on how it was
done, we're going to focus on, "What's the outcome?  What is the material that
we're going to get in the end of the day?  Is it better for my health?  Is it
better for the way we treat the environment?  Is it good for the developing
world and for solving problems of global importance?"  . . .



wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 








Document Number: 450 


In the broader sense, biotechnology  is literally thousands of years old.
We've been modifying the world around us since we first realized we could make
such things as cheese and bread and, very importantly, brew alcohol.  . . . 

In the distant past?  Brewing alcohol thousands of years ago?
She is director of the Biotechnology and Life Sciences Informatics Program at the University of California,
Davis.  offers an overview of crossbreeding techniques over the centuries, how it compares with new GM technology, and explains how much of human genes already are shared with plants. She also addresses Europe's GM food fight, U.S. food safety and regulatory performance, and multinational companies' intellectual property rights on GM seeds. (Interview conducted August 2000.)

Yes.  They discovered shards of pottery outside Edinburgh that had the remains
of Neolithic beer.  . . . That pottery dated back to 6500 B.C.  We've also been
modifying plants and animals literally for thousands of years, through
selective breeding and culling of animals, for example, that didn't have the
traits we want. 

Why have we been modifying nature?  If we just took what was there, what
would we find?

If you took what was available in the wild, the population of the world would
be much smaller than it is.  The capability of generating sufficient food to
feed individuals from wild produce is very low.  You literally would still be a
hunter-gatherer society.  We wouldn't be settled; we definitely wouldn't have
cultivated agriculture; and we wouldn't have any of the technology we have
today.  Agriculture is the underpinning of advancement of mankind, because we
could now concentrate on doing more exciting things than just focusing on where
the next meal is coming from.

Comparing today's crops with their wild ancestors, what would we notice? . .
.

The ancestors of modern day corn or potatoes are so totally unlike the present
cultivars that they would be absolutely unrecognizable for most people.  There
are also obviously a lot of negative aspects with respect to the ancestors of
these plants, insofar as being able to supply sustenance.  They are very small.
They have poor yield.  They oftentimes taste pretty awful.  And in many
instances, actually, they can be quite toxic.  An example would be potatoes and
tomatoes.  They're all members of the deadly nightshade family.  . . . Over the
many years of breeding, we've managed to breed out most of these toxins.  . .
.

How does traditional crossbreeding work?

At first, it was a hit-and-miss process.  . . . You're looking for
characteristics in the parent plants that you want--traits like good yield,
good taste, a high level of disease and insect resistance.  And you're also
looking for something, of course, that you're going to be able to cultivate in
large fields, which is not always the case for many wild plants.  So what you
do is basically cross these plants to get the particular traits that you're
looking for.  It takes a long time to get rid of the traits you don't want,
because you are dealing with tens of thousands of genes, and you have no
control whatsoever at the molecular level.

So you take two plants and you just shuffle them?Yes.  You take the pollen from the male plant and put it onto the flowers of
the female plant to get the product, whether it be a seed or a fruit or
whatever. Then you backcross it to the parent plant that has the
characteristics you want. ...  

I'll give you an illustration.  . . . The normal tomato cultivar that's used in
processing is low in what's called soluble solids, which are the holy grail of
processing tomatoes.  There's a wild variety of tomato ... which ... has much
higher level of soluble solids.  This tomato, if you saw it, is really awful
looking.  It's small, it's green, it's pretty ugly tasting, it has poor yield,
and in fact it is a little toxic, because it's a member of the deadly
nightshade family.  It took 15 years of crossing with the good parent to
introduce the trait we wanted, which was the high soluble solids, and to get
rid of all the traits you didn't want.  Using biotechnology, this was done in
one step. ...  

What's new about so-called genetic modification? . . .

Over this century, we've been introducing an awful lot of technologies in
addition to the original selection and breeding.  I think a lot of people don't
realize this.  We've been using mutagenesis breeding since the middle part of
this century, and it's still done quite a lot.  . . . Several plants, in fact,
something like 1,800 cultivars, have been introduced using this mutagenesis
breeding approach.  . . . 

Another type of technology was introduced in the middle of this century--a
technology called wide cross, or embryo rescue.  In this instance, you're
crossing two plants that are not sexually compatible, that is, species that
would never interact in nature.  Basically you're using scientific tricks to go
in there and rescue that embryo that would normally be lost.  . . . It will
breed true after that.  . . . A large number of products come into the market
each year that are produced using these wide crosses.

These could never have been derived from traditional breeding?

These could not happen in nature.  Plus, you're also mixing huge numbers of
genes, tens of thousands of genes at the molecular level.  You have no clue
what you're doing.  With biotechnology, it's much more precise, much more
predictable, and much more controlled, because you're modifying single traits
or a couple of traits at a time.  So you know exactly what genes you're
modifying, and you know exactly what traits you're looking for.  

There's still, of course, the possibility of developing types of
characteristics that you don't want.  . . . The argument is often made that,
with using plant genetic engineering, you don't where the gene is inserted.
This is true using traditional breeding, too.  You don't know how these
chromosomes are going to mix.  But the technology is always evolving. Now we're
in the position of actually being able to use what's called site selection.
You can determine exactly where you're going to be able to put the gene in,
using some technological tricks.  So, in fact, this will make it even more
precise.  . . . 

Historically, genetic engineering was used for other applications, such as
medicine, and in making enzymes, and it didn't attract much attention.

About 200 million people worldwide have benefited from the products of
genetically engineered pharmaceuticals.   Diseases that were really
recalcitrant to treatment up until genetic engineering are now being treated
very effectively. For example, one of them is human growth hormone, which is
used to treat children who are suffering from human growth hormone deficiency.
Prior to genetic engineering, this had to actually be extracted from the
pituitary glands of corpses.  

Now, using genetic engineering, you're just making a copy of the gene, and
you're actually making human growth hormone in large fermenters.  It's easy to
purify, it's high effective, and it's much less expensive.  

Likewise, diabetes has been treated using genetically engineered insulin. Prior
to biotechnology, most insulin was produced using the pancreases of pigs.  Of
course, a lot of people were allergic to the product, because it wasn't human.
Now you make a copy of the human gene.  You put it into your microbe of choice
and grow it up again in fermenters.

Chymosin is another example.  About 90 percent of all cheese is produced now
using a genetically engineered enzyme.  Prior to that, you had to isolate this
enzyme from the forestomach of an unweaned calf.  . . . Using biotechnology,
you make a copy of that gene from the calf; you put it into your microbe of
choice; you grow it up in a fermenter.  It's actually secreted into the medium,
so it's very easy to make huge amounts of it.  It's also much easier to purify.
. . . It's much cheaper to keep microbes than to keep calves.  . . .

Detergents have about three or four different genetically engineered enzymes,
so that you can wash your clothes at room temperature.  

. . . In addition, there are enzymes that protect the quality of your clothes.
For example, there is a dye transfer enzyme that protects your clothes from
transfer of dyes. ...

But none of these things seemed to cause any fuss.

No, because nobody is even aware of the fact that they're in our products.
Indeed, there was no hullabaloo whatsoever when they were introduced, and they
have been continuously introduced over this last 10 years.  In fact, 90 percent
now of all industrial enzymes--used  in everything from food production to
leather tanning to paper pulping--use genetically  engineered enzymes.

The ones with the most publicity are input traits for farmers, such as
Roundup Ready traits and BT corn. What was the reason for doing this? . .
.

One, it's because that's what farmers wanted.  They wanted an alternative to
massive amounts of chemicals that are used today to produce our crop plants.
Farmers are incredibly productive, but it does come at a price.  There is a lot
of contamination of soils and groundwater with the excess use of chemicals that
are used to control weeds and insects and pests.  So this was an obvious area
that biotech could very quickly address issues of interest to the farming
community.  . . . 

At that point in time, the biotech companies weren't thinking specifically of
the consumer.  They really were thinking of the farmer.  The first traits that
are out there, the ones that have a high level of commercialization, or insect
resistance  . . . have been used by organic farmers for a long time to control
insects.   . . .

So this is a natural pesticide?

Yes.  . . . It's not toxic to you or to I or to animals, but in the guts of
these target insects, it turns into a toxin.  . . . Last year, 55 percent of
all soybeans were genetically engineered for another type of resistance gene,
and this was herbicide tolerance.  What this herbicide tolerance gene does is
allow a far more environmentally compatible herbicide--glyphosate--to be used
to control weeds. ... 

What kind of pathogens attack these corn and cotton crops?The main pathogen, especially for corn, is European corn borer.  That
particular pathogen comes up through the stalk of the plant itself.  It's very
difficult to get at, because it's literally inside the stalk. ... But with the
BT gene literally  the corn itself, when the larvae eat it, they are
immediately affected. 

If you look at the two plants--the control plant and the engineered plant--it's
like night and day.  The control plant is just completely infected with the
European corn borer.  The BT plant is completely clean. ... 

I've heard that 25 percent of the world's pesticide is for cotton.  Is that
accurate?

Yes, it is.  The amount of pesticides used in cotton is larger than pretty much
all other plants combined.  Again, I think people don't realize the intensity
of pest control, because it's so important.  . . .

But farmers still have to spray, even with BT cotton?

That's true using any of these systems.   I would never suggest biotech as a
panacea.  It's a very effective tool as part of an integrated pest management
program.  . . . 

A recent report from the U.S. National Food and Ag Council in Washington has
shown that, by using herbicide-tolerant soybeans,  farmers saved $280 million
in 1998.  This allowed them to use just a single herbicide.  They only had to
spray if the weeds emerged.  They didn't have to use multiple sprayings or
pre-sprayings.  Likewise, they didn't have to use complex cocktails of really
pretty nasty herbicides.  What about the argument that this is tampering with nature, playing God?
When you take a trait of a fish and put it into a strawberry, it seems to
people that something new is happening.

Yes.  . . . They were looking at taking a gene from the Arctic flounder to
increase the cold tolerance of tomato plants.  A similar type of gene exists in
plants as well. ...  It's a membrane protein that protects the integrity of the
cell, of the plant cell or the fish cell. ... 



It's not a fish gene.  Take an example.  There is a protein, 

cytochrome c, which is  a very important component of our respiratory
machinery.  Cytochrome c is identical in you, in a pea, in a cow.  It's the
absolute same gene. ... 

Tomatoes, flounders, humans.  People are not aware of how much is shared.
What percentage of our genome is common? . . .

If you're to look at it from a broad-based ballpark figure, we probably share
about 50 percent of our genes with plants, at the basic level.  You'll get
variations of everything from 20 percent to 80 percent, but it's in the middle
there somewhere.  With chimpanzees, we share 99.5 percent; there's a really
tiny level of difference there.  Much of the housekeeping genes--those that
help us breathe and metabolize food and live from day to day--are shared with
other organisms to a high degree.  

So from a genomic standpoint, it's not shocking to move . . .

No.  From a genomics point of view, it is not at all shocking, because you will
find these type of genes in nature being used in a similar way by all sorts of
different organisms.  This sharing has been going on for thousands of years.  .
. . 

What about food safety?  Some say that these new foods will be toxic or
allergenic. 

In fact, an enormous amount of research goes into every single product before
it even gets as far as the field, never mind before it gets to
commercialization.   It would be a very stupid company that would go ahead with
a product that may hurt its consumer.  That's not a very good business
strategy.  . . . 

For some, the bulk of the concern is ecological--gene migration, etc.
What's to stop some of these modifications getting to other plants?

With most of our crop plants, we actually are growing them in areas that are as
far away from where they originated.  However, of course, there are a few that
will have wild relatives in the area.  So the issue of potential gene flow--the
genetically engineered gene escaping into those wild relatives--has come up
quite a bit.  

First of all, we literally treat our crops like queens or princesses.  We
mollycoddle them.  We give them everything they want.  If they were to compete
in the wild, they would look very, very different.  For example, if you let
your cabbage grow wild, it would no longer be a nice, neat, compact green head.
It would be this long, stringy thing that you wouldn't dream of wanting to eat.
When these plants are competing in the wild, they're throwing off everything
that doesn't give them a selective advantage, because now they're competing.
. . . 

What about the buildup of resistance?

Of course, this is always a problem with biological systems.  Biological
systems are infinitely flexible and far smarter.  . . . They always seem to
manage to be very effective at overcoming whatever mechanism we use to try and
control them.  This has been the bane of the chemical industry forever.  You
constantly have to be one step ahead of the pest that you were controlling, as
it developed resistance.  And this is also a potential problem in biotech, if
you're going to be using single genes.  So several approaches are being taken
by researchers to address this area.

The first is one that's mandated by the EPA. Within these BT crop plantings,
you have to have at least 20 percent of the field planted to non-engineered
corn, for example.  By having this non-engineered corn, you're removing the
selective pressure.  So you're allowing these insects to grow up without
selection for resistance to BT.  So, effectively, what you're doing is diluting
out the resistance gene. ... 

Critics say that this is a case of corporations pushing things through too
fast with inadequate regulatory oversight.  What do you say?

I think the regulatory environment is very effective at looking at all the
potential problems, both from a consumer health point of view and an
environmental impact point of view.  The watchdogs in place at the USDA, EPA,
and FDA really look at all of the potential negative impacts of this
technology, and the checks and balances are in place to address this.

In many instances, the negative opinion of biotech is held because a lot of the
research and the commercialization, of course, are done by big multinationals.
It's as much a negative against the perception of  multinationals as it is a
fear of the science itself.  This notion that these multinationals are going to
hold on to the intellectual property components is really going to have a
negative impact on developing countries. ... 

Forgetting the corporations, regulatory agencies, and activist groups, how
would you characterize the position of agricultural scientists?

I think most agricultural scientists who are familiar with the science itself
and the technology itself are very supportive, seeing this as a new set of
tools that can be used to improve agricultural productivity, while minimizing
the impact on the environment.  . . . If you're going to look at increasing
productivity over the next 50 years, the demands on our soils and environment
are going to be enormous to be able to meet the world demands for these food.


If we're not going to resort to putting our national parks under the plow or
cutting down rainforest, we're going to have to increase productivity on the
land that's available right now.  We're going to have to be able to use
marginal soils that you can't use right now because of, for example, heavy
metal contamination, and because  of other environmental stressors, like
drought and cold and heat and high salt.  Using biotech, you can actually
develop crops that can grow in all of those types of severe high-stress
environments.  Without biotech, you couldn't do it.  . . . 

What is the future, the potential of this technology? ... 

There's an incredible probability of being able to use this technology to do
things you could never do in nature, for example, like producing nutriceuticals
in plants, therapeutics and vaccines.  For example, right now a company down
the road here in Vacaville, Large Scale Biology, is engineering tobacco plants
. . . to produce anti-cancer agents.  So now instead of 

In another example, Dr. Arntzen at the Boyce Thompson Institute is introducing
genes for vaccines against diseases that are really prevalent in developing
countries, like hepatitis B and cholera.  Right now he's producing these
vaccines in potatoes.  . . .  



These are edible vaccines.  Chewing on raw potato isn't exactly the most
palatable, but he's going to put these genes into bananas, so you're actually
going to be able to give these children bananas and vaccinate them against
cholera and hepatitis B.  Now, these will be controlled as medicines.  It's not
like you'll be able to grow your banana plant in your back yard and go out and
vaccinate yourself.  But it's an incredible way to be able to deliver these,
especially in countries where you can't maintain the cold chain, where
refrigeration is a problem.  . . .

Over the last few years, things have really gotten strained in
Europe.

I've seen the evolution, of the attitudes over there.  When I was over there
originally in 1993, 1994, it was really interesting.  When I went into Safeway
and Sainsbury's, I saw genetically engineered products on the shelves.  I saw a
can of tomato paste produced using a similar technology that Calgene used to
produced their Flavor-Saver tomato.  But, in fact, this was used to produce
processing tomatoes.  In addition to allowing the tomato to stay on the vine
longer, it actually built up the soluble solids and the flavors--all the things
you want in a tomato.  And the company, Zeneca, clearly labeled on the can,
"This product is produced using genetically engineered tomatoes grown in
California."  The tin was a little bigger than a normal tin, cost less, and it
was literally flying off the shelves.  People had no problem whatsoever with
buying it. 

But then mad cow disease struck and suddenly the whole country--in fact, the
whole continent--basically said, "Well, who's minding the shop?  Who's
protecting us?"  Mad cow disease, of course, had nothing to do with
biotechnology at all.  It just raised people's awareness. ... They really began
to say, "Hey, we're being left wide open here.  We don't have a regulatory
authority we can trust." . . . Perception is everything.  There was a major
backlash against all technology, and biotechnology got caught up in that whole
furor.   

There were, of course, several other issues and agendas--some hidden, some not
so hidden.  I remember one time asking a particular individual who's with the
group Genetic Concern, "If I could prove to you on every single count the
safety of this technology, both from a consumer perspective and from a
environmental perspective, would you accept it?"  And the individual said, "No,
because it's an American technology that's benefiting Midwest farmers.  Why
should we take any of the risks?" . . .

In Europe, they had scientific review panels, which said similar things as
were said here.  But in the balance, they got ignored, didn't they?

Yes.  Unfortunately, the science was ignored.  I'm quite familiar with many of
the scientists there, who were very frustrated by the fact that the reports and
recommendations that they put forward literally were ignored in favor of a
knee-jerk response to public opinion.  . . . There were some very loud groups
with a lot of rhetoric and a lot of time on their hands, and they were able to
put forward alternative views, even though those particular views were not
founded in science.

They stick to the idea that, although we've been modifying foods for
thousands of years, we're going to treat one process differently.  Is that
right

That's a complete departure, both from the original intent of regulations on
the U.S., and indeed on the European side, where the focus up until now had
been on the product, not the process by which it's produced.  If you look at a
package of sausages, it doesn't say, "This was produced using extrusion
processes."  Most people would never want to see how sausages are produced.  .
. . Agricultural practices or processing practices have never been a
requirement of labeling.  And now suddenly they are, which is a total departure
from the way regulations have been put into place on both sides of the
Atlantic.

So now they're singling out a particular process.  If it's produced using
recombinant . . .

Yes.  If it's produced using recombinant DNA technology, then you're required
to label it.  And there is a threshold level of 1 percent.  This decision, of
course, is made at a parliament level.  It had little input from the
scientists, because every scientist will tell you that it's impossible to
actually enforce those regulations because the type of tests that are out there
are notoriously inaccurate.  . . . [Researchers at] KPMG ... determined that
the overall costs of ... testing will put between 5 to 15 percent of cost that
will be passed on to the consumer, on all of these products.  Effectively, what
you're doing is imposing a tax on a technology that in fact is reducing
environmental impact and potentially increasing the healthfulness and safety of
our food. ...

Some of that fear of genetically modified food has spread to the U.S.  Some
individual manufacturers have been targeted.  What's happened for them?

There has been a very effective writing campaign to the food processors and
food manufacturers, because they are obviously the middlemen.  They're the
individuals who take the product from the producers, the farmers, and make it
available to grocery stores.  They feel they're in a very vulnerable position.
. . . Gerber, which is owned by Novartis, which has a huge focus on using
biotechnology in crop agriculture, decided that it's not going to use any
products of a recombinant DNA technology in its baby food. ... 

But purely from a food safety point of view, the raw material would be in
better shape if it was genetically modified, wouldn't it?

Yes, because you're not going to have the contaminants in there that you would
have if you're not controlling them.  The decision by Gerber had little, in
fact, had nothing, to do with science.  It had everything to do with public
perception.  . . .



The president of Frito-Lay happened to be visiting Europe and became aware of
the surge of anti-biotech feeling there, and called back and said, "We're
putting an announcement out that we're not using any GMOs."  Now, what they
were focusing on was GMO potatoes.  They're still using corn oil, which is
produced from GMOs.  . . . 

Can you imagine a scenario where things would be held back, where there
would be a rapid change in consumer feeling?

The only thing I could see that would do that is if there was some devastating
problem out there.  But that's interesting, because you've seen that happen
with other products, where food contamination has been an issue, and people
have died because of contamination.  With biotech products there hasn't been
one incident.  There's not been one negative instance from a biotech product in
25 years of research.  Any problems have been caught really early.  . . .

What about voluntary versus mandatory labeling?

Right now, as regulations stand, all food products that are approved by the FDA
do not require mandatory labeling, because what they focus on is the product,
not the process by which it was produced.  This particular stance, in fact, was
challenged in a number of lawsuits.  The one that had the highest profile was
the Ben & Jerry lawsuit some years ago in Vermont, where they were looking
at labeling milk produced from cows that had been treated with BST.  The judge
in that instance said, "If you were going to focus on labeling purely with the
notion of satisfying consumers' right to know, you'd have encyclopedias
attached to every single bottle of milk that's up there," and said that this
was not sufficient reason to demand labeling.  . . . 

There's such a huge public swelling of demand.  . . . So, from the companies'
point of view, it might be of value to these companies, as part of a public
relations effort, to say, "We will voluntarily label," so  have
control over what they're going to label.  There are a lot of problems with
doing that too.  . . . Every single term that you use is value-laden, and it's
really difficult to decide what is the most effective label that will inform
people as opposed to scare them.   . . . 

Some environmental groups argue for a return to another way of life.  "We
have enough food.  We just need to distribute it." They're not moved by your
environmental arguments, and they're trying to escape from your Third World
developing country arguments.

It would be wonderful if we could all live in a bucolic Turner chocolate-box
environment, where we all are back working on the earth, looking like a scene
from American Gothic.  But that's not a reality.  . . . The reality is, if
you're going to look at the productivity that you could achieve by going back
to zero-input agriculture, versus what you can achieve using biotech means,
they just do not balance up.  The costs would literally skyrocket.  You can
even see that today, with the cost of organic produce.   . . .

I would like to reiterate, I have no problem with organic produce whatsoever.
It is an alternative way of producing crops.  However, it is also an
alternative way that comes at a cost.  In many instances, it really is the
affluent who can afford the products of organic produce.  For many instances,
people living in inner cities would not be able to afford to pay the amount
that's necessary to be able to make organic farming a viable solution for all
agriculture.  . . . 

Poor farmers in developing countries are organic farmers, and they don't
want to be.

It's very difficult for them.  I always like to quote a researcher from Kenya.
Florence Wambugu has said that the real advantage of biotech is that it's
package technology in the seed.  You don't have to teach these farmers new
culture practices.  You don't have to get them to completely change the way
they do farming.  You just give them a seed, and that increases productivity in
that seed itself.  She said that for years, people have tried to change
cultural practices of these farmers, and it just hasn't worked.  It has been a
complete failure, because you have to modify infrastructure, you have to
re-educate them as to how to modify their farming practices themselves. 

But with biotech, the technology is in a seed.  All you have to do is give them
the seed.   At this stage, about 40 different countries are capable of
producing these biotech products.  They don't have to depend on the U.S. or
First World countries to provide them with this technology.

If they succeed in growing crops where they haven't before, that will
inevitably change those countries.

The complexities of food distribution are enormous.  They're affected by
politics, by local conflict, by so many other considerations.   I would never
suggest that biotech is going to be the answer to all of this.  You are going
to have to deal with the economic and political realities in the regions
themselves.  However, as I said, the advantage of biotech is that it can help
alleviate the situation.  . . . It definitely would be able to provide the
farmer with an alternative way of getting the nutritional requirements at a
sufficient level with minimum impact on the environment.  This, to me, is one
of the big advantages of biotechnology insofar as developing countries are
concerned.  . . .

Do you think some of the criticism of genetically modified foods has to do
with an issue of ownership as well?

Yes.  The whole focus on multinational corporations gaining a foothold or
gaining control of intellectual property is one of the big components, without
question, too.  . . . To give you an example, hybrid corn.  Hybrid corn has
been in existence for 50 years.  It's accepted the world over as a way of
producing vigorous corn . . . and it has been controlled by seed companies for
50 years.  

There's an interesting quote by a food scientist from 1940, who basically said,
"U.S. corporations are going to destroy agriculture the world over, because
they have this ownership of this new hybrid corn."  Of course, that hasn't
happened.  Everybody buys hybrid corn.  So I really think, if you look at
history, you do see the value--in fact, the necessity--of  having an exclusive
right to use a technology over a period of time, to be able to recoup the costs
of developing that technology.  Then it goes into the public domain.  . . .




wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 








Document Number: 1300 
Why is the Union of Concerned Scientists interested in agricultural
biotechnology?

Our point of view is that we're skeptical of many of the benefits.  We're
worried about the uncertainties  and the risks.  This leads us to believe that
for the most part these products will not be useful in a sustainable
agriculture.  Moreover, because they may present risks, they should be
carefully regulated.  That, then, leads us to do a considerable amount of work
urging the three agencies involved--the Food and Drug Administration, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency--to improve
their regulatory schemes.


A senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, she talks
about why bioengineered plants present a new kind of uncertainty in
crossbreeding and the lack of substantive testing to date.   also discusses
why U.S. regulatory agencies seem satisfied with this new technology and the
difference between genetic engineering for medicines vs. for food.(Interview conducted October  2000.) 
But you're not saying that GM crops are inherently more dangerous than
traditional crops?

No.  We're not opposed to genetically engineered crops across the board.  We do
see this as a powerful new technology.  This is where we part company with a
lot of agricultural scientists, who see this as nothing more than an extension
of traditional breeding.  . . .

With traditional crossbreeding, you also introduce genes and have
uncertainties as to how those genes will act.

You have a different sort of uncertainty with genetically engineered crops--at
least that's what I'm told by ecological genetics folks.  With traditional
breeding, you may be moving segments of chromosomes, large pieces of DNA, but
it's essentially within the same genome makeup, the same chromosomal makeup.
What  happen with the genetic engineering is that these genes are
inserted randomly, haphazardly.  Contrary to what the industry says, it's not a
precise thing. 

In genetically modified organisms, are genes inserted more haphazardly than
in crossbreeding?

Yes, because with crossbreeding, there is a particular chromosome that gets
exchanged.  Occasionally there may be some inversions.  But what happens in
gene splicing is that these genes go in haphazardly.  The engineers can't tell
you where the genes go.  They may lodge in other genes.  That is, they may
interrupt other series of gene functions.  Now, I think it is possible that we may find out, once we've gathered a lot of
data, that in fact there may not be a lot of unexpected changes.  I don't know.
My goal is to have the data that say that these crops are as safe as
traditionally bred ones, and not operate on the  that they
are.   . . . The government and the industry have been too eager to assume that
these plants, these crops, are substantially equivalent to existing ones.  . .
. But I don't think that they have done the kind of testing that a lot of us
would want, to really establish the substantial equivalence.

I can understand why industry and government have taken this route.  For many
years, they have been successful in reversing the burden of proof.  The
industry is not forced to prove relative safety.  Rather, the burden of proof
is on people like us to show that there's some risk.  . . .  

The industry claims they went to FDA in 1992 and worked with them and asked
them to regulate them, and that they've done this voluntarily. . . .

My sense is that industry did not want to be regulated very much.  They wanted
to be regulated a little bit, so that they would have some protection.  Then
they could say, "Well, we did everything the government wanted." 

Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, there were no regulations. . .
.

But there could have been a choice.  In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration
produced a policy that it had been working on for many years.  In that policy,
it said, "We will treat them, for the most part, as substantially equivalent.
Only under certain circumstances will we add any required regulatory
mechanisms."  

Thousands of people commented and said, "This is not strong enough.  We want
labeling.  We want required food safety testing.  We want these to be treated
like chemical additives."  Well, the Food and Drug Administration ignored those
thousands of comments, and proceeded to treat these products really as ordinary
food, except under unusual circumstances.   As a result, there is only a
voluntary scheme.  The FDA has yet to require a single test of any foods on the
market.

The FDA's reasoning is that if they labeled GM, they'd have to label stuff
done by traditional crossbreeding.

I don't think so at all.  I think there's a very easy way to determine that
these products are genetically engineered.  You just label them as genetically
engineered.  It's like irradiated food.  That is labeled.  . . .  The FDA
continues to say that there are no safety issues associated with irradiation,
but they require that food be labeled as irradiated.  That's because there was
a great citizen outcry calling for labeling of irradiated food.  The FDA has
the power to require labeling if there is enough pressure to convince them to
do it.  It doesn't have to even be for safety.

Some labels are marketing standards, right?

Yes.  There are process-based labeling.  Certainly, irradiation is an example
of an FDA-imposed, process-based labeling.

The issue of labeling is separate from the research.  If you produced a new
product with traditional crossbreeding as opposed to with genetic engineering,
why would one require more regulation? If a tomato has been produced by
crossbreeding, you can call it a tomato.  But if a tomato has been produced by
adding a gene . . .

It's still a tomato, but it has a genetic additive, and it should be treated as
a tomato with a chemical additive.  . . . When I was at the Environmental
Protection Agency, we were trying to write rules that said that genetically
engineered microbes should be looked at differently under the Toxic Substances
Control Act.  The Reagan Administration and a lot of other folks were opposed
to that because they, too, bought into the idea that we should regulate the
product, not the process.  . . . 

Over the years, they lost that argument, because the process 
regulated in the United States. We do have this regulatory apparatus that is
directed at genetically engineered organisms.  And it means that the USDA
regulates the crops in a way it does not regulate traditional crops.

Our argument at the EPA was--and my argument is--that, as a general matter,
this is a new technology.  It is a technology that brings with it a significant
amount of uncertainty.  It hasn't been applied.  It hasn't been monitored much
in the environment.  . . . To the extent that one has resources to try to
ensure safety to the environment and to public health, you direct those
resources at the things that cause the most uncertainty or present the most
risk.  

That's why I don't look at traditionally bred crops.  There may be some that
are troublesome, but as a general matter, they are not.  We know very little
about the long-term impacts of genetically engineered food and they should be
subject to more scrutiny.  . . .  

We've accepted genetic engineering in other aspects of life--insulin,
medical applications.  We don't appear to have a debate anymore about
it.Yes.  Well, the difference to me is that the people who use the genetically
engineered pharmaceuticals are people who profit from it.  They take the risks,
but they profit directly from the genetically engineered insulin, for example.
In the food area, I don't think people see that they're gaining anything.  And
they're being asked to take risks that they don't even know about.  The people
who profit really are not the people taking the risk. 

I think there's a sense that big corporate agribusiness is once again telling
us that one of their products is good for us.  In a June 1954, 
magazine, there's a beautiful color ad that says, "DDT is good for me."  It
shows a woman oh-so-excited,  and it says, "DDT is good for the household.
It's good for the farm.  It's good for everything."  So if you just replace
that with, "Biotechnology is good for me," see, these same people who once told
us that pesticides were good for us are now saying, "Well, those pesticides,
they're dangerous.  But you take these biotech products.  They're much safer."
I think there's more cynicism and more skepticism that agribusiness  is telling
us really what's good for us.

On the other hand, it's argued that biotechnology has such enormous
potential that what you're seeing now is just the beginning of the technology.
. . .

Yes, and that may change people's minds.  I wish we could know that these
genetically engineered crops are being subject to sufficient scrutiny to
separate the safe from the risky.  And I wish that they were labeled.  You've
heard industry say, for example, that there is no evidence that these foods are
harmful.  After all, people in the United States have been eating them for
several years now.  . . . They're now saying, "Well, there's no evidence of
harm." . . . How would we know if someone had gotten ill from genetically
engineered food, if it's not labeled? . . . 

Are you saying that, until it's labeled, it can't be tracked?

Yes, that's right.  . . . The absence of evidence is not absence of harm.  Look
at the fact that we're not able to track whether there've been any problems,
and the fact that there are very few papers in the published literature on the
safety of genetically engineered food for human consumption.  It doesn't lead
to great confidence in that statement that we have no evidence of harm.

How do you deal with the fact that the regulatory agencies seem on board
with the technology?

I think it has to do with dollars.  As far as universities are concerned, this
is the gravy train.  They can have patents.  They can get money from big
agribusiness.   They're getting support for their research that they're not
getting from the land grant colleges themselves.  . . . Now, in terms of
government, I think there's been a huge lobbying over the last 15 years by
agribusiness for acceptance of this technology and for light regulation of this
technology.

People in the regulatory agencies think regulation here is vastly superior
to elsewhere in the world.  . . . I'm sure they would not agree that it was
lightly regulated. lightly regulated.  Just because you have a meager regulatory
scheme and it's better than anyplace else in the world, we shouldn't improve
it?  People might say that about tobacco: "Well, if we had far less regulation
of tobacco, we'd still be better than most places in the world."  Should we
stop, then? . . . 

Ranking food safety issues, is the risk of allergenicity top of the
list?

That's what I've heard food scientists say.  And I believe that. . . . Marion
Nestle wrote an editorial for the New England Journal of Medicine a few
years ago, in which she said that there were three kinds of allergens--known
allergens, uncommon allergens, and unknown allergens.  The known allergens are
the seven common allergens that FDA would regulate more stringently if they
were put into food. The uncommon allergens . . . would not be regulated.  And
then there are the unknown allergens.  With genetically engineered foods, we're
putting proteins from a lot of organisms that we don't typically eat--like
petunias, like soil organisms--and there could be some new allergens that are
unknown.  Again, we can't trace the effects because the food is not labeled.

There are allergen tests.  But you don't think they're very good?

Allergenicity testing is pretty primitive.  As a matter of fact, that is a
criticism that we have of the government.  They've had 10 years now in which
they have said allergenicity is likely to be the biggest problem, and they have
done very little to advance the science of predicting allergenicity.

Are there any other food safety concerns?  What about toxicity?

The FDA produced a document in 1992, in which it laid out some of the possible
food safety issues.  One was allergenicity.  One was that new toxicants could
be produced, as a result of activating or changing some pathway.  They didn't
think it would happen often--and I don't think it will either--but that's a
possibility.  The FDA also said that nutrients could be diminished, and that
antibiotic resistance markers might contribute to the background of antibiotic
resistance.   . . .

There are some possible positive effects of genetically modified foods that
have gotten zero publicity: fungal things, fumonisins and aflotoxins.  That
would be on the other side of the ledger.  . . . As for environmental effects,
you can use less pesticides, or have a more targeted effect.

The context in which I talk about this is the context of advocating for
sustainable agriculture.  We want the U.S. agriculture production to be
sustainable, that is, one that is less harmful to the environment than what we
have now.  . . . I would certainly agree that the BT cotton in many places in
the South looks to have a good effect on reducing pesticides.   I don't want to
give that a blanket approval, because it's not quite clear to me what the level
of pesticide use would have been without BT cotton.  . . . 

I would say that certainly the reduction in pesticide use is good.  . . . But
if I'm interested in long-term sustainable methods, I don't think the BT cotton
passes.  Resistance is going to develop because of the vast use of the BT
toxin.  Insects are going to develop resistance.  So not only will this be a
short-term product, but organic growers will also have lost BT sprays.

So it's partly that they might develop resistance, but mainly because
they're using a resource of organic growers?

We want people to farm differently, that is, to adopt long-term sustainable
methods that would require crop rotation, that would require perhaps
inter-cropping--some way to keep pests under control without this constant use
of pesticide after pesticide.  . . . I don't want to imply that every farmer is
free out here to convert to sustainable methods.  It's not that simple.  It
takes changes in farm policy.  And USDA has come a ways in appreciating
sustainable agriculture.  But we don't see that biotechnology is getting us to
sustainable agriculture.So your primary concern is resistance management?  Is that your main
point?

It is.  But with the BT corn, we are worried about the effect on monarchs and
other butterflies.  Now, of course, the argument is that this is not as bad as
the synthetic pesticides.   Well, I don't think it is.  But do we really want
to replace one technology that is harmful to the environment with another
technology that's harmful to the environment?  . . .

But genetically modified crops are arguably much less harmful to the
environment. . . .

It depends on where you want to compromise.  There's another issue here with
corporate control of the food supply.  . . . We're headed toward a time when
there will be just a few corporations that control the food supply from the
farm to the plate.  And that is not in the best interest of a strong world
economy.  It's not in the best interests ultimately of healthy food and healthy
people.  . . . 

Some say the greatest beneficiaries of this technology will be people in the
developing world.  What do you make of these arguments?

I think it's a ploy.  It's a ploy to convince relatively well-to-do people in
the industrialized world to approve of this technology.  It's playing on the
guilt of relatively well-off people, that somehow if they don't approve of this
technology by agreeing to buy the products, the result will be people dying of
starvation in the developing world.

You don't believe this technology can help people in the developing
world?

The biggest problem behind hungry people is lack of money.  It's not
technology.  There's plenty of food right now, and there're people starving.
Putting vitamin A in rice, making high-protein corn--perhaps they have some
value.  But the better approach would be that people could buy food that would
give a well-balanced diet, instead of having to pile all the nutrients into one
type of food or two types of food.  So I don't think we ought to be deluded.
Technology is not the obstacle to feeding people.  It's poverty.  . . . 

But vitamin A rice might have some value in areas where there's
blindness.

Well, that is more complicated than  magazine's cover portrayed.  I
think that the best solution would be to help people have the wherewithal to
have a well-balanced diet.

How about the idea of edible vaccines?  Do you not see any benefit?

I don't think it's as easy.  These are ideas that people have, and I think they
have noble purposes.  I think that the problems are more complicated.  For
example, how are you going to be sure, say, if an edible vaccine is in bananas,
that someone doesn't overdose on vaccines by eating too many bananas?  . . . I
don't mean to be disparaging of all these scientists who have really noble
goals.  But I do see people perhaps overlooking more practical but less
sensational solutions to very important problems.  . . . It seems the sexy
thing to do--to apply biotechnology to a range of problems, without really
considering that there may be simple, practical, feasible alternatives.




wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 








Document Number: 1934 
Why has Greenpeace chosen to make this a signature issue?

We feel that this is a mass genetic experiment that's going on in our
environment and in our diets.  These genetically engineered foods have never
been subject to long-term testing, and yet there are millions of acres of them
growing in the United States and pervading the food system here.  What we're
most concerned about, obviously, is the environmental risk.  . . . Nobody knows
what the consequences are going to be, and the untoward side effects will be
irreversible.  . . .

As a campaign, it's been astonishingly successful, first in Europe.  What's
the state of play over there?
A genetic engineering specialist with Greenpeace,  criticizes U.S. regulatory
agencies' performance in monitoring GM foods, explains why GM technology
deserves special scrutiny, points out the developing world is not unanimous in
accepting biotech food, and outlines why Greenpeace's main concern with GM
crops is the environmental risk. (Interview conducted October 2000.)


In Europe five years ago, genetic engineering was virtually unknown.  When the
first genetically engineered soybeans went from the United States into the
European food supply, consumers in Europe first became aware that this new
technology was entering their food system, and they had a lot of questions
about it.  . . . The most interesting thing about Europe is how quickly food
companies responded.  . . . Today, virtually every major food company in Europe
and every major supermarket in Europe has a policy of excluding the use of
genetically engineered ingredients. 

In terms of planting new GM crops, what's the situation there now?

As of spring of last year, Europe has a moratorium on new approvals of
genetically modified crops.  There is minor acreage of genetically engineered
corn growing in a couple of European countries.  But by and large, European
farmers have become very wary of this technology. ...[Editor's Note: In
February 2001, the European Union voted to end the ban on GM crops.  In its
place, Europe is setting up a  rigorous system to regulate, label and track
GMOs.]What about importing and labeling?

Since September of 1998, Europe has had mandatory labeling of genetically
engineered foods, and that goes for any foods that are produced in Europe or
imported into Europe.  Since Europe instituted labeling, numerous other
countries around the world have also done so--Australia and New Zealand, Japan,
Russia, and several other countries.  The U.S. is actually becoming one of the
few countries left that doesn't require labeling.

Do you think labeling is the death knell of this?

I would say that the biotech industry is scared to death of labeling.  In fact,
biotech industry representatives have said that putting a label on genetically
engineered foods is like putting a skull and crossbones on it.  They clearly
don't want people to know that their food is genetically modified.  

What about the state of the campaign in the U.S.?  This isn't a front-page
issue. . . .

Public awareness has increased, and I think the situation in the U.S. now is
very similar to the situation in Europe a year ago.  We have mass street
demonstrations against genetic engineering.  In Boston, the biotech industry
held its annual meeting, and over 3,000 people protested in the streets of
Boston outside that meeting.  In Seattle, genetic engineering was a big issue
at the WTO protests, where tens of thousands of people were protesting.  . . .
One of the biggest differences, I think, is that the press really picked up on
this in Europe and kept it front-page news.  Here, it sort of vacillates in
terms of the press coverage.

What's been your strategy here?

It's to push consumers to get in touch with food companies to pressure food
companies to take a stand.  Last year, we did some product testing.  We pulled
food products off the shelves and tested to see if they contained genetically
engineered material.  A Gerber baby food tested positive for genetically
engineered corn and soybeans.  We sent Gerber a letter and let them know that
Greenpeace had concerns about genetic engineering, and we thought consumers
would share those concerns.  Gerber didn't respond to us, so we decided to go
public with our findings.  

A few weeks later, Gerber announced that they would stop using genetically
engineered ingredients in their products.  . . . It doesn't take decades of
protests and leaflet writing.  What it takes is for these companies to fear
that they're going to lose a little bit of their market share, and then they
can react very quickly.

What about some other companies you've been involved with.  What about
Frito-Lay?

Frito-Lay appears to have moved pretty much on its own accord.  The  did a front-page story on genetic engineering a few months
back.  And they said in the story, "We talked to the top executives of a dozen
major food companies, and asked them, 'What can you tell us about your
company's policies on genetically engineered food?'"  None of the companies
would talk to the  about their policies.  It tells
you that, behind the scenes, they're scared of this issue. 

Many companies deny any downside of this technology, but they still don't
want to be identified with it.  What does that imply to you?

They know consumers are going to have concerns, and they're afraid they're
going to lose market share.  Most of the big U.S. food companies are in pretty
tight markets, fighting the organic and natural products industry, which is by
far the fastest growing segment of the food industry.  Organics are growing at
about 20 percent a year, while the food industry overall is growing at about
one or two percent a year.  They see that market share slipping away, and they
don't want to be identified as anything that's anti-natural, anti-organic.  . .
.

In your view, what have been the most significant negative occurrences? . .
.

Again, nobody really knows.  It's very difficult to trace, and there could be
things happening.  In the UK, for example, the nutritional authorities last
year reported a severe increase in allergic responses to soybean products.
Now, nobody's been able to trace that for certain to genetically engineered
soybeans.  But it's interesting that that came just a couple of years after the
widespread introduction of that product.  . . . 

A major turning point was a study from Cornell University showing the effects
of engineered corn pollen on monarch butterflies.  It was the first time, I
think, that the public had an image of what could be the consequences of
genetic engineering in a sort of a user-friendly, family-friendly butterfly,
which most Americans are very familiar with.  . . . 

Are you optimistic that we may get a change soon?

Absolutely.  The U.S. consumer is learning more and more about this, and is
showing more and more concern.  The recent scandal with Kraft shows that food
companies are starting to buckle.  Kraft's product turned up contaminated with
an illegal variety of genetically engineered corn.  Before the FDA ordered
anything, Kraft ordered a recall of the product, took it all off the shelves,
and went a step farther, putting out a policy statement calling for tighter
regulation on genetically engineered foods.  That was an extraordinary moment
where one food company stepped outside of the united front.  . . .

You're not interested in better regulation?  You'd like to just eliminate
this?

That's absolutely correct.  Greenpeace's policy calls for a ban on the release
of genetically engineered organisms into the environment.  We absolutely
support labeling, strict safety testing, and the right for people to know
what's in their food.  But those are minimal steps in the right direction.
What we really need to do is to stop releasing these organisms into the
environment.

So you're against field testing?

Absolutely.  A field test is a release into the environment.  . . .

How do you escape from the logical conundrum that the technology is
untested, yet you're not allowed to test it?

A lot of testing can go on in contained environments.  Greenpeace doesn't have
an objection to the technology of genetic engineering.  There are a lot of
appropriate uses of the technology already in contained environments.  For
example, a genetically engineered drug that's produced in the laboratory goes
through years of testing, and is then only prescribed to people who need it, by
a doctor who's qualified to prescribe it.  That's obviously a very different
situation than putting these organisms into the environment, and releasing them
without any testing.

Is it impossible in your framework to have this agricultural application of
biotech go ahead? . . .

In a contained environment like a lab or a greenhouse, some testing could
proceed.  The flip side of the question, though, really is, what kind of food
do we want?  What kind of farming do we want?  Survey after survey shows that
when people are asked if they'd rather eat food produced with toxic chemicals
and pesticides, food produced with genetic engineering, or food produced
organically, people choose organic food time after time, in survey after
survey.  . . . The USDA spends almost $2 billion a year in research and
development on agriculture.  Less than 1 percent of that money goes for
projects for organic farmers.  We've got our research and development
priorities skewed.  If we're going to talk about testing and development, why
don't we talk about developing the right kind of foods that people want to eat?
. . .

Unlike the rest of the world, we have very good regulatory agencies.  Polls
show that people trust them.  The reason you have less success here is that we
trust these agencies and they do a proper job.The polls actually show that this is a complete myth.  In fact, the American
public becomes just as wary about genetic engineering as anybody else, as soon
as they know it's going on.  What the government really has done in the U.S. is
collude with the biotech industry to make sure that the public is kept in the
dark about this technology.  FDA refused to require labeling of genetically
engineered foods, against the advice of its own scientists.   In 1992, the
majority opinion of the scientists in the agency was that genetic engineering
is different and should be regulated differently.  But the FDA put out what was
a political document, not a scientific document, which said that genetically
engineered foods are no different than natural foods, and therefore they don't
need to be labeled or regulated any differently.  The other agencies pretty
much fell in line with that approach.

That is a consensus view among most agricultural scientists.  That's not an
unusual view, is it?

No, I don't think it is.  But I do think that the scientists who point out the
inadequacies in that consensus view haven't been answered.  When scientists
bring up the issues of the difference between genetic engineering and breeding,
they're sort of brushed aside by proponents of the technology, who say, "Well,
maybe those are issues, but we haven't seen them happen yet."  Nobody's really
looking for them yet.  

There's not really much monitoring of this technology once it's released into
the environment or into the food supply.  Any epidemiologist will tell you, the
first rule of evidence is that evidence lacking is not lack of evidence.

What about the USDA in this issue?  Have they been  cheerleaders, or have
they been protecting our interest?

The USDA has had over 5,000 applications for field trials of genetically
engineered crops.  They've never denied a single application.  The agency will
tell you, "Oh yes, but 13 were withdrawn."  That's their idea of strict
regulation.  It's a joke.  The USDA has virtually no regulation.  Field trials
go on when a company simply sends them a letter and says, "We're conducting a
field trial."  And then the approval is granted.  

Normally you're on the same side as the EPA in environmental issues.  . . .
In this case, they stressed the profound environmental benefits of GM crops.
What's your relationship to the EPA in this? . . .

It's important for folks to realize that most of the genetically engineered
crops in the U.S. don't come under the EPA's purview.  They have very little to
do with regulating them at all.  But there is one category of crops that they
regulate, and in 1999, we sued the EPA with a coalition of organic farmers,
calling on the EPA to cancel their registration of these crops.  Organic
farmers are very concerned, because these crops are a major threat to organic
farming.  

The only natural pest control that organic farmers have is a spray called BT.
The biochem industry has now genetically engineered plants so that they will
produce BT as they grow, throughout the entire growing season, at a very high
dose.  All the entomologists, all the insect scientists, agree that this will
lead to insects rapidly developing resistance to BT.  And once insects develop
resistance, a farmer who's growing a biotech crop will just move back to a
toxic chemical.  An organic farmer who can no longer use BT sprays is out of
luck.

So the biotech industry is vandalizing a natural resource?

Absolutely.  That was the contention of our lawsuit, that the use of BT was a
public trust that should be safeguarded in perpetuity, and shouldn't be worn
down by the biotech industry in just five or ten years.

So you see this as a threat to organic farming?

Absolutely.  The entire biotech industry has clearly put out genetically
engineered crops as a direct assault on organic farming, partly because of the
BT crops, and also because of the issue of pollen drift.  The biotech industry
knows that their crops will contaminate neighboring fields.  . . .

Farmers have been among the first beneficiaries of BT crops.  A cotton
farmer uses less pesticides and grows better cotton.  He's saving his
environment.  How do you answer him?

I would say that he's the exception rather than the rule.  . . . Even the
biotech industry's own study on BT crops showed that, at best, cotton farmers
are seeing about a 12 percent decrease in chemical applications.  . . . Once
those insects that are resistant to BT evolve, you're going to be stuck going
back to that biotech company, either for more toxic chemicals, or for the next
generation of genetically engineered crops.  They're going to be more and more
costly, and will keep you more and more dependent.  

It's the same kind of treadmill that farmers have seen from the pesticide
industry for 50 years.  The average lifespan of an agri-chemical is about three
to five years.  Then nature evolves, the chemical doesn't work anymore, and
farmers have to go back to the company for the next greatest thing.  We've
already seen some of the signs of that same treadmill with genetic
engineering.

Some crop pathogens don't have conventional solutions, though.  Scientists
have genetically modified Hawaiian papaya that's totally resistant to the virus
that was destroying all of the crops. resistant to it, depending on who you talk to.

Take my word, for the sake of argument.  . . . Is that an exception?  This
is a technical fix that is impossible by any other known means.

I would say you're probably right.  This fix may be impossible by other
technical means.  But there are certainly ecological means.  What farmers
around the world have seen is that, when you plant mixed varieties, even just
two varieties instead of one, you'll see the spread of that disease slow down
incredibly.  The more varieties you plant, you tend to see the disease slow
down more and more. What tends to happen in nature is that a virus will infect
one variety, maybe two, but certainly not three or more.  That's the ecological
approach to that problem, which I think could be successful in the long run, as
opposed to a genetic fix, which may have a very short life. 

In this case, you have farmers who were ready to abandon this crop.  They
get a fix, but now they're unable to export the GM papaya to Japan.  Do you
feel guilt about that? . . .

What farmers have said to me, even very confrontational farmers, is that the
bottom line is that the customer is always right.  Farmers have said this to me
again and again.  If the customer doesn't want to eat genetically engineered
foods, then farmers really need to look for alternative approaches, and can do
so hand in hand with consumers.

But they say that you're scaring their customers into not wanting it--that
if you left their customers alone, they'd be fine.

If consumers are afraid of biotech foods, it's because the biotech industry put
these on our shelves without any notice and without labeling, and tried to slip
this into our food supply without any public participation.  If those farmers
are upset about that, I think they should be pointing the finger at the biotech
companies, who decided to expose us to this experiment without our consent.

Regarding the role of biotechnology in the developing world, advocacy groups
have accused the industry of cultural imperialism. How do you respond?

I think it's important that voices from the developing world are heard in this
debate.  We met with the Ethiopian ambassador to the biosafety protocol
negotiations, the international negotiations for regulating the trade of
genetically engineered foods.  He recently wrote a letter saying he believed
that it was immoral to use the weakness of one group to sell a technology to
another group.  Biotech foods are being sold to the American public and to the
European public on the backs of the developing world, with this image campaign
that we need this technology to feed the world.  . . .

Do you think this is a real challenge to anti-GM forces?  It's difficult to
go up against golden rice without seeming unsympathetic.

Sure.  That's why I say it's important to hear from the developing world.  At
the international negotiations for regulating biotech foods, the developing
world was virtually united against the United States.  The United States wanted
the free flow of genetically engineered foods around the world, and the
countries of Africa, of Asia, of Latin America wanted the right to say no to
imports of genetically engineered foods.  . . .

Some people in the developing world, scientists, are for it. The Rockefeller
Foundation is actively promoting this.  It's not a fringe view.  You have to
deal with this constituency, which is more sympathetic than Monsanto.

Monsanto and the biotech industry have used this as a public relations tool.
There are certainly voices from everywhere in the world who will be supportive
of biotechnology.  But by and large, when it came down to their governments'
representatives, the developing world was united in saying, "We want the right
to say no to this technology."  

What people who are concerned about this technology point out is that the
biggest barrier to bringing abundant food with any kind of new technology isn't
activists.  It's the companies who want to profit from making food for rich
people.  They don't make a big profit from selling food or giving food away.  .
. . 

We live in a world today where 800 million people a year are going hungry, in a
world that produces enough food for almost 9 billion people, yet we only have 6
billion people on the planet.  Why isn't that food being distributed more
equitably?  It's because people who can't afford to buy food simply aren't
being given it.  . . .

But people in these countries don't want to be just fed food.  They want to
grow their own.

In almost every country in the world, there is enough productive growth right
now to feed the population of that country.  But many countries where people
are going hungry are exporting food.  That's because food gets sold for a
profit.  It doesn't get given away.  And if people in that country can't afford
to buy it, it's going to be grown and exported.

Greenpeace's campaign is against the seed companies, regulatory agencies,
NAS, and a large proportion of agricultural scientists. How is it possible to
get as far as you do in your campaign without a scientific consensus behind
you?

. . . I think it's because of the track record of the biotech industry.  People
have heard for 50 years about chemical pollution, about toxins in our food,
about food scares.  They know instinctively . . . that the industrial food
system is not the right way to produce food.  That's why the organic sector is
the fastest growing sector of the food industry.  It's not because organic is
cheap and abundant.  . . . More and more people in every income group want to
be eating organic food.  We really think that's where the food industry is
going to have to go in the next few decades.

Do you think really it will go that way?  At the moment, it's practically
impossible to avoid GM food.  China supports it.  Isn't it already too
late?

It can be stopped, and it will be stopped, because people want to eat natural
food.  China's an interesting case, because Hong Kong recently called for
mandatory labeling.  The largest consumer group in China recently called for
mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.  So I think it's a country
that's actually very conflicted on this issue right now.  

As people become aware of it around the world, they will push for food that's
safe, that's produced organically, that's produced by farmers who they can
trust--food that's produced regionally and seasonally and in tune with nature,
rather than in this battle with nature.



Any food product that's produced with a crop developed through genetic
engineering.

Would you include genetically engineered enzymes, which are in all cheeses,
bread, sodas, beers?

For Greenpeace, enzymes get into a different area.  . . . It's not the same as
a crop that's released into the environment.  Yes, it should probably say
somewhere on the label that the product was produced using genetically
engineered enzymes.  We basically have called for a sort of a two-tiered
approach to labeling.  An enzyme could be labeled as part of the ingredient
list.  But something that's produced from a genetically engineered crop should
be clearly and prominently displayed on the front of the label.  . . . 

Would an animal that had fed on genetically modified soybeans be
labeled?

Yes, I think that should be labeled as well.

That doesn't seem to me to make sense from a food safety point of
view.

Our main concern is the environmental risk of the technology.  In the U.S.,
consumer polls have shown that one of the main concerns people have when they
buy any product is the environmental stewardship behind that product.  That's
something that consumers have a right to know, just as they have a right to
know about food safety.  And there are lots of labels on food now that have
nothing to do with food safety.  "No salt" is not a safety claim, but you see
that on dozens of products.  Orange juice "from concentrate."  The label "from
concentrate" is required by the FDA.  That has nothing to do with safety.
That's simply a process label.  This would be another process label.   . . .
Is there no risk to Greenpeace on taking an issue like this?  It's
frivolous, not science-based.  Might this backfire?  It drums up membership,
but it doesn't go to the heart of the organization.

I would say this does go to the heart of the organization.  Is this a risk for
Greenpeace?  Yes, absolutely it is.  When Greenpeace started a campaign in the
early days against whaling, that was a big risk for the organization.  The
international community, the American public, didn't have a consciousness about
stopping whaling.  But Greenpeace took that issue on, and today, almost 30
years later, virtually the entire international community has united, calling
for a ban on commercial whaling.  

That's been the history of Greenpeace since the beginning, and I think that's
been the history of activism in this country since the days of the American
Revolution.  Activists who call for social change are a small minority opinion,
usually, at the beginning.  But pushing for change, taking risks for change,
can move public opinion until it becomes the majority. 




wheat photograph �h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright �2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova










Document Number: 6204


If you answered No the first time:
What if you knew that proponents assert that GM foods will promise many health benefits?
Advocates hold that GM foods will leave traditional crops in the dust. They will have longer shelf life. They will be better for us, with some products already in the works benefiting our waistlines (low-calorie sugar beets and oils with lower saturated fat content, for example) and others bearing higher nutritional content (high-fiber corn and high-starch potatoes). And they will be safer to eat. GM corn has lower fungal toxin content than non-GM corn, and farmers typically produce GM crops using fewer pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
GM foods will have even greater benefits for the world's poor, supporters state. In developing countries, malnutrition is a grave problem, because people often have to rely on a single staple, such as rice, that on its own doesn't supply sufficient nutrients. Food scientists hope to genetically modify crops to add vitamins and minerals. One of the most promising is "golden rice," which can stimulate our bodies to generate vitamin A. In the developing world, vitamin-A deficiency kills two million children each year, and another 500,000 become permanently blind.

Eventually GM plants will serve as environmentally friendly 'factories' that mass-produce useful substances such as pharmaceuticals. Scientists are hard at work, for instance, trying to genetically add vaccines to tomatoes or bananas. Traditional vaccines are costly to manufacture and require specialized storage not always available in developing countries. "Eatable vaccines," developers say, will be easier to ship, store, and administer.

"The benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition."
--World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety [4]

"Biotechnology will be a crucial part of expanding agricultural productivity in the 21st century. If safely deployed, it could be a tremendous help in meeting the challenge of feeding an additional three billion human beings, 95 percent of them in the poor developing countries, on the same amount of land and water currently available."
--Ismail Serageldin, The World Bank [5]

"It is possible to kill someone with kindness, literally. That could be the result of the well-meaning but extremely misguided attempts by European and North American groups that are advising Africans to be wary of agricultural biotechnology....If we take their alarmist warnings to heart, millions of Africans will suffer and possibly die. Agricultural biotechnology...holds great promise for Africa and other areas of the world where circumstances such as poverty and poor growing conditions make farming difficult."
--Hassan Adamu, Nigeria's minister of agriculture and rural development [6]












Document Number: 880

If you answered No the second time:
What if you knew that GM patrons insist that farmers will reap great benefits from biotechnology?
Insect pests cause stupendous crop losses every year, resulting in harsh financial setbacks for farmers. With crops genetically engineered to resist pests, GM proponents say, growers can avoid such losses and bring their produce to market at less cost. By the same token, weeds rob crops of vital nutrients. To do away with them, farmers often have to spray large amounts of weed killers, a time-consuming and expensive process. With, say, GM soybeans that are resistant to a single broad-spectrum herbicide, farmers only need to use a single weed killer rather than multiple kinds, and they may have to make only a single application rather than several.
Using a single broad-spectrum herbicide can also help reduce land degradation, advocates say, by enabling farmers to optimize their use of "no-till" agriculture. Leaving dead plants where they lie rather than plowing them into the ground can reduce soil erosion by 70 percent, industry officials claim. Soil erosion is a serious global problem, with farmers losing an estimated 25 billion tons of topsoil through runoff and wind every year.

Scientists are developing GM technologies to help farmers battle other scourges as well. To reduce losses from sudden frosts, which can kill young plants, geneticists have experimented with putting an antifreeze gene into tomato plants. To help crops cope with disease, researchers are trying to genetically confer disease resistance to food plants. And to help farmers in an increasingly land-hungry world sow crops on marginal land, agricultural scientists are working to craft plants that are drought- and salt-tolerant.

Perhaps most important, GM crops will improve harvests, backers profess. Monsanto reports that yields from GM crops of corn, cotton, and soybeans in the U.S. have increased by between 5 and 8 percent. This compares to increases of 1 to 2 percent expected from new conventional varieties. Ultimately, some proponents warrant, biotech could triple crop yields without requiring any additional farmland.

"We'll soon be able to produce more crops with less pesticide, less fuel, less fertilizer, fewer trips over the field. We'll produce much more with much less....A couple of years ago I wouldn't have predicted this. But I now think that within a decade it will be possible to have crops that can withstand the stresses of early spring and late fall to such an extent that farmers could plant two crops of corn, soybeans, or wheat each year."
--Dr. Ray Bressan, professor of horticulture and director of the Center for Plant Environmental Stress Physiology, Purdue University [10]

"While we in the Northern Hemisphere can afford to pick and choose how our food is produced and may for the moment eschew GM, there are many people -- perhaps a billion worldwide -- who are in a different position. The overwhelming message from developing countries at [a 2000 conference on GM food safety in Edinburgh, Scotland] can be paraphrased as: 'We would like to be like you, with plenty of food for our people. We need every tool at our disposal to achieve this, including biotechnology, which will allow us to grow things without costly chemicals and irrigation systems that we cannot afford. We do not want to be dependent on aid or redistribution, we want to be in control of our destinies.'"
--Sir John Krebs, chairman of Britain's Food Standards Agency [11]

"I am particularly alarmed by those who seek to deny small-scale farmers of the Third World -- and especially those in sub-Saharan Africa -- access to the improved seeds, fertilizers and crop protection chemicals that have allowed the affluent nations the luxury of plentiful and inexpensive foodstuffs....While the affluent nations can certainly afford to pay more for food produced by the so-called organic methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low-income, food-deficit nations cannot."
--Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel-Prize-winning agriculturalist and father of the Green Revolution [12]










Document Number: 1386
If you answered No the third time:
What if you knew that advocates maintain that GM technology will help the environment?
In the U.S. alone, farmers spray, spread, and otherwise administer more than 970 million tons of insect- and plant-killers every year. These pose threats to the environment. Pesticide residues linger on crops and in soil, find their way into the guts of wildlife that eat contaminated foliage, and leach into groundwater and wash into streams.
If a crop boasts its own ability to resist invertebrate predators, then farmers can use far fewer chemicals. In 1999, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, cotton farmers in states raising significant amounts of cotton genetically modified to withstand pests sprayed 21 percent less insecticide -- that is, they sprayed one to two times rather than eight to ten.

Similarly, endorsers profess that farmers raising crops bearing herbicide resistance -- such as those using the Monsanto-crafted soybean that is resistant to the company's broad-spectrum weed killer Roundup -- will use fewer chemicals in a season than they would while growing conventional soybeans.

Industry spokespersons acknowledge the possibility that cross-pollination could occur between some types of GM crops and weeds. But they claim there are ways around that, such as creating GM crops that are male-sterile -- that is, produce no pollen -- or modifying a GM plant so its pollen doesn't have the introduced gene. As for the danger of pests growing tolerant of plant-borne insecticide, farmers can create buffer zones of conventional crops around GM fields to give harmful insects something to feed on, reducing the selection pressure to adapt to the anti-pest plant. Buffer zones would also deter cross-pollination and provide a refuge for harmless and beneficial insects.

"The benefits of biotechnology are many and include providing resistance to crop pests to improve production and reduce chemical pesticide usage, thereby making major improvements in both food quality and nutrition."
--World Health Organization Expert Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Safety, October 1996 [16]

"[T]here is no scientific justification for assuming this [the possibility of cross-pollination between GM plants and wild relatives] to be either undesirable or harmful in principle - each case needs consideration on its own merits."
--Dr. Phil Dale, GM plant scientist at the John Innes Centre, a U.K. agricultural research institute [17]

"The risks of modern genetic engineering have been studied by technical experts at the National Academy of Sciences and World Bank. They concluded that we can predict the environmental effects by reviewing past experiences with those plants and animals produced through selective breeding. None of these products of selective breeding have harmed either the environment or biodiversity."
--Jimmy Carter, 39th president of the United States [18]










Document Number: 3729

If you answered No the fourth time:
What if you knew that scientists submit that genetically modifying plants is completely natural?
Genetic modification couldn't be more natural, geneticists say. Plants (and animals) genetically modify themselves all the time. That's the basis of evolution. We've been genetically modifying plants (and animals) for millennia. That's the basis of agriculture.
Our manipulation of a single mustard species has generated such diverse vegetables as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and cabbage. Altogether, the wild ancestors of grapes, potatoes, and all other fruits and vegetables you find today on grocery-store shelves are but pale shadows of their modern, highly modified descendants. All have gone through countless generations of careful hybridization and genetic breeding to improve yields, taste, size, texture, and other attributes.

Modern GM methods are simply more precise, scientists stress. Whereas traditional plant breeding involves thousands of shared genes every time two plants are crossed, GM technology allows, if desired, for the exchange of a single gene between plants. GM procedures are also much faster. In months or years, molecular scientists can accomplish the same degree of alteration that might have taken Nature millions of years to achieve.

"Biotechnology's been around almost since the beginning of time. It's cavemen saving seeds of a high-yielding plant. It's Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, cross-pollinating his garden peas. It's a diabetic's insulin, and the enzymes in your yogurt...."
--Dan Glickman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 13, 1997 [22]

"All plants, and all animals including humans, are genetically modified. That is what evolution means. They are genetically modified by natural selection of random mutations and recombinations. Some, such as maize, wheat, cabbages, and roses, are additionally modified by domestic breeding. And some are modified by engineered mutation or recombination. Any of these three kinds of genetic modification can have desirable or undesirable consequences."
--Prof. Richard Dawkins, author and expert on evolutionary genetics [23]

"We've been breeding hybrids of plants for decades. Biotechnology is really not that much different."
--Dr. Werner Arber, Nobel Prize winner and head of the International Council of Scientific Unions [24]










Document Number: 7155

If you answered No the fifth time:
What if you knew that companies that fashion GM seeds maintain that GM crops hold the greatest hope for adequately feeding our rapidly expanding world population?
Biotech spokespersons have argued that, while the industry is indeed concerned about the bottom line, it is primarily driven by research and innovation. Their argument is straightforward: Innovation is the only way to meet the world's burgeoning needs for food and medicines in a rapidly shrinking and increasingly scarred natural environment. Innovation requires costly and time-consuming research and testing, which will only happen if it's paid for. The best way to ensure it's paid for is through intellectual property protection. Patents should operate worldwide, they maintain, because markets are increasingly global in nature.
The result of this innovation will be GM crops that will offer our best chance to adequately address the challenge of feeding the estimated six billion people who, in as few as 50 years by some estimates, will join the six billion of us already here. GM crop farming holds out greater promise than conventional farming of boosting production on the same amount of ground, adherents say, and of raising crops where none could grow before, such as on salt-laden land. In increasing yields and making marginal lands productive, GM promoters insist, lie our only means of staving off widespread famine in developing countries in the coming decades.

"The possibility that (biotech) crops could make a substantial contribution to providing sufficient food for an expanding world is, on its own, a solid reason for engaging in the research that underlies their development."
--The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999 Report [28]

"Since there is no option in population-rich and land-hungry countries but to produce more per units of land, water, and labor, there is need for technologies which can promote and sustain an ever-green revolution rooted in the principles of ecology, economics, and social and gender equity. It is obvious that the challenge can be met only by integrating recent advances in molecular genetics and genetic engineering, information and space technologies, renewable energy technologies, and management science with traditional technologies and ecological wisdom, resulting in appropriate ecotechnologies. There should be no relaxation of yield-enhancing research, since there is no other way of meeting global food needs."
--Professor M.S. Swaminathan, agronomist and father of India's Green Revolution [29]

"'Solid scientific evidence' has been all too lacking in this debate [over GM foods] -- a war of words and slogans, not ideas and initiatives. Let us suggest some facts that must not be forgotten. Without dramatic improvements in crop yields, people will starve; they will suffer disease and death from malnutrition. The world's wildlife, habitats, endangered species, and entire ecosystems will be put at risk as we are forced to draw more agricultural land into production. Pest resistance, which we now know can be bred precisely into plants, will be supplanted by wider use of chemical pesticides. The promise of improving the nutritional value of indigenous crops in the developing world may be lost for a generation. Is this what the [anti-GM] radicals want? Surely not. Those of us in affluent societies have the luxury of pondering such questions. We have an obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to innovations in science and technology that will aid those who are less fortunate than ourselves."
--Jack Kemp, former U.S. representative and distinguished fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. [30]










Document Number: 3031

If you answered No the sixth time:
What if you knew that GM seed companies maintain that GM crops are the most thoroughly tested and highly regulated food plants out there?
Biotech firms hold that every GM food crop is thoroughly tested for possible health effects. They conduct these in-depth analyses, they say, because they are legally required to ensure foods they sell meet federal safety standards.
Industry scientists start by comparing a GM plant with conventionally bred plants of the same variety. Their goal is to see whether an introduced gene alters the GM plant's chemical makeup and nutritional value. If the protein made from the new gene is the only discernible difference between the two plants, scientists test that protein for toxicity by feeding it to animals in amounts thousands of times higher than a person would ever eat. Scientists also test for allergy-inducing potential by checking the chemistry of each new protein against those of about 500 known allergens.

Industry spokespersons argue the testing system has worked well. When scientists realized a gene from Brazil nuts they were planning to splice into soybeans might sicken people harboring allergies to nuts, they discontinued the experiment. Similarly, when other researchers discovered that a protein in one type of GM corn might be allergenic, regulators approved that corn only for animal feed.

Biotech firms point out that not one but three U.S. government agencies have their say about each GM crop. The Department of Agriculture judges whether it is safe to grow. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assesses whether it's safe for the environment. And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deems whether it's safe to eat. Under pressure from activists, these agencies have stepped up their vigilance. In 2000, the EPA began requiring farmers to plant 20 percent unmodified corn whenever they planted Bt corn (a GM corn modified to contain a natural pesticide). And in early 2001, the FDA proposed to begin reviewing all new GM foods for safety.

"All of our products, including those based on biotechnology, undergo thorough human, animal, and environmental safety evaluations. In order to be released commercially, they have to obtain the respective regulatory authorization. This involves rigorous governmental safety reviews and approval processes."
--from the Web site of Aventis CropScience, a world leader in plant biotechnology [34]

"I think the company is making an effort to address people's concerns about GM foods more openly. We've recognized that some genetic modifications are particularly bothersome. Among vegetarians, for instance, the idea of eating a vegetable that has an animal gene in it might raise questions. For certain cultures or religious groups, there could be similar concerns. So we decided it was better to avoid using animal genes in food crops."
--Dr. Robert B. Horsch, vice president of product and technology cooperation at Monsanto Company, and winner of the 1998 National Medal of Technology for his pioneering experiments in the genetic modification of plant cells [35]

"Government regulation, consumer acceptance, and private-sector investment are all important factors in the future status of foods produced by modern biotechnology. It would be tragic if fear and superstition were allowed to impede the development of this incredibly valuable technology."
--Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President, American Council on Science and Health [36]









Document Number: 777
GMOs and Exports: 
Demystifying Concerns in Africa
By: David Wafula, Gabrielle Persley and Margaret Karembu June, 2008
Introduction
Current trends and future projections indicate that Genetically Modied Organisms 
(GMOs) or biotech crops are increasingly becoming dominant in the global economy 
and world trade. In 2007, the global market value of GM crops was US$6.9 billion 
representing 16% of the US$42.2 billion global crop protection market in 2007, and 20% 
of the ~US$34 billion global commercial seed market. Substantial net economic benets 
at the farm level amounting to nearly $ 7 billion in 2006 and $ 33.8 billion for the period 
1996-2006 have been reported (Brookes, G and Barfoot, P 2008). 
The rapid diffusion of GMOs in agricultural and food production systems has triggered a 
wide-range of concerns and fears. While credible evidence shows that farmers are deriving 
benets from GM crops in both developing and developed nations, some countries have 
been reluctant to embrace the technology because of a variety of reasons ranging from 
safety of GM foods, environmental related impacts (e.g. gene ow and effects on nontarget organisms), ethical and socio-economic issues and the proprietary nature of the 
GM technology.  The aforementioned concerns impact on international trade both directly 
and indirectly.  The possibility of losing market access for agricultural exports has been a 
critical concern for African countries.   
This brief aims at expanding and promoting informed perspectives of the magnitude of 
trade related risks associated with adoption of GMOs in Africa. The brief also highlights 
the changing scenarios and evolving developments with regard to acceptance of GM 
crops and products.  
GM crops commercialized globally
The dominant GM crops that have been granted approvals for commercial planting globally 
include soybean, maize, cotton and canola. GM rice, squash and papaya have also been 
approved but are currently being grown under relatively small areas. The extent to which 
GM crops can affect trade is examined within the context of the aforementioned crops.  It 
is noted that the most important factor to consider is what a country exports and the import 
policies on GMOs in the destination markets. In 2006, a total of 51 countries both developing 
and developed had either approved GM crops for commercial planting or placement on 
the market for food, feed or processing.  They include Japan, Canada, South Korea, 
Australia, the Philippines, Mexico, New Zealand, the EU and China. GM crops have made 
important contributions to increasing yields of many farmers, raising global production 
and trading volumes of key crops. In Africa, South Africa is the only country that features 
on the global map with respect to commercial adoption of GM crops. In 2007, South 
Africa was ranked number eight overall with a total area of 1.8 million hectares under GM 
crops (mainly Bt maize, Bt cotton and GM soybean). Farm income gains from GM crops 
between 1998-2006 in the country amounted to US$ 150 million (James, 2007). South 
Africa will be joined by Burkina Faso and Egypt after biosafety regulatory authorities in the 
two countries recently approved commercial planting of genetically modied varieties of 
cotton and maize respectively.
Potential impacts of GMOs 
on exports
African countries have been preoccupied 
with the notion that adoption of GMOs would 
translate to a rejection of agricultural exports 
by all the importing destinations including 
relatively sensitive destinations such as 
the EU. Consequently, some countries 
have taken precautionary stances with the 
conviction that they are preserving their 
trade interests and niche markets. However, 
such decisions or stances are hypothetical 
and in most cases are based on perceptions 
and interest groups other than economics. 
The GM-free stance and policies in such 
countries may deny farmers the opportunity 
to harness and maximize potential benets 
of the technology such as increased 
productivity, enhanced environmental 
sustainability and reduced expenditure on 
agro-chemicals and other crop protection 
costs.  A study commissioned by the 
Common Market for Eastern and Southern 
Africa (COMESA) analyzed the value and 
volume of agricultural food and feed exports 
by African countries to various regions of 
the world including the EU.  The ndings 
revealed that the share of total export value 
that might be rejected translates to 1.1 
percent for Kenya, 6.5 percent for Uganda 
and 6.2 percent for Tanzania. 
In a more realistic and probable scenario 
assuming that only Europe would reject 
exports of commodities that may contain 
GMOs, the decline in exports from the three 
countries would be less than 1 percent. A 
decline caused by the introduction of GMOs 
may apply in some cases but the magnitude 
of the losses incurred would be negligible 
(Paarlberg et al., 2006). This low level of 
trading risk exposure stems from the fact 
that most of the agricultural exports that 
importers may reject as possible GMOs 
have not been commercialized as yet.  
Most African countries including Kenya have 
traditionally exported commodities such 
as tea, coffee, cocoa, pyrethrum, sugar 
tobacco, bananas and a wide range of 
horticultural products. GM varieties of these 
commodities have not been developed and 
commercialized anywhere and commercial 
interest to develop them has not been 
demonstrated.  In this respect, adoption of 
Bt cotton, Bt maize or GM cassava would not 
affect any of the above crops or jeopardize 
exports. Hence it can be deduced that 
African countries will continue growing and 
exporting these traditional commodities 
to the current markets in the foreseeable 
future without fears of any drastic reduction 
in foreign exchange earnings. 
The ndings of the COMESA study are 
supported by experiences from South 
Africa, the only country in the continent that 
has been growing GMOs since 1997. The 
area under GM crops (maize, and cotton) 
and the number of farmers planting biotech 
crops has been increasing signicantly. 
The country has been able to maintain its 
exports through segregation arrangements 
for specic products and markets. For 
instance, non-GM maize from GM maize. 
Europe still remains South Africas primary 
trading partner accounting for almost half 
of the countrys agricultural exports (OECD, 
2006), and the value and volume of nonGM commodities (for instance horticultural 
commodities) has not declined over the 
years.  A decline in trade would have been a 
major disincentive to adoption of GM crops 
in the country. 
Related studies contend that if countries 
in Sub-Saharan Africa impose bans on 
adoption of GM crops in an attempt to 
maintain access to EU markets for non-GM 
products, the loss to farmers and consumers 
in the region would signicantly outweigh 
the negligible gains tied to greater market 
access to the EU (Anderson and Jackson, 
2005).
The scenario in the European 
Union (EU) 
A few years ago, the EU was regarded as 
a destination that treats GMOs with a lot of 
sensitivity and skepticism (ICTSD and ATPS 
2007). However, the changing and dynamic 
landscape reveal that several approvals for  
introduction of GMOs have been granted 
after studies commissioned by the EU 
Directorate of Research demonstrated that 
GMOs currently available in the market 
pose no adverse risks to human health or 
the environment.
In 2004, the EU lifted a six-year moratorium 
on GMOs and three years later (in 2006), 
eight European countries were on record as 
having approved GM crops for commercial 
planting. They include Spain, France, Czech 
Republic, Portugal, Germany, Slovakia, 
Romania and Poland (James, 2007). The 
EU has a clear and transparent framework 
(Directive 2001/18/EC) which involves 
independent scientic risk assessments 
before GM products are placed on the 
market. 
The EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 
provides the scientic advice that underpins 
EU decisions on GMOs, but it is the 
EU member states and the European 
Commission who decide on market approvals 
for the same. Since 1994, more than 30 
GMOs or derived food and feed products 
have been approved for marketing based 
on rigorous risk assessment conducted by 
EFSA (EU, 2006). They include soya, maize 
and oilseed rape varieties. The EU is one of 
the leading importers of these commodities 
and the probability that they are GM is high 
because they originate from countries such 
US, Brazil and Argentina which produce 
and export GMOs without the policy of 
segregation (Bridges, 2007).   

Conclusion
The realities of agriculture in Africa make the 
case for urgent use of GM crops. However, 
the region is seriously lagging behind in the 
adoption and use of the technology while other 
regions of the world are reaping enormous 
benets from it. African countries have been 
hesitant to support the development or use 
of GM crops or their products on the basis 
of false perception of laws and regulations 
in the export markets. Most often decisionmaking is not informed by clear economic 
evaluation of the costs and benets of 
adopting vs. rejecting GM technology or its 
products.  Stakeholder concerns and fears 
regarding rejection of exports are driven 
by low levels of information regarding what 
constitutes GM sensitive products, the value 
and volume of exports and import policies in 
the destination markets. Information in this 
area is scanty and not well documented. 
Countries should carefully weigh the risks 
of losing export earnings in Europe on a 
case-by-case basis.  Reluctance to approve 
GM crops particularly those ones proven to 
deliver high welfare gains is likely to deny 
farmers in the region the opportunity to 
harness the diverse benets of GM crops 
and products.










Document Number: 6072
Virus Resistant Rice


Source: John Innes Centre
Rice yellow mottle virus (RYMV) is of major concern especially among African rice farmers since rice is one of Africas staple foods. It has been estimated that rice yield loss to RYMV in
Africa could be as much as 94% for susceptible lowland cultivars and 54% among tolerant upland cultivars. Typical symptoms of the disease are yellowing, mottling and stunted leaf growth leading to sterile or unfilled grains. Weakened plants are then susceptible to other fungal, viral, or bacterial rice pathogens.To combat this disease, researchers are enhancing the plants antiviral defense system by incorporating mRNA sequences of the virus into rice plants, consequently make them immune to the pathogen.
The Virus Resistance Technology
This pathogen-derived resistance mechanism has been found to naturally occur in plants and is similar in theory to the immune system of mammals. In cases where gene expression of a pathogen was found to be dysfunctional, in excess or progressed at the wrong developmental stage of the pathogens life cycle, development of the disease is prevented. In the case of RYMV resistant rice, the transgenes that are introduced were taken from highly conserved sequences of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase of RYMV genome. This polymerase enzyme plays an important role in viral replication. The transgene activates a sequence-specific RNA degradation system in the rice such that when RYMV infects a resistant rice variety, the viral RNA will be destroyed when detected. This technology is also called RNA silencing.
 









Document Number: 9430
Nematode Resistant Rice
Source: Plant Nematology Lab, University of Leeds
Nematodes are another economically important rice pest. They are prevalent in Asia and Africa causing up to 70% yield loss to upland and lowland rice. There is a great need to develop nematode-resistant rice varieties, as previous chemical methods to reduce nematode infection are considered ecologically destructive. Nematicides pose great threat to none target organisms, to our aquatic ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and to the ozone layer.
Other indications of nematode infestations in rice are: slow growth, reduced plant height reducing tillering, and the panicles become crinkled and empty.
The Nematode Resistance Technology
The Plant Nematology Lab (http://www.biology.leeds.ac.uk/nem/home.htm) of the University of Leeds (UK) (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/) has been developing nematode-resistant rice based on an anti-feedant approach. They are enabling rice plants to specifically produce the natural proteinase inhibitor, cystatin in the roots or in cells attacked by nematodes. This innocuous plant-derived proteinase inhibitor prevents the nematode from feeding efficiently. They have incorporated root specific promoters to ensure that the gene product is expressed only in the roots and not in green tissues or seeds of rice. Cystatin is non-toxic, is not involved in mammalian digestion, and is naturally occurring such that it can be found in rice grains, and is commonly used by plants against other pests and insects.
They are also developing ways to target specifically the nematodes specialized feeding cells from functioning efficiently when they feed on modified root cells of rice.










Document Number: 1688
The Golden Rice Technology
A japonica variety of rice was engineered with three genes necessary for the rice grain to produce and store beta-carotene. These included two genes from the daffodil plant and a third from a bacterium. Researchers used a plant microbe to ferry in the genes into the plant cells. The incorporation of these genes allows the rice plant to modify certain metabolic pathways in its cells to produce precursors of Vitamin A, which was previously not possible. This was considered a technical milestone, as most agronomic traits engineered to date have only required the introduction of a single gene. 
A four-step process:
The Developers
The Golden Rice project, which began in the early 1990s, was a result of a collaborative effort between the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH-Zurich) and the University of Freiburg, Germany. Ingo Potrykus and Peter Byer are its main developers. Funding was obtained from ETH-Zurich itself, the European Commissions agricultural research program, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

















Document Number: 2066 
Q and A About  Genetically Modified Crops
Pocket K No. 1: Q and A About  Genetically Modified Crops
Genetically Modified Crops Take Part in the Dialogue
Global agriculture finds itself engrossed in a heated debate  over genetically modified (GM) crops.  This debate, which features science, economics, politics, and even  religion, is taking place almost everywhere. It is going on in research labs,  corporate boardrooms, legislative chambers, newspaper editorial offices,  religious institutions, schools, supermarkets, coffee shops, and even in  private homes. What is all the fuss  about and why do people feel so strongly about this issue? This Pocket K  attempts to shed light on the controversy by addressing several basic questions  about GM crops.
Traditionally, a plant breeder  tries to exchange genes between two plants to produce offspring that have  desired traits. This is done by transferring the male (pollen) of one plant to  the female organ of another.
This cross breeding, however, is  limited to exchanges between the same or very closely related species. It can  also take a long time to achieve desired results and frequently,  characteristics of interest do not exist in any related species. 
GM technology enables plant breeders to bring together in  one plant useful genes from a wide range of living sources, not just from  within the crop species or from closely related plants. This powerful tool  allows plant breeders to do faster what they have been doing for years   generate superior plant varieties  although it expands the possibilities  beyond the limits imposed by conventional plant breeding.
Most of the  research on GM crops has been carried out in developed countries, mainly in  North America, Latin America, and Europe.  Recently, however, many developing countries have also established the capacity  for genetic engineering.
In  developed countries, the new life sciences companies have dominated the  application of GM technology to agriculture. These include Bayer CropScience,  Dow AgroSciences, DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
A GM or  transgenic crop is a plant that has a novel combination of genetic material  obtained through the use of modern biotechnology.
For  example, a GM crop can contain a gene(s) that has been artificially inserted  instead of the plant acquiring it through pollination.
The  resulting plant is said to be genetically modified although in reality all  crops have been genetically modified from their original wild state by  domestication, selection, and controlled breeding over long periods of time.
Where are GM crops currently  grown?
In 1994,  Calgenes delayed-ripening tomato (Flavr-Savr) became the first genetically  modified food crop to be produced and consumed in an industrialized country.  Since the recorded commercialization of GM crops in 1996 to 2010, several  countries have contributed to ~87-fold increase in the global area of  transgenic crops.
The area  planted to GM crops shot up from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 148 million  hectares in 2010, with an increasing proportion grown by developing countries.  In 2010, there were 29 biotech countries, 17 of which growing 50,000 hectares  or more, 19 developing countries and 10 industrial countries; they were, in  order of hectarage: USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay,  Pakistan, South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia, Australia, Philippines, Myanmar,  Burkina Faso, Spain, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Honduras, Portugal, Czech  Republic, Poland, Egypt, Slovakia, Costa  Rica, Romania, Sweden, and Germany (James, 2010).
What are the potential benefits of  GM plants?
In the developed world, there is clear evidence that the use  of GM crops has resulted in significant benefits. These include:
 Improvement in  health and the environment
These first generation crops have proven their ability to  lower farm-level production costs. Now, research is focused on  second-generation GM crops that will feature increased nutritional and/or  industrial traits. These crops will have  more direct benefits to consumers.  Examples include: 
Rice enriched with  iron, vitamin A and E, and lysine
Potatoes with higher starch content, and inulin
Edible vaccines in maize, banana and potatoes
Maize varieties with low phytic acid and  increased essential amino acids
Healthier oils from soybean and canola 
GM crops  are made through a process known as genetic engineering. Genes of commercial  interest are transferred from one organism to another. Two primary methods  currently exist for introducing transgenes into plant genomes. The first  involves a device called a gene gun. The DNA to be introduced into the plant  cells is coated onto tiny particles of gold or tungsten. These particles are  then physically shot onto plant cells. Some of the DNA comes off and is  incorporated into the DNA of the recipient plant. The second method uses a  bacterium to introduce the gene(s) of interest into the plant DNA.
Are GM crops appropriate for  developing countries?
While most  of the debate over transgenic crops has taken place mainly in the developed  nations in the North, the South stands to benefit from any technology that can  increase food production, lower food prices, and improve food quality.
In  countries where there is often not enough food to go around and where food  prices directly affect the incomes of majority of the population, the potential  benefits of GM crops cannot be ignored. It is true that nutritionally enhanced  foods may not be a necessity in developed countries but they could play a key  role in helping to alleviate malnutrition in developing countries.
Although  the potential benefits of GM crops are large in developing countries, they  would require some investments. Most developing countries lack the scientific  capacity to assess the biosafety of GM crops, the economic expertise to  evaluate their worth, the regulatory capacity to implement guidelines for safe  deployment, and the legal systems to enforce and punish transgressions in law.  Fortunately, several organizations are working to build local capacity to  manage the acquisition, deployment, and monitoring of GM crops.
What are the potential risks of GM  plants?
With every new emerging technology,  there are potential risks. These include:
The  danger of unintentionally introducing allergens and other anti-nutrition  factors in foods
The  likelihood of transgenes escaping from cultivated crops into wild relatives
 The  potential for pests to evolve resistance to the toxins produced by GM crops
 The  risk of these toxins affecting non-target organisms.
Where legislation and regulatory institutions are in place,  there are elaborate steps to precisely avoid or mitigate these risks. It is the  obligation of the technology innovators (i.e., scientists), producers, and the  government to assure the public of the safety of the novel foods that they  offer as well as their benign effect on the environment.
There are also those risks that are neither caused nor  preventable by the technology itself. An  example of this type of risk is the further widening of the economic gap  between developed countries (technology users) versus developing countries  (nonusers). These risks, however, can be managed by developing technologies  tailor made for the needs of the poor and by instituting measures so that the  poor will have access to the new technologies.
Despite the current uncertainty over GM crops, one thing  remains clear. This technology, with its potential to create economically  important crop varieties, is simply too valuable to ignore. There are, however,  some valid concerns. If these issues are to be resolved, decisions must be  based on credible, science-based information.
Finally, given the importance people place on the food they  eat, policies regarding GM crops will have to be based on an open and honest  debate involving a wide cross-section of society.
: Any technique that makes use of organisms  (or parts thereof) to make or modify products, to improve plants or animals, or  to develop microorganisms for specific purposes.
: A molecule found in cells of organisms  where genetic information is stored.
: A biological unit that determines an  organisms inherited characteristics.
 The selective, deliberate alteration  of genes by man.
 The entire hereditary material in a  cell.
 Application of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant  DNA and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles or fusion of  cells beyond the taxonomic family.
 Characteristics such as size, shape,  taste, color, increased yields, or disease resistance.
 A gene that has been artificially  inserted into an organism.
James, C. 2010. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief No. 42. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY 
Toenniessen,  G. H., J. OToole and J. De Vries. 2003. Advances in plant biotechnology and  its option in developing countries. Current Opinion 6:191-198.
Photos  courtesy of Lori Alden (
Plant Products of   Biotechnology











Document Number: 2610 
Herbicide  Tolerance Technology: Glyphosate and Glufosinate
Pocket K No. 10: Herbicide  Tolerance Technology: Glyphosate and Glufosinate
Ask any farmer and he will surely tell you that weeds are a  constant problem. Weeds not only compete with crops for water, nutrients,  sunlight, and space but also harbor insect and disease pests; clog irrigation  and drainage systems; undermine crop quality; and deposit weed seeds into crop  harvests. If left uncontrolled, weeds can reduce crop yields significantly. 
Farmers can fight weeds with tillage, hand weeding,  herbicides, or typically a combination of all techniques. Unfortunately,  tillage leaves valuable topsoil exposed to wind and water erosion, a serious  long-term consequence for the environment. For this reason, more and more  farmers prefer reduced or no-till methods of farming.
Similarly, many have argued that the heavy use of herbicides  has led to groundwater contaminations, the death of several wildlife species  and has also been attributed to various human and animal illnesses.
The tandem technique of soil-tilling and herbicide  application is an example of how farmers control weeds in their farms.
Generally, they till their soil before planting to reduce  the number of weeds present in the field. Then they apply broad-spectrum or  non-selective herbicides (one that can kill all plants) to further reduce weed  growth just before their crop germinates.  This is to prevent their crops from being killed together with the  weeds. Weeds that emerge during the  growing season are controlled using narrow-spectrum or selective herbicides.  Unfortunately, weeds of different types emerge in the field, and therefore,  farmers have to use several types of narrow-spectrum herbicides to control  them. This weed control method can be  very costly and can harm the environment.
Researchers postulated that weed management could be  simplified by spraying a single broad-spectrum herbicide over the field anytime  during the growing season.
Development of Glyphosate and  Glufosinate Herbicide Tolerant Plants
Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops offer farmers a vital tool in  fighting weeds and are compatible with no-till methods, which help preserve  topsoil. They give farmers the flexibility to apply herbicides only when  needed, to control total input of herbicides and to use herbicides with  preferred environmental characteristics.
These herbicides target key enzymes in the plant metabolic  pathway, which disrupt plant food production and eventually kill it. So how do  plants elicit tolerance to herbicides? Some may have acquired the trait through  selection or mutation; or more recently, plants may be modified through genetic  engineering. 
What is new is the ability to create a degree of tolerance  to broad-spectrum herbicides - in particular glyphosate and glufosinate - which  will control most other green plants.  These two herbicides are useful for weed control and have minimal direct  impact on animal life, and are not persistent. They are highly effective and  among the safest of agrochemicals to use. Unfortunately, they are equally  effective against crop plants.
How do Glyphosate and Glufosinate  HT crops work?

    Glyphosate herbicide kills plants by blocking  the EPSPS enzyme, an enzyme involved in the biosynthesis of aromatic amino  acids, vitamins and many secondary plant metabolites. There are several ways by which crops can be  modified to be glyphosate-tolerant. One strategy is to incorporate a soil  bacterium gene that produces a glyphosate-tolerant form of EPSPS. Another way  is to incorporate a different soil bacterium gene that produces a glyphosate  degrading enzyme.

    Glufosinate herbicides contain the active  ingredient phosphinothricin, which kills plants by blocking the enzyme  responsible for nitrogen metabolism and for detoxifying ammonia, a by-product  of plant metabolism. Crops modified to tolerate glufosinate contain a bacterial  gene that produces an enzyme that detoxifies phosphonothricin and prevents it  from doing damage.
Other methods by which crops are genetically modified to  survive exposure to herbicides including: 1) producing a new protein that  detoxifies the herbicide; 2) modifying the herbicides target protein so that  it will not be affected by the herbicide; or 3) producing physical or  physiological barriers preventing the entry of the herbicide into the plant.  The first two approaches are the most common ways scientists develop herbicide  tolerant crops.
Safety Aspects of Herbicide  Tolerance Technology
Government regulatory agencies in several countries have  ruled that crops possessing herbicide-tolerant conferring proteins do not pose  any other environmental and health risks as compared to their non-GM counterparts. 
Introduced proteins are assessed for potential toxic and  allergenic activity in accordance with guidelines developed by relevant  international organizations. They are from sources with no history of  allergenicity or toxicity; they do not resemble known toxins or allergens; and  they have functions, which are well understood.
The expression of these proteins does not damage the plants  growth nor result in poorer agronomic performance compared to parental  crops. Except for expression of an  additional enzyme for herbicide tolerance or the alteration of an already  existing enzyme, no other metabolic changes occur in the plant.
Persistence or invasiveness of  crops
A major environmental concern associated with herbicide-tolerant  crops is their potential to create new weeds through outcrossing with wild  relatives or simply by persisting in the wild themselves. This potential,  however, is assessed prior to introduction and is also monitored after the crop  is planted. The current scientific evidence indicates that, in the absence of  herbicide applications, GM herbicide-tolerant crops are no more likely to be  invasive in agricultural fields or in natural habitats than their non-GM  counterparts (Dale et al., 2002). 
The herbicide-tolerant crops currently in the market show  little evidence of enhanced persistence or invasiveness.
Advantage of Herbicide Tolerant  Crops
 Excellent weed control and hence higher  crop yields;
Flexibility  possible to control weeds  later in the plants growth;
 Reduced numbers of sprays in a season;
 Reduced fuel use (because of less  spraying);
 Reduced soil compaction (because of less  need to go on the land to spray);
 Use of low toxicity compounds which do not  remain active in the soil; and 
 The ability to use no-till or  conservation-till systems, with consequent benefits to soil structure and  organisms (Felsot, 2000).
A study conducted by the American Soybean Association (ASA)  on tillage frequency on soybean farms showed that significant numbers of  farmers adopted the no-tillage or reduced tillage practice after planting  herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties.  This simple weed management approach saved over 234 million gallons of  fuel and left 247 million tons of irreplaceable topsoil undisturbed.
Current Status of Herbicide  Tolerance
From 1996 to 2010, herbicide- tolerant crops consistently  occupied the largest planting area of biotech crops. In 2010 alone, herbicide  tolerant crops occupied 89.3 million hectares or 61% of the 148 million  hectares of biotech crops planted globally. The most common are the glyphosate  and glufosinate tolerant varieties. The following table shows countries that  have approved major HT crops for food use.
Australia; Canada; Japan; Mexico; New Zealand;  Philippines; United States of America (USA)
Australia; Canada; China; European Union (EU);  Japan; Korea, Rep.; Mexico; New Zealand; Philippines; South Africa; USA
Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Colombia;  EU; Japan; Korea, Rep.; Mexico; New Zealand; Philippines; South Africa; USA
Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China;  Colombia; El Salvador; EU; Honduras; Japan; Korea, Rep.; Malaysia; Mexico; New  Zealand; Philippines; Russian Federation; Singapore; South Africa; Taiwan;  Thailand; USA
Australia; Canada; Colombia; Mexico; New Zealand;  Russian Federation; USA
Argentina; Australia; Bolivia; Brazil; Canada;  China; Colombia; Czech Republic; EU; Japan; Korea, Rep.; Malaysia; Mexico; New  Zealand; Paraguay; Philippines; Russian Federation; South Africa; Switzerland;  Taiwan; Thailand; United Kingdom; USA; Uruguay
Australia; Canada; European Union; Japan; Korea,  Rep.; Mexico; New Zealand; Philippines; Russian Federation; Singapore; USA
.  http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/.

    A  literature review conducted by the Council for Agricultral Science and  Technology concluded that the environment benefits from the use of HT crops. In  the US,  for example, no-till soybean acreage has increased by 35% since the  introduction of HT soybean. A similar trend is observed in Argentina where soybean fields are  98% planted with HT varieties. The CAST paper entitled Comparative  Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn  and Cotton Crops is available at http://www.cast-science.org.
      2000. Consensus Document Glyphosate Herbicide  Tolerance (Roundup). OECD-OCDE BioTrack Online.  http://www1.oecd.org/ehs/ehsmono/roundup1.htm.    
      2001. ASA Study Confirms Enviromental  Benefits of Biotech Soybeans. American Soybean  Association.http://www.asa-europe.org/pdf/ctstudy.pdf    
       2002. Module II: Herbicide Biochemistry,  Herbicide-Metabolism and the Residues in Glufosinate-Ammonium  (Phosphinothricin)-Tolerant Transgenic Crops.  http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2002doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/

        c351fd9d795e54c1c1256bae0051a2a8/$FILE/JT00125605.PDF.
      Carpenter, JE and LP Gianessi. 2001.  Agricultural Biotechnology: Updated Benefits Estimates. National Center  for Food and Agricultural Policy.
Carpenter, JE, A Felsot, T Goode, M Hammig, D  Onstad and S Sankula. 2002. Comparative  Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn,  and Crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.  http://www.cast-science.org.
Dale, PJ, B Clarke, and EMG Fontes. 2002.  Potential for the Environmental Impact of Transgenic Crops. Nature  Biotechnology. 20. p-567-574.
Extension Toxicology Network. 1996. Pesticide  Information Profile, Glyphosate.  http://ace.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/glyphosa.htm.
Felsot, AS. 2000. Herbicide Tolerant Genes: Part 1:  Squaring up Roundup Ready Crops. Agri-chemical and Environmental News.  173:8-15.
James, Clive. 2010. Global Status of  Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010. 
Contribution of GM   Technology to the Livestock Sector











Document Number: 9718 
Contribution of  GM Technology to the Livestock Sector
Pocket K No. 11: Contribution of  GM Technology to the Livestock Sector
Approximately 90 million hectares,  or about 1.2 billion acres of genetically modified (GM) crops are currently  grown worldwide. The main GM crops grown commercially are soybean (54.4 mha),  corn (21.2 mha), cotton (9.8 mha), and canola (4.6 mha).
The introduction of GM crops has  produced significant benefits to both farmers and consumers. GM crops have  minimized the use of pesticides and provided higher crop yields; consumers  benefited in the form of improved quality products (e.g., canola and soybean  with modified oils). Currently, more than 80 GM crop events/lines have been  approved for food and/or feed use.
GM crops have also benefited the  livestock sector as they have increased yields of feed ingredient, have better  quality traits, and are safer for livestock. As a source of livestock feed  components, the relevant GM crops include corn, canola, cottonseed, soybean,  and potato. These crops are principally used in livestock feed rations either  as an energy and/or protein source.
Future Demand for Livestock  Products and Feed Grains
The demand for livestock products  will increase dramatically as population increases. Moreover, with increasing  urbanization and rising income in many parts of the developing world, per  capita consumption of meat, milk, and eggs is expected to rise by about 2%
.  Global demand for meat is also forecast to increase more than 55% of current  consumption by 2020, with most of the increase occurring in developing  countries
Thus the demand for feed grain will  increase by 3% per year in developing countries and 0.5% in developed  countries. On the average, less than 3 kg of feed grain are required to produce  a kilo of livestock meat and less than a kilo of feed grain per kg of milk.
Clearly, increased grain production  for food and feed has to be generated from increased yield because there is limited  opportunity to increase cultivated land area without adverse environmental  impacts.
GMO Materials in GM Feed  Ingredients
Transgenic crops currently approved  for use as animal feed are modified for herbicide tolerance, insect resistance,  modified oil content, and virus resistance. Many of the proteins expressed in  GM crops have a history of safe usage and/or are similar to naturally occurring  proteins. For example, insect resistant transgenic crops express proteins from 
 (Bt), a common soil-borne bacterium that has been  commercially used worldwide as a microbial insecticide by organic farmers.  Expressed proteins (CP4 EPSPS) in glyphosate herbicide tolerant GM crops are  similar to endogenous EPSPS already present in foods
Current Use of GM Feed Ingredients  in Livestock Diets
Feed grain usage as a percentage of  total crop production ranges from 18% for wheat, 52% for sorghum, 70% for corn,  75% for oats, to more than 90% of oil seed meals
. Livestock producers in many  parts of the world prefer corn grain and soybean meal for energy and/or protein  source in both monogastric and ruminant diets.
About 90 million metric tons of GM  corn grains are produced worldwide. Given that 70% of total corn grain  production are used for livestock feed, then at least 65 million metric tons of  GM corn grains are used in livestock diets annually. In the case of soybean, about  70 million metric tons of soybean meal derived from GM soybean are fed to  livestock per annum
GM Crops Used for Livestock Feed
Australia, Canada, Japan, Philippines,    USA
Argentina, Brazil,    Canada, Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, South Africa,    Switzerland, UK, USA, Uruguay
Argentina, Australia, China, Canada,    Japan, Mexico, Philippines,    South Africa, USA
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan,    Philippines, USA
Insect resistance/    Herbicide tolerance
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan,    Philippines, USA
Australia, Canada, Philippines, USA
Insect resistance /    Virus resistance
Australia, Canada, Japan, Philippines,    USA
Argentina, Australia, Canada, European Union,    Japan, Netherlands, Philippines,    South Africa, Switzerland, USA
Argentina, Canada, EU, Japan, Philippines,    Switzerland, USA
Insect ressitance /    herbicide tolerance
Argentina, Australia, Canada, EU, Japan,    Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland,    UK, USA
Canda, Japan,    Philippines, USA
Source of basic    data: Agbios GM Database (2004): 
Safety Assessment of GM Products
Extensive testing and a long  approval process accompany every GM crop introduction. The approval process  includes comprehensive analyses to ensure food, feed, and environmental safety  before entering the marketplace.
Generally, the first step in any  safety assessment of GM-derived products is to determine if the product is  substantially equivalent (except for defined differences) to conventional  counterpart varieties. Further analysis then focuses on the evaluation of the  defined differences. Specifically for evaluating food and feed safety, set of  factors are used for assessing potential safety risks of the host plant, gene  donor(s), and introduced protein(s).
Safety concerns on the use of GM  crops as feed ingredients relate to the following questions:
Are GM  crops safe as feeds for livestock?
Is animal  performance affected by GM crops?
Could  transgenic materials be transferred to and accumulate in milk, meat, and eggs?
Feeding trials have been conducted  to examine the safety and efficacy of GM feeds for farm livestocks6. Based on these  studies, there is no evidence of significantly altered nutritional composition,  deleterious effects, or the occurrence of transgenic DNA or protein in animal  products derived from animals fed with GM feed ingredients.
Animals perform in comparable  manner when fed biotech feed ingredients as compared to conventional products.  Feeding of GM crops has not shown any negative effects of feed intake, whole  tract digestibility or animal productivity in studies with chickens, pigs,  sheep, beef cattle, and dairy cows
Scientific studies have also  demonstrated that transgenic DNA and/or protein expressed in GM crops are not  detectable in the raw food products derived from animals fed with transgenic  crops
. Animal digestive systems rapidly degrade DNA and proteins. Moreover,  studies have shown that ensiling and feed processing results in DNA  fragmentation
Based on the safety analyses  required for GM crops, consumption of milk, meat, and eggs derived from farm  animals fed with transgenic crops could be considered as safe as traditional  counterparts.
GM feed ingredients of the future  will benefit livestock with improved feed qualities. Future GM feed crops will  have enhanced nutritional characteristics
Current research is aimed at  manipulating levels of proteins, amino acids, oil, and carbohydrates in major  feed crops. GM crops being developed with improved nutritional characteristics  include higher concentration of methionine and increased protein digestibility  of lupins, increased lysine content in canola and soybean, increased levels of  free and protein-bound threonine in lucerne, and reduced phytate content in  corn grain
. Researchers are also looking for ways to improve digestibility of  wheat, rye or barley. Many of these biotech crops are already under field  evaluation.
The use of insect protected corn is  already improving feed quality by decreasing mycotoxin contamination. The  presence of mycotoxins in feed grains or ingredients makes them unfit for  animal (or human) consumption and can cause serious health risk. GM crops  expressing antigens from various microbes are also being developed. Edible  vaccines delivered via feeds have the potential to control economically  important diseases in livestock.
Extensive safety assessments  conducted with plant biotech products provide equal or greater assurance of  safety for food and feed use. There is a growing body of scientifically valid  information that indicates safety of GM crops for feed use.
The first generation of GM crops  has directly benefited livestock production through safer and more abundant  feed source. Futre GM crops with enhanced output traits have the profound  effect of improving animal productivity and performance. These innovations will  contribute to helping feed the growing world population.
Delgado,  C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld, S. Ehui and C. Courbois. 1999. Livestock to  2020: The next food revolution. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment  Discussion Paper 28, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,  DC; Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy; International Livestock  Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rosegrant,  M.W., M.S. Paisner, S. Meijer and J. Witcover. 2001. 2020 Global Food Outlook:  Trends, Alternatives, and Choices. International Food Policy Research Institute,  Washington, DC.
MacKenzie,  D. and M. McLean. 2002. Whos afraid of GM feed? Feed Mix, 10(3):16-19.
Gilbert,  R. 2000. Future economic benefits of GMOs in animal feeds with reference to  soybeans and corn. Agriwatch Livestock Newsletter, 27 September 2000.
Phipps,  R.H. 2002. Safety of food products derived from livestock receiving GM feed  ingredients. International Conference on Food and Feed Safety. Doha, Qatar,  September.
Clark, J.H.  and I.R. Ipharranguerre. 2001. Livestock performance: feeding biotech crops.  Journal of Dairy Science, 84(E. Suppl.):E9-E18.
Beever,  D.E. and C.F. Kemp. 2000. Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed  derived from genetically modified crops: A review of scientific and regulatory  procedures. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B: Livestock Feeds and  Feeding, 70(3):175-182.
Beever,  D.E. and R.H. Phipps. 2001. The fate of plant DNA and novel proteins in feeds  for farm livestock: A United Kingdom perspective. Journal of Animal Science,  79(E. Suppl.):E290-E295.
Thomas,  B.R. and K.J. Bradford. 2001. Crop biotechnology: Feeds for livestock. 
http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/outreach/abc/livestock_feeds_abc.htm
Aumaitre,  A., K. Aulrich, A. Chesson, G. Flachowsky and G. Piva. 2002. New feeds from  genetically modified plants: Substantial equivalence, digestibility, and safety  for animals and the food chain. Livestock Production Science, 74(3):223-238.











Document Number: 4993 
Pocket K No. 12: Delayed Ripening  Technology
Ripening is a normal phase in the  maturation process of fruits and vegetables. Upon its onset, it only takes  about a few days before the fruit or vegetable is considered inedible. This  unavoidable process brings significant losses to both farmers and consumers  alike.
Scientists have been working to  delay fruit ripening so that farmers will have the flexibility in marketing  their goods and ensure consumers of fresh-from-the-garden produce.
Ethylene is a natural plant hormone  associated with the growth, development, ripening and aging of many plants.  This phytohormone is said to promote ripening in a variety of fruits including  bananas, pineapples, tomatoes, mangoes, melons, and papayas. It is produced in  varying quantities depending on the type of fruit. But when the concentration  of ethylene reaches 0.1-1.0 ppm (parts per million), the ripening process in  climacteric fruits is considered irreversible.
Climacteric fruits are usually  harvested once they have reached maturity which then undergoes rapid ripening  during transit and storage. Important tropical fruits such as banana, mango,  papaya, pineapple and guava are examples of these fruits. Non-climacteric  fruits do not ripen after harvest. Thus, in order to attain full ripeness and  flavor, these fruits such as strawberries and oranges, are often harvested once  they have fully ripened.
In tomatoes, it takes about 45-55  days for the fruit to reach full maturity. After which, it starts to undergo  the ripening process. The production of ethylene within the fruit in turn  signals the activity of different enzymes resulting in physiological changes  such as the change of color from green to red, the softening of the fruit, and  the development of its distinct taste and aroma.
Normally, farmers pick their  produce while they are still green. The ripening process is then induced by  spraying the fruits or vegetables with ethylene gas when they reach their  destination. For long hauls, fruits and vegetables are refrigerated to prevent  damage and delay their ripening.
However, there are drawbacks to  these postharvest practices. Fruits that have been harvested prematurely may  result in poor taste and quality despite appearing as fully ripened ones.  Fruits transported for long periods under refrigeration also have the tendency  to lose their quality.
Controlling the Ripening Process
There are several ways by which  scientists can control the ripening process by genetic modification.
Regulation of Ethylene Production
The amount of ethylene produced can  be controlled primarily by switching off or decreasing the production of  ethylene in the fruit and there are several ways to do this. They include:
Suppression of ACC synthase gene expression.  ACC (1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid) synthase is the enzyme responsible  for the conversion of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) to ACC; the second to the last  step in ethylene biosynthesis. Enzyme expression is hindered when an antisense  (mirror-image) or truncated copy of the synthase gene is inserted into the  plants genome.
Insertion of the ACC deaminase gene. The  gene coding for the enzyme is obtained from Pseudomonas chlororaphis, a common  nonpathogenic soil bacterium. It converts ACC to a different compound thereby  reducing the amount of ACC available for ethylene production.
Insertion of the SAM hydrolase gene. This  approach is similar to ACC deaminase wherein ethylene production is hindered  when the amount of its precursor metabolite is reduced; in this case SAM is  converted to homoserine. The gene coding for the enzyme is obtained from E.  coli T3 bacteriophage.
Suppression of ACC oxidase gene expression.  ACC oxidase is the enzyme which catalyzes the oxidation of ACC to ethylene, the  last step in the ethylene biosynthetic pathway. Through anti-sense technology,  down regulation of the ACC oxidase gene results in the suppression of ethylene  production, thereby delaying fruit ripening.
Since ethylene signals the onset of  fruit ripening, delayed ripening on some plants can be achieved by modifying  their ethylene receptors. The gene ETR1 is one example, and it has been shown  to encode an ethylene binding protein. Plants with modified ETR1 lack the ability  to respond to ethylene.
Suppression of Polygalacturonase  Activity
Polygalacturonase (PG) is the  enzyme responsible for the breakdown of pectin, the substance that maintains  the integrity of plant cell walls. Pectin breakdown occurs at the start of the  ripening process resulting in the softening of the fruit. To produce a fruit  with DR trait using this method, scientists insert an anti-sense or a truncated  copy of the PG gene into the plants genome resulting in a dramatic reduction  of the amount of PG enzyme produced thereby delaying pectin degradation.
The increased shelf life of  products offers several advantages to both producers and consumers:
Assurance  of top quality fruits and vegetables on the market. Farmers can now wait for  the fruits and vegetables to attain full maturity before they are plucked from  their vines thereby allowing the fruits to exude full quality. Consumers will  get value for their money.
Widening  of market opportunities for farmers as their produce can now be transported for  longer periods of time, some of which would not even require refrigeration.
Reduction  in postharvest losses. DR fruits do not go soft easily compared to conventional  ones and are therefore more resilient to damage during handling and  transportation. This ensures a significant percentage of the harvested fruits  to end up on the market shelves.
Extension  in shelf life as fruits or vegetables as they stay fresher and nutritious for  longer periods. These fruits will not easily go over the hill.
Safety Aspects of DR Technology
The first ever GM crop approved for  marketing was the Flavr-SavrTM tomato produced by Calgene, Inc. (US) in 1994.  After thoroughly studying DR technology and its products, US regulatory  agencies concluded that the DR technology is safe, it produces tomatoes that  have the same nutritional composition as the conventional ones and that show no  difference in levels of allergens or toxins compared to normal fruit. In  addition, field trials have shown that the DR tomatoes do not pose any threat  to other plants nor to any non-target organisms.
Other DR tomatoes that followed  thereafter have also been granted deregulated status by regulatory agencies in  several countries including the US,  Canada, and Mexico. In  1996, the UKs food safety regulators also gave their thumbs up to a DR tomato  developed by Zeneca Seeds but it is not currently being sold in supermarkets  (see box).
On February 5, 1996 branches of    Safeway and Sainsburys supermarkets throughout the UK started to    sell tomato pure made from genetically-modified tomatoes. This was the first    time that food made from a GM organism had been sold in Europe.
Labels on the cans clearly stated    that the product had been made with GM tomatoes. Although there was no legal    requirement to label the product, both supermarkets adopted an open    information policy from the start. For the inquisitive customer there was no    shortage of information: leaflets were available describing the product, its    benefits to the environment and consumer, the technology, and the regulatory    processes through which the product had to pass.
According to the supermarkets,    sales in around 80 stores in which supplies were initially available were    brisk. Figures indicated that once they bought the product, shoppers came    back for more. In November 1997, Safeway Stores announced that they had sold    three quarters of a million cans of the product, and that average sales per    store of the modified tomato pure exceeded those of the conventional    equivalent. One reason might have been the price: the new pure cost 29 pence    for 170 grams while the traditional form cost slightly more: 29 pence for a    mere 142 grams. 
Both supermarket chains pledged    that the new product would always be offered alongside its old-fashioned    counterpart. This move pleased consumer groups, which had no objection to the    pure, provided that it was safe to eat and that consumers were always given    a choice.
However, commercial pressures    generated by public concern about GM foods early in 1999 forced Sainsburys    to announce that it would withdraw the product from sale. Stocks were    exhausted by July 1999.
http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/tomato.html
Current Status of DR Technology
Delayed Ripening (DR) Technology  has been applied for use in tomatoes, melons, and papaya. An interesting  application of DR technology is in floriculture where experiments are underway  to apply the technology to delay the withering of flowers.
    In Southeast   Asia, DR technology is being applied for use in papayas, a popular  subsistence food and part of the general diet in the region. This technology  could significantly increase the availability of this nutritious fruit to  consumers and to small-scale and mostly resource-poor farmers in the region.
Regulatory approval of countries  for crops with the DR trait.
Source: Essential    Biosafety 2003. Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies, Inc.
http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/tomato.html
Bleecker  A.B. and Kende H. 2000. Ethylene: a gaseous signal molecule in plants. Annu.  Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 16: 1-18.
Catalytic  Generators, Inc. Ethylene. (
http://catalyticigenerators/com/whatisethylene.html
Essential  Biosafety. 2002. Agriculture and Biotechnology Strategies, Inc.
GEO-Pie  Project. Delayed Fruit Ripening. (
http://www.comm.cornell.edu/gmo/gmo.html
Hautea,  R., Y.K.Chan, S. Attathom, and A.F. Krattiger. 1999. The Papaya Biotechnology  Network of Southeast Asia: Biosafety  Considerations and Papaya Background Information. ISAAA Briefs no. 11. ISAAA:Ithaca, NY.
ISAAA.  2003. Papaya Biotechnology Network of South East Asia  Report.











Document Number: 849 
Pocket K No. 13: Conventional  Plant Breeding
Since the practice of agriculture  began, eight to ten thousand years ago, farmers have been altering the genetic  makeup of the crops they grow. Early farmers selected the best looking plants  and seeds and saved them to plant for the next season. Then, once the science  of genetics became better understood, plant breeders used what they knew about  the genes of a plant to select for specific desirable traits to develop  improved varieties.
The selection for features such as  faster growth, higher yields, pest and disease resistance, larger seeds, or  sweeter fruits has dramatically changed domesticated plant species compared to  their wild relatives. For example, when corn was first grown in North and South America, thousands of years ago, the corn cobs  farmers harvested were smaller than ones little finger. Today, there are  hundreds of varieties of corn, some of which produce cobs as long as ones  forearm.
Conventional plant breeding has  been going on for hundreds of years, and is still commonly used today. Early  farmers discovered that some crop plants could be artificially mated or  cross-pollinated to increase yields. Desirable characteristics from different  parent plants could also be combined in the offspring. When the science of  plant breeding was further developed in the 20th century, plant breeders  understood better how to select superior plants and breed them to create new  and improved varieties of different crops. This has dramatically increased the  productivity and quality of the plants we grow for food, feed and fiber.
The art of recognizing desirable  traits and incorporating them into future generations is very important in  plant breeding. Breeders scrutinize their fields and travel long distances in  search of individual plants that exhibit desirable traits. A few of these  traits occasionally arise spontaneously through a process called mutation, but  the natural rate of mutation is very slow and unreliable to produce all the  plant traits that breeders would like to see. (See box Mutation Breeding.)
The end result of plant breeding is  either an open-pollinated (OP) variety or an F1 (first filial generation)  hybrid variety. OP varieties, when maintained and produced properly, retain the  same characteristics when multiplied. The only technique used with OP varieties  is the selection of the seed-bearing plants.
Hybrid seeds are an improvement  over open pollinated seeds in terms of qualities such as yield, resistance to  pests and diseases, and time to maturity. Hybrid seeds are developed by the  hybridization or crossing of parent lines that are pure lines produced  through inbreeding. Pure lines are plants that breed true or produce sexual  offspring that closely resemble their parents. By crossing pure lines, a  uniform population of F1 hybrid seed can be produced with predictable  characteristics.
The simplest way to explain how to  develop an F1 hybrid is to take an example. Let us say a plant breeder observes  a particularly good habit in a plant, but with poor flower color, and in  another plant of the same type he sees good color but poor habit. The best  plant of each type is then taken and self-pollinated (in isolation) each year  and, each year, the seed is re-sown. Eventually, every time the seed is sown  the same identical plants will appear. When they do, this is known as a pure  line.
If the breeder now takes the pure  line of each of the two plants he originally selected and cross pollinates the  two by hand the result is known as an F1 hybrid. Plants are grown from the  seed produced, and the result of this cross pollination should have the  combined traits of the two parents.
This is the simplest form of  hybridization, but there are complications, of course. A completely pure line  can sometimes take seven or eight years to achieve. Sometimes, a pure line is  made up of several previous crossings to build in desirable features. The  resulting plant is then grown on until it is genetically pure before use in  hybridization.
In addition to qualities like good  vigor, trueness to type, heavy yields and high uniformity which hybrid plants  enjoy, other characteristics such as earliness, disease and insect resistance  and good water holding ability have been incorporated into most F1 hybrids.
Unfortunately, these advantages  come with a price. Because creating F1 hybrids involves many years of  preparation to create pure lines that have to be constantly maintained so that  F1 seeds can be harvested each year, the seeds then become more expensive. The  problem is compounded because to ensure that no self-pollination takes place,  all the hybridization of the two pure lines, sometimes, has to be done by hand.
Another disadvantage is if the  seeds of the F1 hybrids are used for growing the next crops, the resulting  plants do not perform as well as the F1 material - resulting in inferior yields  and vigor. As a consequence, the farmer has to purchase new F1 seeds from the  plant breeder each year. The farmer is, however, compensated by higher yields  and better quality of the crop.
Though more expensive, hybrid seeds  have had a tremendous impact on agricultural productivity. Today, nearly all  corn and 50% of all rice are hybrids (DANIDA).
In the US, the widespread use of  corn hybrids, coupled with improved cultural practices by farmers, has more  than tripled corn grain yields over the past 50 years from an average of 35  bushels per acre in the 1930s to 115 bushels per acre in the 1990s. No other  major crop anywhere in the world even comes close to equaling that sort of  success story.
Hybrid rice technology helped China increase  its rice production from 140 million tons in 1978 to 188 million tons in 1990.  Research at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and in other  countries indicates that hybrid rice technology offers opportunities for  increasing rice varietal yields by 15-20%. And this is achievable with the  improved, semi-dwarf, and inbred varieties (IRRI).
Many cultivars of popular  vegetables or ornamental plants are F1 hybrids. In terms of improved plant  characteristics, tropical vegetable breeders can point to some rather clear  achievements over the last two decades:
. Hybrids often  outyield traditional OP selections by 50-100% due to its improved vigor, improved  genetic disease resistance, improved fruit setting under stress, and higher  female/male flower ratios.
. Hybrids  often mature up to 15 days earlier than local OP varieties. For many crops, the  hybrids relative advantage over the OP is most pronounced under stress  conditions.
. Hybrids have  helped stabilize product quality at a higher, and more uniform level  this  implies improved consumption quality (e.g. firm flesh of wax gourd, crispy  taste of watermelon).
In the late 1920s, researchers    discovered that they could greatly increase the number of these variations or    mutations by exposing plants to X-rays and chemicals. Mutation breeding was    further developed after World War II, when the techniques of the nuclear age    became widely available. Plants were exposed to gamma rays, protons,    neutrons, alpha particles, and beta particles to see if these would induce    useful mutations. Chemicals, too, such as sodium azide and ethyl    methanesulphonate, were used to cause mutations.
Mutation breeding efforts    continue around the world today. Of the 2,252 officially released mutation    breeding varieties, 1,019 or almost half have been released during the last    15 years. Examples of plants that have been produced via mutation breeding    include wheat, barley, rice, potatoes, soybeans, and onions. (For FAOs    Mutant Variety Database, visit 
http://www-mvd.iaea.org/MVD/default.htm
Conventional plant breeding  resulting in open pollinated varieties (OP) or hybrid varieties has had a  tremendous impact on agricultural productivity over the last decades. While an  extremely important tool, conventional plant breeding also has its limitations.  First, breeding can only be done between two plants that can sexually mate with  each other. This limits the new traits that can be added to those that already  exist in a particular species. Second, when plants are crossed, many traits are  transferred along with the trait/s of interest - including those traits that  have undesirable effects on yield potential.
Bauman,  F. and Crane, P.L. 1992. Hybrid corn - History, development and selection  considerations. National Corn Handbook. Purdue    University, US.
DANIDA.  2002. Assessment of potentials and constraints for development and use of plant  biotechnology in relation to plant breeding and crop production in developing  countries. Working paper. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark.
East-West  Seeds 1982-2002. 2002. Vegetable Breeding for Market Development. Edited by Karl  Kunz. Bangkok, Thailand.
Food  and Agriculture Organization. 2002. Crop Biotechnology: A working paper for  administrators and policy makers in Sub-Saharan Africa.
http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/history.html
Hybrid  varieties and saving seed (
http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/plantanswers/vegetables/seed.html
International  Rice Research Institute. (











Document Number: 3868 
Pocket K No.  14: Tissue Culture Technology
Just as every person is different and  unique, so is each plant. Some have traits like better color, yield, or pest  resistance. For years, scientists have looked for methods to allow them to make  exact copies of these superior individuals.
Plants usually reproduce by forming  seeds through sexual reproduction. That is, egg cells in the flowers are  fertilized by pollen from the stamens of the plants. Each of these sexual cells  contains genetic material in the form of DNA. During sexual reproduction, DNA  from both parents is combined in new and unpredictable ways, creating unique  plants.
This unpredictability is a problem for  plant breeders as it can take several years of careful greenhouse work to breed  a plant with desirable characteristics. Many of us think that all plants grow  from seeds. However, researchers have now developed several methods of growing  exact copies of plants without seeds. And they are now doing this through a  method called tissue culture.
Tissue culture (TC) is the cultivation  of plant cells, tissues, or organs on specially formulated nutrient media.  Under the right conditions, an entire plant can be regenerated from a single  cell. Plant tissue culture is a technique that has been around for more than 30  years. Tissue culture is seen as an important technology for developing  countries for the production of disease-free, high quality planting material  and the rapid production of many uniform plants.
Micropropagation, which is a form of  tissue culture, increases the amount of planting material to facilitate  distribution and large scale planting. In this way, thousands of copies of a  plant can be produced in a short time. Micropropagated plants are observed to  establish more quickly, grow more vigorously and are taller, have a shorter and  more uniform production cycle, and produce higher yields than conventional  propagules.
Plant tissue culture is a  straightforward technique and many developing countries have already mastered  it. Its application only requires a sterile workplace, nursery, and green  house, and trained manpower. Unfortunately, tissue culture is labor intensive,  time consuming, and can be costly. Plants important to developing countries  that have been grown in tissue culture are oil palm, plantain, pine, banana,  date, eggplant, jojoba, pineapple, rubber tree, cassava, yam, sweet potato, and  tomato. This application is the most commonly applied form of traditional  biotechnology in Africa.
Tissue       culture has been refined to suit the needs of orchid species and hybrids       known to grow well in Southeast Asia.       Judging from the experience of Thailand,       Singapore, and Malaysia,       the ornamental and cut flower trade is a substantial source of foreign       exchange and additional income for small growers.
In       Thailand,       tissue culture is used to reproduce slow-growing and environment-sensitive       orchids. Thailand is       the leader in tissue culture in Southeast Asia,       producing 50 million plantlets a year. Most of these are orchids, which       have helped the country become the biggest exporter of whole and cut       orchids in the world.
Micropagation       by shoot culture technique has been developed for the mass propagation of       banana. In the Philippines,       this is used as a control approach to viral diseases in banana such as:       banana bunchy top virus (BBTV) and banana bract mosaic virus (BBrMV),       which are commonly spread through propagative materials.
Benefits of TC technology for small-scale banana producers  in Kenya  (Source: ISAAA)
In Kenya, as in many parts of the  tropical and subtropical developing world, banana is a highly important food  crop. In the last 20 years, however, there was a rapid decline in banana  production due to widespread soil degradation and the infestation of banana  orchards with pests and diseases. These problems were further aggravated by the  common practice of propagating new banana plants using infected suckers. The  situation was threatening food security, employment and incomes in  banana-producing areas. Tissue culture technology was considered an appropriate  option to provide sufficient quality and quantity of such materials.
With proper management and field  hygiene, yield losses caused by pests and diseases at farm level have been  reduced substantially. Tissue culture technology has made it possible for  farmers to have access to the following:
large       quantities of superior clean planting materials that are early maturing       (12-16 months compared to the conventional banana of 2-3 years)
bigger       bunch weights (30-45 kg compared to the 10-15 kg from conventional       material)
higher       annual yield per unit of land (40-60 tons per hectare against 15-20 tons previously       realized with conventional material
Moreover, uniformity in orchard  establishment and simultaneous plantation development made marketing easier to  coordinate. It also offered the possibility of transforming banana growing from  merely a subsistence level into a commercial enterprise. An encouraging finding  from a cost-benefit analysis of the project is that tc banana production is  more remunerative as an enterprise than traditional banana production. The  project has also benefited mainly women who tend the crop, thus helping to  narrow the gender gap.
Benefits of TC technology for rice farmers in West Africa (Source: WARDA)
    For years, scientists dreamed of  combining the ruggedness of the African rice species (Oryza glaberrima) with  the productivity of the Asian species (Oryza sativa). But the two are so  different. Attempts to cross them failed since the resulting offsprings were  all sterile. In the 1990s, rice breeders from the West Africa Rice Development  Association (WARDA) turned to biotechnology in an attempt to overcome the  infertility problems. Key to the effort were gene banks that hold seeds of  1,500 African rice  which faced extinction since farmers have already  abandoned them for higher-yielding Asian varieties.
Advances in agricultural research  helped scientists cross these two species. After cross-fertilization of the two  species, embryos were removed and grown on artificial media using a process  known as embryo-rescue. Because the resultant plants are frequently almost  sterile, they were re-crossed with the sativa parent whenever possible (known  as back-crossing). Once the fertility of the progeny was improved (often after  several cycles of back-crossing), anther culture was used to double the gene  complement of the male sex cells (anthers) and, thus, produce true-breeding  plants.
The first of the new rices dubbed New  Rice for Africa (or NERICA) was available for  testing in 1994 and since then many new lines have been generated. Some of the  new plants combined yield traits of the sativa parent with local adaptation  traits from glaberrima.
Generally, NERICAs have the following  characteristics:
wide       and droopy leaves which smother weeds in early growth
panicles       or grain heads that are longer with forked branches, and hold up to 400       grains
more       tillers with strong stems to support and hold tightly the heavy grain       heads
rice       yields as high as 2.5 tons per hectare at low inputs  and 5 tons or more       with just a minimum increase in fertilizer usage (amounts to approximately       25% to 250% increase in production)
matures       30 to 50 days earlier than current varieties, allowing farmers to grow       extra crops of vegetables or legumes
taller       than most rice varieties and resists pests and tolerates drought better
grows       well on infertile and acidic soilswhich comprise 70% of West        Africas upland rice area
have       2% more body-building protein than their African or Asian parents
Because of their success, NERICAs were  quickly adopted by farmers. In 2000, it was estimated that the new rices  covered some 8,000 ha in Guinea,  of which 5000 ha were grown by 20,000 farmers under the supervision of the  national extension agency. In 2002, WARDA projected that 330,000 ha would be  planted to NERICAs  which is sufficient to meet the countrys own seed needs  with surplus for export to neighboring countries.
 : Main male reproductive structure, in which pollen are formed  and stored.
 : the tips of roots or stems from which new cells are formed.
 : A molecule found in cells of organisms where genetic  information is stored.
 : A sequence of tissue culture techniques used to enable a  fertilized immature embryo resulting from an interspecific cross to continue  growth and development, until it can be regenerated into an adult plant.
 : Male flower parts containing pollen, anthers, filaments.
DANIDA.2002. Assessment of potentials  and constraints for development and use of plant biotechnology in relation to  plant breeding and crop production in developing countries. Working paper.  Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark.
DeVries, J. and Toenniessen, G. 2001.  Securing the harvest: Biotechnology, breeding and seed systems for African  crops. The Rockefeller Foundation, New    York. USA.
FAO 2002 Crop Biotechnology: A working  paper for administrators and policy makers in sub-Saharan Africa.  Kitch, L., Koch, M., and Sithole-Nang, I.
International Service for the  Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 
Ruff, Anne Marie. Sowing the Seeds of  Revolution. February 15, 2001. (
http://www.undp.org.vn/mlist/envirovlc/022001/post50.htm
Wambugu, F. and Kiome, R. 2001. The  benefits of biotechnology for small-scale banana farmers in Kenya. ISAAA  Briefs No. 22. ISAAA: Ithaca,   NY.
West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) 
'Omics' Sciences:   Genomics, Proteomics, and Metabolomics 











Document Number: 5879 
'Omics' Sciences:  Genomics, Proteomics, and Metabolomics 
Pocket K No. 15: 'Omics' Sciences:  Genomics, Proteomics, and Metabolomics 
Genomics is the new science that  deals with the discovery and noting of all the sequences in the entire genome  of a particular organism. The genome can be defined as the complete set of  genes inside a cell. Genomics, is, therefore, the study of the genetic make-up  of organisms.
Determining the genomic sequence,  however, is only the beginning of genomics. Once this is done, the genomic  sequence is used to study the function of the numerous genes (functional  genomics), to compare the genes in one organism with those of another  (comparative genomics), or to generate the 3-D structure of one or more  proteins from each protein family, thus offering clues to their function  (structural genomics).
In crop agriculture, the main  purpose of the application of genomics is to gain a better understanding of the  whole genome of plants. Agronomically important genes may be identified and  targeted to produce more nutritious and safe food while at the same time  preserving the environment.
Genomics is an entry point for looking  at the other omics sciences. The information in the genes of an organism, its  genotype, is largely responsible for the final physical makeup of the organism,  referred to as the phenotype. However, the environment also has some  influence on the phenotype.
DNA in the genome is only one  aspect of the complex mechanism that keeps an organism running  so decoding  the DNA is one step towards understanding the process. However, by itself, it  does not specify everything that happens within the organism.
The basic flow of genetic  information in a cell is as follows. The DNA is transcribed or copied into a  form known as RNA. The complete set of RNA (also known as its transcriptome)  is subject to some editing (cutting and pasting) to become messenger-RNA, which  carries information to the ribosome, the protein factory of the cell, which  then translates the message into protein.
Figure 1. Genes,    proteins, and molecular machines
Source: U.S.    Department of Energy Genomes to Life Program, 
The International Rice Genome  Sequencing Project
This ongoing genomic research in  rice is a collaborative effort of several public and private laboratories  worldwide. This project aims to completely sequence the entire rice genome (12  rice chromosomes) and subsequently apply the knowledge to improve rice  production.

    In 2002, the draft genome sequences  of two agriculturally important subspecies of rice, indica and japonica, were  published. Once completed, the rice genome sequence will serve as a model  system for other cereal grasses and will assist in identifying important genes  in maize, wheat, oats, sorghum, and millet.
http://rgp.dna.affrc.go.jp/IRGSP
Proteins are responsible for an  endless number of tasks within the cell. The complete set of proteins in a cell  can be referred to as its proteome and the study of protein structure and  function and what every protein in the cell is doing is known as proteomics.  The proteome is highly dynamic and it changes from time to time in response to  different environmental stimuli. The goal of proteomics is to understand how  the structure and function of proteins allow them to do what they do, what they  interact with, and how they contribute to life processes.
An application of proteomics is  known as protein expression profiling where proteins are identified at a  certain time in an organism as a result of the expression to a stimulus.  Proteomics can also be used to develop a protein-network map where interaction  among proteins can be determined for a particular living system.
Proteomics can also be applied to  map protein modification to determine the difference between a wild type and a  genetically modified organism. It is also used to study protein-protein  interactions involved in plant defense reactions.
For example, proteomics research at  Iowa State University, USA includes:
an  examination of changes of protein in the corn proteome during low temperatures  which is a major problem for young corn seedlings;
analysis  of the differences that occur in the genome expression in developing soybean  stressed by high temperatures; and
identifying  the proteins expressed in response to diseases like soybean cyst nematode.
Metabolomics is one of the newest  omics sciences. The metabolome refers to the complete set of low molecular  weight compounds in a sample. These compounds are the substrates and  by-products of enzymatic reactions and have a direct effect on the phenotype of  the cell. Thus, metabolomics aims at determining a samples profile of these  compounds at a specified time under specific environmental conditions.
Genomics and proteomics have  provided extensive information regarding the genotype but convey limited  information about phenotype. Low molecular weight compounds are the closest  link to phenotype.
Metabolomics can be used to  determine differences between the levels of thousands of molecules between a  healthy and diseased plant. The technology can also be used to determine the  nutritional difference between traditional and genetically modified crops, and  in identifying plant defense metabolites.
Figure 2. Example of a    metabolic network model for 
Source: U.S.    Department of Energy Genomes to Life Program, 
Figure 2. Example of a    metabolic network model for 
Genomics provides an overview of  the complete set of genetic instructions provided by the DNA, while  transcriptomics looks into gene expression patterns. Proteomics studies dynamic  protein products and their interactions, while metabolomics is also an  intermediate step in understanding organisms entire metabolism.
: a grouping of coiled strands of DNA,  containing many genes.
: a molecule found in  cells of organisms that encodes genetic information.
: a biological unit that codes for distinct  traits or characteristics.
: the complete set of genes in a cell.
: the genetic constitution of an organism.
: complete set of low molecular weight  compounds in a cell at a given time.
: the physical appearance/observable  characteristics of an organism.
: complete set of proteins in a cell at a  given time.
: a molecule, derived  from DNA by transcription, that either carries information (messenger RNA),  provides sub-cellular structure (ribosomal RNA), transports amino acids  (transfer RNA), or facilitates the biochemical modification of itself or other  RNA molecules.
Genomics  and Its impact on Medicine and Society. A 2001 primer. 
http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer2001/1.html
Primer  on Molecular Genetics. 
http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer/primer.pdf
Plant  Sciences Institute Update. Iowa   State University.  October 2001. Volume 2 No.1.
Meet  the omics 2003 Agbiotech Infosource. Saskatchewan Agricultural Biotechnology  Information Centre, A service of Ag-West Biotech Inc.
Global Status of   Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops











Document Number: 8865 
Global Status of  Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2010
Pocket K No. 16: Global Status of  Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 
In 2010, the  global area of biotech crops continued to soar for the fifteenth consecutive  year at a sustained growth rate of 10% or 14 million hectares (35 million  acres), reaching 148 million hectares or 365 million acres (Figure 1). Biotech crops have set a precedent in that  the biotech area has grown impressively every single year for the past 15  years, with almost a remarkable ~87-fold increase since the commercialization  began in 1996.
Figure 1: Global Area of Biotech Crops, 1996 to 2010  (Million Hectares)

            Source: Clive James, 2010.
Thus, in 2010,  a total of 15.4 million farmers planted biotech crops in 29 countries. Of  these, over 90% or 14.4 million (up from 14 million in 2009) were small and  resource-poor farmers from developing countries. Germany  resumed cultivation of biotech crops in 2010 while Pakistan,  Myanmar, and Sweden were  added to the list. The highest increase in any country, in absolute hectarage  growth was in Brazil with  4.0 million hectares and the highest proportional increase was in Australia with  a 184% increase to reach 653,000 hectares.
In summary,  during the period 1996 to 2010, biotech crops have been successfully grown in  accumulated hectarage of more than 1 billion hectares, which is equivalent to  the vast area of USA or China.
Distribution of Biotech Crops in  Industrial and Developing Countries
Figure 2 shows  the relative area of biotech crops in industrial and developing countries from  1996-2010. In 2010, almost half of the global biotech crop area of 148 million  hectares, equivalent to 71.7 million hectares, was grown in 19 developing  countries. It is noteworthy that in  2010, all six countries that exhibited proportional growth in biotech area of  10% or more were developing countries; they were in descending order of  percentage growth: Burkina Faso (126% increase), Brazil (19%), Paraguay (18%),  India (12%), Bolivia (12%), and Philippines (10%). As in the past, in 2010,  percent growth in biotech crop area continued to be significantly stronger in  the developing countries (17% and 10.2 million hectares) than industrial  countries (5% and 3.8 million hectares). Thus, year-on-year growth measured  either in absolute hectares or by percent, was higher in developing countries  than industrial countries in 2010.
Figure 2: Global Area  of Biotech Crops, 1996 to 2010: Industrial and  Developing Countries (Million Hectares)

            Source: Clive James, 2010.
Distribution of Biotech Crops, by  Country
Biotech crops  were grown commercially in all six continents of the world. Pakistan, Myanmar,  and Sweden were added to the  2010 global biotech crop list, with Germany resuming planting.
Of the 29  countries planting biotech crops in 2010, 17 countries planted 50,000 hectares  or more to biotech crops (Table 2). These mega-countries included the USA, Brazil,  Argentina, India, Canada,  China, Paraguay, Pakistan,  South Africa, Uruguay, Bolivia,  Australia, Philippines, Myanmar,  Burkina Faso, Spain, and Mexico reflecting a more balanced  and broader group of countries adopting biotech crops.
It is  noteworthy that in 2010, Australia  had the highest growth rate (184%) between 2009 and 2010 and Brazil had the  highest absolute growth of biotech crops (4 million hectares) in any country in  2010. 
Herbicide  tolerant soybean continued to be the dominant biotech crop in 2010, occupying  73.3 million hectares or 50% of global biotech area (Table 3). It was grown  commercially in the USA, Argentina, Brazil,  Paraguay, Canada, Uruguay,  Bolivia, South Africa, Mexico,  Chile, and Costa Rica. The  second most dominant crop was biotech maize with stacked traits, which occupied  28.8 million hectares or 19% of the global biotech area. It was grown  commercially in the USA, Canada, South   Africa, the Philippines,  Brazil, Honduras, Argentina,  and Chile. 
Biotech cotton  was the third most dominant crop grown in 2010. Bt cotton was planted in more  than 16.1 million hectares in India,  China, Pakistan, Myanmar,  Burkina Faso, Brazil, USA,  Argentina, Australia, Mexico,  and Costa Rica.  This is equivalent to 11% of the global biotech area.
Global Adoption of Biotech  Soybean, Maize, Cotton, and Canola
Another way to  provide a global perspective of the status of biotech crops is to characterize  the global adoption rates as a percentage of the respective global areas of the  four principal crops  soybean, cotton, maize and canola, in which  biotechnology is utilized. 
In 2010, 81% of  the 90 million hectares of the soybean planted globally were biotech (Figure  3). Eighty one percent of the 90 million hectares of soybean planted globally  were biotech, an increase over 2009, when 77% of 90 million hectares of soybean  were biotech. Biotech cotton was planted to 21.0 million hectares (64 %) in  2010, an increase from the 16.1 million hectares planted in 2009. Of the 158  million hectares of maize planted in 2010, 29% or 46.0 million were biotech  maize. Finally, herbicide-tolerant biotech canola was planted in 7.0 million  hectares or 23% of the 31 million hectares of canola grown globally in 2010. If  the global areas (conventional and biotech) of these four crops are aggregated,  the total area is 312 million hectares, of which 47% were biotech, up from 43%  in 2009. Two-thirds of these 312 million hectares are in developing countries  farmed mainly by small, resource-poor farmers.
Figure 3: Biotech Crop  Area as % of Global Area of Principal Crops, 2008 (Million Hectares)

            Source: Clive James, 2010.
The Global Value of Biotech Crops
In 2010, the  global market value of biotech crops was US$11.2 billion representing 22% of the  US$51.8 billion global crop protection market in 2010, and 33% of the ~US$34  billion 2010 global commercial seed market. Of the US$11.2 billion biotech crop  market, US$8.9 billion (80%) was in the industrial countries and US$2.3 billion  (20%) was in the developing countries. The market value of the global biotech  crop market is based on the sale price of biotech seeds plus any technology  fees that apply. The accumulated global value of biotech crops since 1996 is  estimated at US$73.5 billion. The global value of the biotech crop market is  projected at ~US$12 billion for 2011.
The future of  biotech crops looks encouraging. Commercialization of drought tolerant maize is  expected in 2012; Golden Rice in 2013; and Bt rice before the Millennium  Development Goal (MDG) of 2015, which will potentially benefit 1 billion poor  people, in Asia alone. Biotech crops could  possibly contribute in the achievement of 2015 MDG, particularly in decreasing  poverty by half, through maximizing crop productivity in a proposed global  initiative to honor the legacy of ISAAAs founding patron, and Nobel Peace  Laureate, Norman Borlaug, who saved 1 billion people from hunger.
James, C. 2010. Global  Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief No. 42. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
Genetic Engineering and   GM Crops











Document Number: 2872 
Genetic Engineering and GM Crops
Pocket K No.  17: Genetic Engineering and GM Crops
    Over the last 30 years, the field of  genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of  deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes  are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which  the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using recombinant DNA  technology. This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut  out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.
Developing plant varieties expressing  good agronomic characteristics is the ultimate goal of plant breeders. With  conventional plant breeding, however, there is little or no guarantee of  obtaining any particular gene combination from the millions of crosses  generated. Undesirable genes can be transferred along with desirable genes; or,  while one desirable gene is gained, another is lost because the genes of both  parents are mixed together and re-assorted more or less randomly in the  offspring. These problems limit the improvements that plant breeders can  achieve.
In contrast, genetic engineering allows  the direct transfer of one or just a few genes of interest, between either  closely or distantly related organisms to obtain the desired agronomic trait  (Figure 1). Not all genetic engineering techniques involve inserting DNA from  other organisms. Plants may also be modified by removing or switching off their  own particular genes.
Figure 1: Comparing conventional    breeding and genetic engineering (The dots represent genes, with white    representing the gene of interest)
Source: ISAAA Mentors Kit, 2003.
Table 1: Conventional Breeding vs.    Genetic Engineering
Limited to exchanges between the same or very closely related         species
Little or no guarantee of any particular gene combination from         the million of crosses generated
Undesirable genes can be transferred along with desirable genes
Takes a long time to achieve desired results 
Allows the direct transfer of one or just a few genes, between         either closely or distantly related organisms
Crop improvement can be achieved in a shorter time compared to         conventional breeding
Allows plants to be modified by removing or switching off         particular genes
Source: ISAAA Mentors Kit, 2003.
Genes are  molecules of DNA that code for distinct traits or characteristics. For  instance, a particular gene sequence is responsible for the color of a flower  or a plants ability to fight a disease or thrive in extreme environment.
    The sharing of DNA among living forms  is well documented as a natural phenomenon. For thousands of years, genes have  moved from one organism to another. For example, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a  soil bacterium known as natures own genetic engineer, has the natural  ability to genetically engineer plants. It causes crown gall disease in a wide  range of broad-leaved plants, such as apple, pear, peach, cherry, almond,  raspberry, and roses. The disease gains its name from the large tumor-like  swellings (galls) that typically occur at the crown of the plant, just above  soil level. Basically, the bacterium transfers part of its DNA to the plant,  and this DNA integrates into the plants genome, causing the production of  tumors and associated changes in plant metabolism.
Application of genetic engineering in crop production
    Genetic engineering techniques are used  only when all other techniques have been exhausted, i.e. when the trait to be  introduced is not present in the germplasm of the crop; the trait is very  difficult to improve by conventional breeding methods; and when it will take a  very long time to introduce and/or improve such trait in the crop by  conventional breeding methods (see Figure 2). Crops developed through genetic  engineering are commonly known as transgenic crops or genetically modified (GM)  crops.
Modern plant breeding is a  multi-disciplinary and coordinated process where a large number of tools and  elements of conventional breeding techniques, bioinformatics, molecular  genetics, molecular biology, and genetic engineering are utilized and  integrated. 
Figure 2: Modern Plant Breeding
Development of transgenic crops
    Although there are many diverse and  complex techniques involved in genetic engineering, its basic principles are  reasonably simple. There are five major steps in the development of a  genetically engineered crop. But for every step, it is very important to know  the biochemical and physiological mechanisms of action, regulation of gene  expression, and safety of the gene and the gene product to be utilized. Even  before a genetically engineered crop is made available for commercial use, it  has to pass through rigorous safety and risk assessment procedures.
The first step is the extraction of DNA  from the organism known to have the trait of interest. The second step is gene  cloning, which will isolate the gene of interest from the entire extracted DNA,  followed by mass-production of the cloned gene in a host cell. Once it is  cloned, the gene of interest is designed and packaged so that it can be  controlled and properly expressed once inside the host plant. The modified gene  will then be mass-produced in a host cell in order to make thousands of copies.  When the gene package is ready, it can then be introduced into the cells of the  plant being modified through a process called transformation. The most common  methods used to introduce the gene package into plant cells include biolistic  transformation (using a gene gun) or Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.  Once the inserted gene inserted stable, inherited, and expressed in subsequent  generations, then the plant is considered a transgenic. Backcross breeding is the  final step in the genetic engineering process, where the transgenic crop is  bred and selected in order to obtain high quality plants that express the  inserted gene in a desired manner.
The length of time in developing  transgenic plant depends upon the gene, crop species, available resources, and  regulatory approval. It may take 6-15 years before a new transgenic hybrid is  ready for commercial release.
Commercially available crops improved through genetic  engineering
    There has been a consistent increase in  the global area planted to transgenic crops from 1996 to 2005. About 90 M ha  was planted in 2005 to transgenic crops with high market value, such as  herbicide tolerant soybean, maize, cotton, and canola; insect resistant maize,  cotton, potato, and rice; and virus resistant squash and papaya. With genetic  engineering, more than one trait can be incorporated into a plant. Transgenic  crops with combined traits are also available commercially. These include  herbicide tolerant and insect resistant maize and cotton.
New and future initiatives in crop genetic engineering
    To date, commercial GM crops have  delivered benefits in crop production, but there are also a number of products  in the pipeline which will make more direct contributions to food quality,  environmental benefits, pharmaceutical production, and non-food crops. Examples  of these products include: rice with higher levels of iron and b-carotene (an  important micronutrient which is converted to vitamin A in the body); long life  banana that ripens faster on the tree and can therefore be harvested earlier;  maize with improved feed value; tomatoes with high levels of flavonols, which  are powerful antioxidants; drought tolerant maize; maize with improved  phosphorus availability; arsenic-tolerant plants; edible vaccines from fruit  and vegetables; and low lignin trees for paper making.
Agricultural Biotechnology Europe 2003.  Future developments in crop biotechnology. Issue Paper 6.
DANIDA. 2002. Assessment of potentials  and constraints for development and use of plant biotechnology in relation to  plant breeding and crop production in developing countries. Working paper.  Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark
Desmond, S. and Nicholl, T. 1994. An  introduction to genetic engineering. Cambridge   University Press.
Giddings, G., Allison, G., Brooks, D.  and Carter, A. 2000. Transgenic plant as factories for biopharmaceuticals.  Nature Biotechnology 18, 1151-1155.
Goto, F., Yoshihara, R., Shigemoto, N.,  Toki., S., and Takaiwa, F. 1999. Iron fortification of rice seed by the soybean  ferritin gene. Nature Biotechnology 17, 282-286.
Lopez-Bucio, J., Martinez de la Vega,  O., Guevara-Garcia, A., and Herera-Estrella, L. 2000. Enhanced phosphorous  uptake in transgenic tobacco plants that overproduce citrate. Nature  Biotechnology 18, 450-453.
James, C. 2005. Global Status of  Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Robinson, C. 2001. Genetic modification  technology and food: Consumer health and safety. ILSI Europe  Concise Monograph Series.
Overview of Crops Genetic Engineering.  http://croptechnology.unl.edu/download.cgi.
Ye, X., Al-Babili, S., Kloti, A.,  Zhang, J., Lucca, P. and Potrykus, I. 2000. Engineering the Provitamin A (b-carotene)  biosynthetic pathway into (carotinoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287,  303-305.
Ethics and Agricultural   Biotechnology











Document Number: 3619 
Ethics and Agricultural Biotechnology
Pocket K No.  18: Ethics and Agricultural Biotechnology
    Through the advancement of technology,  scientists have been able to develop more precise and powerful tools to produce  crops and animals with selected traits that aim to benefit farmers and  consumers. While merely a scientific tool, biotechnology has instigated  worldwide debate and confusion as a result of mixed messages from various  people - be they scientists, academics, activists, industry, religious  representatives or consumer bodies. The worldwide debate on the pros and cons  of biotechnology has been likened to a battleground and a prominent place for  virtually every ethical concern. It has stirred conflicting ideas and opinions  and has polarized sectors not only among stakeholders but even between countries.
While agriculture has long been a topic  of philosophical, religious and political reflection, tt is only in the late  20th century that systematic thinking about the values and norms associated  with the food system, such as farming, food processing, distribution, trade,  and consumption, began to be discussed in the context of agricultural ethics  (CAST, 2005). In addition, by placing biotechnology in the light of  globalization, societal debate has moved towards a discussion of ethical and  social impacts (Paula, 2001).
In 2000, the Council of Europe  Parliamentary Assembly recommended that it was increasingly important to  include ethical considerations centered on humankind, society and the  environment in deliberations regarding developments and applications in  biotechnology, life sciences, and technology. A year later, the United Kingdoms  Royal Society Report asserted that public debate about genetically modified  food must take account of wider issues than the science alone (Kinderlerer and  Adcock, 2003).
    In general, ethics is defined as the  ideals, values or standards that people use to determine whether their actions  are good or bad. It is what society uses to judge whether an issue or thing is  acceptable and justifiable and determines responsibility and justice (Thompson,  2001). It answers the question Is an action right or wrong?
On one hand, ethics is a set of  universal norms that are documented through legal or professional codes of  practice, religious texts, literature and philosophy. On the other hand, ethics  are values defined by a person or groups that are personal, introspective, and  hence, difficult to manage for public discussion (Thompson, 2001). Given the  range of cultural diversity, it is expected that people would react in  different ways to certain issues and concerns.
 therefore encompass value judgments that cover the production, processing, and  distribution of food and agricultural products. The Food and Agriculture  Organization of the United Nations asserts that ethical values determine its  reason for being these being the values for food, enhanced well-being, human  health, natural resources, and nature (FAO, 2001).
CAST (2005) notes that ultimately the  goal of agricultural ethics is to discover or develop clear, noncontradictory,  comprehensive, and universal standards for judging right and wrong actions and  policies.
What are some ethical issues raised about agricultural  biotechnology?
    Many of the ethical issues that form  part of the biotechnology debate can apply also to food and agricultural  systems in general. Accepting the need to understand and tolerate societal  norms or beliefs, many statements of concern are often general and broad with  little explanation about what makes them disagreeable or wrong. The following  are examples of issues more clearly articulated by Kinderlerer and Adcock  (2003); CAST (2005); the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United  Nations (2001), and Thompson (2001).
    Genetic modification is said to involve  human intervention into creation and hence, is an unnatural act. Often viewed  as a religious question, it avers that the technology is so intrusive to life  processes that they amount to a form of disrespect for humanitys proper  relationship to nature, a form of playing God (Comstock cited by CAST, 2005).  Some religions ascribe a particular essence to each living organism and  hence, connect the concept of gene with the idea of essence. Others believe  that biotechnology disrupts natural order and violates the limits of what  humans are ethically permitted to do. Alternatively, there is the view that  science and progress are good things and are God-given faculties to help  mankind support life and better manage the environment.
Religion and Agricultural Biotechnology
The religious sector, notably the    Roman Catholic Church and the Muslim faith, have voiced their views on    biotechnology. Islamic scholars note that Islam is not in contradiction to    the development of science and technology if it is intended for the    betterment of mankind and does not harm the environment.
Biotechnology, in particular, becomes    an issue when it entails a discourse on food. Any GM food must meet the    general criterion of halalan tayyiban which means permissible from the    shariah perspective (halal) and of good quality (tayyib). In Malaysia,    there is a fatwa (religious decree) that states that GM foods with DNA from    pigs are haram (not permissible) for Muslims to eat. To date, only this fatwa    has been issued (MABIC, 2004).
The Jubilee of the Agricultural World    Address of John Paul II in 2000 mentioned that in agricultural production or    in the case of biotechnology, it must not be evaluated solely on the basis of    immediate economic interest but through rigorous scientific and ethical    examination (Vatican,    2000). By October 2004, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace released    the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church which is an overview of    the fundamental framework of the doctrinal corpus of Catholic social    teaching. Biotechnology is mentioned as having powerful social, economic,    and political impact but that it should be used with prudence, objectivity,    and responsibly (Vatican,    2004).
General Welfare and Sustainability
A central issue is whether the  technology considers the pursuit of the greatest good together with the concept  of sustainability. While a technology can provide more food it should not be to  the detriment 

    of the environment or to human health  or disrupt traditional behavioral systems. In like manner, it is an ethical  issue if food that can provide more and better nutrition is not made available  to those who need it most. Hence, not to use a technology that has potential to  improve the quality of lives of people is also a moral issue. As an  environmental issue, questions raised have to do with concerns regarding  environmental protection, sustainable use of biodiversity, economic growth and  social equity.
Distribution of Benefits and Burdens
A concern particularly in developing  countries is the concept of just distribution. Questions have to do with  whether the products produced by the technology will be able to provide for  those who really need it and whether it will generate wealth for the society as  a whole. A technologys ability to increase or decrease the gap between the  rich and poor renders it an ethical issue. This includes allegations that  products derived from modern biotechnology are being introduced by private  companies that have an obligation to make profits. Also, whether a technology,  while able to increase technical employment might eliminate subsistence labor  as a result of replacing cultural operations.
Other concerns include exploitation or  control over genetic resources, consumers choice and rights, and use of  genetically modified animals.
How do we deal with ethical issues?
    FAO (2001) recognizes that there is no  single set of ethical principles sufficient for building a more equitable and  ethical food and agricultural system. However, it recommends the following  actions that individuals, states, corporations and voluntary organizations in  the international community can take:
Creating       the mechanisms to balance interests and resolve conflicts
Supporting       and encouraging broad stakeholder participation in policies, programs, and       projects
Encouraging       individuals, communities and nations to engage in dialogue, and       ultimately, to do what is ethical
Developing       and disseminating widely the information and analyses necessary to make       wise and ethical decisions
Ensuring       that decision-making procedures in international food and agriculture       policy are well understood and transparent
Fostering       the use of science and technology in support of a more just and equitable       food and agriculture system
Ensuring       that programs, policies, standards and decisions always take ethical       considerations into account so as to lead to enhanced well-being, environmental       protection and improved health
Developing       codes of ethical conduct where they do not currently exist.
Periodically       reviewing ethical commitments and determining whether or not they are       appropriate, in the light of new knowledge and changes in circumstances
CAST (2005) suggests the need to  institutionalize agricultural ethics. This involves a deliberate move to  include some consideration of ethics in the actions, decisions, and policies  that stakeholders in the food system create or support. Each stakeholder has to  accept the fact that that if ethical issues are going to be understood, and if  ethical conflicts are going to be resolved, it is our responsibility, within  the limits of our place in the system, to understand and contribute.
    Despite the diversity of ethical issues  in 
, there is a need to understand beliefs and  doctrines as this allows coexistence within and across societies, and prevents  social conflict. A technologys acceptance is based not only on technological  soundness but on how it is perceived to be socially, politically, and  economically feasible from the viewpoint of disparate groups. An understanding  of ethics helps determine what information is needed by society and how to deal  with different opinions. A process of negotiation based on trust is essential  to enable stakeholders to participate in debates and decision making.
Council for Agricultural Science and  Technology. 2005. Agricultural Ethics. Issue Paper No. 29. Ames, Iowa, USA.
Food and Agriculture Organization of  the United Nations. 2001. Report of the Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in  Food and Agriculture. FAO First Session, September 26-28, 2001. Rome, Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organization of  the United Nations. 2001. Ethical issues in food and agriculture. FAO Ethics  Series 1. Rome, Italy.
Kinderlerer, Julian and Mike Adcock.  2003. Agricultural biotechnology, policies, ethics, and policy. Working Paper  No. 3 prepared for the first meeting of the FANRPAN/IFPRI Regional Policy  Dialogue on Biotechnology, Agriculture, and Food Security in Southern   Africa. Johannesburg,   South Africa.
Malaysian Biotechnology Centre. 2004.  Biotechnology and religion: Are they compatible? BICNews. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Paula, Lino. 2001. Ethics: The key to  public acceptance of biotechnology? Biotechnology and Development Monitor. No.  47. The Network University,  Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Thompson, Paul. 2001. Food and  
: Incorporating ethical considerations. Retrieved  from 
http:///www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agbiotech/Thompsonpaper/Thompson3.html
Vatican. 2000. Jubilee of the Agricultural World. Retrieved from 
Vactican. 2004. Compendium of the  Social Doctrine of the Church. Retrieved from 
Molecular Breeding and   Marker-Assisted Selection











Document Number: 1185 
Molecular  Breeding and Marker-Assisted Selection
Pocket K No. 19: Molecular  Breeding and Marker-Assisted Selection
The process of developing new crop  varieties can take almost 25 years. Now, however, biotechnology has  considerably shortened the time to 7-10 years for new crop varieties to be  brought to the market. One of the tools which can make it easier and faster for  scientists to select plant traits is marker-assisted selection (MAS).
The differences that distinguish  one plant from another are encoded in the plants genetic material, the DNA.  DNA is packaged in chromosome pairs (strands of genetic material), one coming  from each parent. The genes, which control a plants characteristics, are  located on specific segments of each chromosome. Together, all of a plants  genes make up its genome.
Some traits, like flower color, may  be controlled by only one gene. Other more complex characteristics, however,  like crop yield or starch content, may be influenced by many genes.  Traditionally, plant breeders have selected plants based on their visible or  measurable traits, called the phenotype. This process can be difficult, slow,  influenced by the environment, and costly  not only in the development itself,  but also for the economy, as farmers suffer crop losses.
As a shortcut, plant breeders now  use marker-assisted selection (MAS). To help identify specific genes,  scientists use what are called molecular or genetic markers. The markers are a  string or sequence of nucleic acid which makes up a segment of DNA. The markers  are located near the DNA sequence of the desired gene and are transmitted by  the standard laws of inheritance from one generation to the next (Figure 1).  Since the markers and the genes are close together on the same chromosome, they  tend to stay together as each generation of plants is produced. This is called  genetic linkage. This linkage helps scientists to predict whether a plant will  have a desired gene. If researchers can find the marker for the gene, it means  the desired gene itself is present.
http://usda-ars-beaumont.tamu.edu/dblhelix.jpg
As scientists learn where markers  occur on a chromosome, and how close they are to specific genes, they can  create a genetic linkage map. Such a map would show the location of markers and  genes, and their distance from other known genes. Scientists can produce  detailed maps in only one generation of plant breeding.
Using very detailed genetic maps  and better knowledge of the molecular structure of a plants DNA, researchers  can analyze only a tiny bit of plant tissue, even from a newly germinated  seedling. Once the tissue is analyzed, scientists know whether that seedling  contains the appropriate gene. If it doesnt, they can quickly move on and  concentrate on analysis of another seedling, eventually working only with the  plants which contain a specific trait.
It should be noted, however, that  molecular breeding through MAS is somewhat limited in scope compared to genetic  engineering or modification because: 1) it works only for traits already  present in a crop; 2) it cannot be used effectively to breed crops which have  long generation times (e.g. citrus); and 3) it cannot be used effectively with  crops which are clonally propagated because they are sterile or do not breed  true (this includes many staples such as yams, bananas, plantain, sweet potato,  and cassava).
Several marker systems have been  developed and are applied to a range of crop species. These are the Restriction  Fragment Length Polymorphisms (RFLPs), Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNAs  (RAPDs), Sequence Tagged Sites (STS), Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphisms  (AFLPs), Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) or microsatellites, and Single  Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNPs). The advantages and disadvantages of these  marker systems are provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparison    of most commonly used marker systems (adopted from Korzun, 2003)
Number of polymorph    loci analyzed
These molecular techniques have  been widely used to monitor differences in DNA sequence in and among species.  They also allow the creation of new sources of genetic variation by introducing  new and desirable traits from wild varieties into elite lines. While RFLP  markers have been the basis for most genetic work in crop plants, AFLPs and  SSRs are currently the most popular techniques used due to ease in detection  and automation. The adoption of the new marker system, SNPs, is now highly  preferred, with the increasing amount of sequence information, and the  determination of gene function due to genomic research.

          Applications    of molecular markers for crop genetic studies
The main uses of these molecular    markers in crop genetic studies are as follows:
Assessment    of genetic variability and characterization of germplasm
Identification    and fingerprinting of genotypes
Estimation    of genetic distances between population, inbreeds, and breeding materials
Detection    of monogenic and quantitative trait loci (QTL)
Identification    of sequences of useful candidate genes
MAS for Pathogen Resistance in  Tomato
One of the major constraints in  tomato cultivation and production are severe harvest losses caused by a number  of pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and nematodes. Farmers have  adopted control measures, such as applications of agrochemicals and use of  resistant lines. Although conventional breeding has had a significant impact on  improving resistance of tomato, the time-consuming process of making crosses  and backcrosses, and the selection of the desired resistant progeny make it  difficult to react adequately to the evolution of new virulent pathogens.
Molecular markers are now being  widely used for breeding tomato. More than 40 genes that confer resistance to  major classes of tomato pathogens have been mapped, cloned, and/or sequenced  (Grube, et. al., 2000). These maps have allowed for pyramiding resistance  genes in tomato through MAS, where several resistance genes can be engineered  into one genotype. Currently, tomato breeding through MAS has resulted in  varieties with resistance or tolerance to one or more specific pathogens.
: Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism. A  highly sensitive method for detecting DNA polymorphism. Following restriction  enzyme digestion of DNA, a subset of the DNA fragments is selected for PCR  amplification and visualization.
: A map of the relative positions of genetic  loci on a chromosome, determined on the basis of how often the loci are  inherited together.
: A map of relative positions of genes on a  chromosome. Genes inherited together are close to each other on the chromosome,  and said to be linked.
: Very short DNA motifs (1-10 base pairs)  which occur as tandem repeats at numerous loci throughout the genome. Also  known as simple sequence repeats (SSR), simple tandem repeats or simple  repetitive sequences.

    Monogenic trait  (Mendelian trait): a trait determined by the action of a single genetic locus
: molecule found in all living cells, in  which the hereditary information is stored and from which it can be  transferred. The two chief types are DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), found mainly  in cell nuclei, and RNA (ribonucleic acid), found mostly in cytoplasm.
: Polymerase Chain Reaction. A method for  amplifying a DNA sequence in large amounts using a heat-stable polymerase and  suitable primers to direct the amplification of the desired region of DNA.
: A detectable difference at a particular  gene or marker occurring among individuals.
: Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA. A  widely-used technique for amplifying anonymous stretches of DNA using PCR with  arbitrary primers.
: Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism.  Variations which occur in the length of DNA fragments produced when DNA is  broken down by restriction enzymes (enzymes which recognize specific sequences  of DNA, usually 4-6 base pairs long, and cleave the DNA at these points, known  as restriction sites).
: Single Nucleotide Polymorphism. A common,  but minute, variation that occurs in DNA sequences of a genome. These 

    variations can be used  to track inheritance in families or species.
: Quantitative Trait Locus. Location of a  specific gene that affects a measurable or quantifiable trait. These traits are  typically affected by more than one gene, and also by the environment. Examples  of quantitative traits are plant height (measured on a ruler) and body weight  (measured on a balance)
Quantitative  (continuous) traits
:  phenotypes that exhibit a range of measurable outcomes.
Ag-West  Biotech Inc. 1998. Marker assisted selection: Fast track to new crop varieties.  Agbiotech Infosource. Canada.  (
http://www.agwest.sk.ca/sabic_bioinfo.shtml
Barone,  A. 2003. Molecular marker-assisted selection for resistance to pathogens in  tomato. A paper presented during theFAO international workshop on Marker  assisted selection: A fast track to increase genetic gain in plant and animal  breeding?. 17-18 October 2003, Turin,   Italy.
FAO  2002 Crop Biotechnology: A working paper for administrators and policy makers  in sub-Saharan Africa. Kitch, L., Koch, M.,  and Sithole-Nang, I.
Grube,  R.C., Radwanski, E.r., Jahn, M. 2000. Comparative genetics of disease  resistance within the Solanaceae. Genetics 155: 873-887.
Korzun,  V. 2003. Molecular markers and their applications in cereals breeding. A paper  presented during the FAO international workshop on Marker assisted selection:  A fast track to increase genetic gain in plant and animal breeding?. 17-18  October 2003, Turin, Italy.
http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/training/unit10-1-4/Glossary.pdf
http://www.ostp.gov/html/plantgenome/abstract.html
http://usda-ars-beaumont.tamu.edu/dblhelix.jpg











Document Number: 4413 
Plant Products of Biotechnology
Pocket K No. 2: Plant Products of Biotechnology
Plant  products of biotechnology have been available in the market for more than a  decade now. These modified crops look like their traditional counterparts, but  they possess special characteristics that make them better and benefits both  farmers and consumers. Farmers gain higher crop yields and have increased  flexibility in management practices while consumers have healthier crops  (i.e., crops grown with fewer pesticides and/or with healthier nutritional  characteristics).
Plant products of biotechnology  approved for food use have been modified to contain traits such as: 
Soybean is the oil crop of greatest economic relevance in  the world. Its beans contain proportionally more essential amino acids than  meat, thus making it one of the most important food crops today. Processed  soybeans are important ingredients in many food products.
Herbicide-tolerant soybean varieties contain a gene that  provides resistance to one of two broad spectrum herbicides.
This modified soybean provides better weed control and  reduces crop injury. It also improves farm  efficiency by optimizing yield, using arable land more efficiently, saving time  for the farmer, and increasing the flexibility of crop rotation. It also  encourages the adoption of no-till farming-an important part of soil  conservation practice.
These varieties are the same as other soybeans  in nutrition, composition, and in the way they are processed into food and  feed. *
Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada,  Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, the European Union (EU),  Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,  Paraguay, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland,  Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America (USA), and Uruguay.
This modified soybean contains high levels of oleic acid, a  monounsaturated fat. According to health nutritionists, monounsaturated fats  are considered good fats compared with saturated fats found in beef, pork,  cheese, and other dairy products.

Oil processed from these varieties is similar to that  of peanut and olive oils. Conventional soybeans have an oleic acid content of  24%. These new varieties have an oleic acid content that exceeds 80%.

, Canada,  Japan, Mexico, New   Zealand and USA.
Examples of plant products of biotechnology
Herbicide tolerance, modified fatty acid  content, male sterility
Herbicide tolerance, insect resistance
Drought tolerance, herbicide tolerance, insect  resistance, male sterility, fertility restored, altered amino acid content
Insect resistance, virus resistance, modified  amylase
Herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, cedar pollen  peptide
Herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, modified  fatty acid content
Delayed ripening, Insect resistance 
http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp
Maize  is one of the three most important grains of the world. It is used as livestock  feeds, processed as cooking oil and food additives, and currently as feedstocks  for biofuels.
These maize varieties work in a similar manner to  herbicide-tolerant soybean. They allow growers better flexibility in using  certain herbicides to control weeds that can damage crops.
*Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia,  El Salvador, EU, Honduras, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,  Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand,  and USA
This modified maize contains a built-in  insecticidal protein from a naturally occurring soil microorganism (Bt) that  gives maize plants season-long protection from corn borers. This means most  farmers do not have to spray insecticide to protect maize from harmful pests,  which can cause significant damage and yield loss in many areas. Bt maize also  reduces toxin contamination arising from fungal attack on the damaged grain.  The Bt protein has been used safely as an organic insect control agent for over  40 years. 
* Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile,  China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Egypt,  EU, Honduras, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand,  Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan,  the United Kingdom, USA, and Uruguay.
Rice is life for more than half of humanity. It is the  staple food for over 3 billion people, more than 90% of whom are Asians.
These rice varieties work in a similar manner to  herbicide-tolerant soybean. They contain a gene that provides resistance to one  of two broad spectrum, environmentally benign herbicides.
, Canada,  Colombia Mexico, New   Zealand, Russian Federation,  and USA.
This modified rice works in a manner similar to  insect-resistant maize. It reduces yield losses caused by caterpillar pests,  the most important of which are the yellow stem borer in tropical Asia and the striped stem borer in temperate areas. 
The delayed-ripening tomato became the first genetically modified food  crop to be produced in a developed country. These tomatoes spend more days on  the vine than other tomatoes, thus resulting in better flavor. Furthermore, the  longer shelf life has commercial advantages in harvesting and shipping that can  reduce the costs of production.
, China, Japan, Mexico,  and USA.
This cotton works in a manner similar to other  such crops. For benefits, see herbicide-tolerant soybean. 
*Argentina,  Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, EU, Japan, Korea,  Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines,  Singapore, South Africa, and USA.
This modified cotton works in a manner similar  to insect-resistant maize. It contains a protein that provides the plant with  season-long protection from budworms and bollworms. The need for additional  insecticide applications for these pests is reduced or eliminated. 
* Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada,  China, Colombia, Costa Rica, EU, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Myanmar, New  Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, USA, and Uruguay. 
This biotech potato works like insect-resistant corn. It contains a  protein that provides the plant with built-in protection from the Colorado  potato beetle. Thus, this potato needs no additional protection for this pest,  benefiting farmers, consumers, and the environment. 
, Canada, Japan, Korea,  Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines,  Russian Federation, and USA.
Several potato varieties have been modified to resist potato leafroll  virus (PLRV) and potato virus Y (PVY). In the same way that people get  inoculations to prevent disease, these potato varieties are protected through  biotechnology from certain viruses. Furthermore, virus resistance often results  in reduced insecticide use, which is needed to control insect vectors that  transmit viruses. 
, Canada,  Japan, New Zealand, Mexico,  Philippines, and USA.
Photo    courtesy of the Canola Council of Canada.
Canola is a genetic variation of rapeseed and was developed  by Canadian plant breeders specifically for its nutritional qualities,  particularly its low level of saturated fat.
Herbicide-tolerant canola works in a manner  similar to other such crops. For benefits, see herbicide-tolerant soybean. 
, Canada,  Chile, China, EU, Japan,  Korea, Mexico, New   Zealand, Philippines,  South Africa, and USA.
These canola varieties contain high levels of laurate.  Oil processed from these novel varieties is similar to coconut and palm oils.  This new canola oil is being sold to the food industry for use in chocolate  candy coatings, coffee whiteners, icings, frostings, and whipped toppings.  Benefits extend even to the cosmetics industry. 
This new type of canola contains high levels of  oleic acid. For benefits, see oleic acid soybean. 
Alfalfa is one of the most important legumes used in  agriculture.
This alfalfa works in  a manner similar to other such crops. 
,  Canada, Japan, Mexico,  New Zealand, Philippines, and USA.
This Hawaiian-developed papaya contains a viral gene that encodes for  the coat protein of papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). This protein provides the  papaya plant with built-in protection against PRSV. This biotech papaya works  in a manner similar to virus resistant potato. * 
A biotech yellow crookneck squash is now able to  resist watermelon mosaic virus (WMV) and zucchini yellow mosaic virus (ZYMV).  These new varieties contain the coat protein genes of both viruses. This  biotech approach bypasses aphid control, which may reduce or eliminate the use  of insecticides. 
In 2008, an herbicide-tolerant sugarbeet variety  was planted in Canada and USA for the  first time. The herbicide-tolerant sugarbeet allows farmers to cut the number  of required cultivations by half. 
* Australia,  Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan,  Korea, Mexico, New   Zealand, Philippines,  Russian Federation, Singapore, and USA.
Dominant GM crops in the World, 2008
James, C. 2010. Global Status of Commercialized  Biotech/GM Crops: 2010. ISAAA Briefs No. 42. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
In the developed world, it is evident that the use of GM  crops has resulted in significant benefits. These first generation crops have  proven their ability to increase crop yields, reduce farm costs, increase farm  profit, and help protect the environment. Current research is focused on  second generation GM crops that will feature increased nutritional,  pharmaceutical and/or industrial traits. These varieties should prove valuable  in countries where millions of people suffer from dietary deficiencies and have  difficulties in accessing vaccines and medicines. 
For more information, please visit 
: short for Bacillus thuringiensis, a common soil  bacterium that produces a protein that is toxic to certain insects
: a major component of viruses. The  primary function of CPs is to protect viral genetic information
: a protein that regulates chemical reactions inside  every living cell and organism
: a biological unit that determines an organisms  inherited characteristics Herbicides: chemicals frequently used in agriculture  to control weeds that compete with crops for soil nutrients, water, and  sunlight
: chemicals frequently used in agriculture to  control weeds that compete with crops for soil nutrients, water and sunlight
: an important fatty acid used in the food  industry, mainly sourced from coconut and palm oil
: a monounsaturated fatty acid found in animal  and vegetable oils. Monounsaturated fats are the most benign of the fat sources  and are generally considered safe as they do not cause disease or other health  problems.
(* Approved for food use. Approvals in China are for  marketing purposes.)
Are Food Derived from GM   Crops Safe?











Document Number: 6375 
Pocket K No.  20: Microbial Fermentation
    For many years, man has worked to  improve agricultural productivity by taking advantage of the work of millions  of soil microbes. These microbes can be cultivated on a large scale and made to  produce important biofertilizers, to assist plant growth; and biopesticides, to  control weeds, pests, and diseases. This process is known as microbial  fermentation.
Microbes function as both providers and  defenders. They can contribute to plant nutrition by converting important  macromolecules into forms usable by plants, as biofertilizers; or they can  defend plants from other invasive, parasitic plants and pests, as bioherbicides  and bioinsecticides.
    Phosphate and nitrogen are important  for plant growth. However, plants have a limited ability to extract them from  the environment, and thus need microbes to help them absorb these nutrients at  optimal concentration.

          fungus/penicillium/bilaii.html
Colonies of Penicillium bilaii growing on a culture plate
These same microbes are also involved  in nutrient recycling, i.e. they help a plant take up energy sources, while  plants donate waste byproducts to microbes for food. With this symbiotic  relationship, plants develop stronger and bigger root systems. The larger the  plants roots, the more living space and food there is for the microbes to use.  In a way, microorganisms serve as biofertilizers.
, which allows plants to absorb phosphates from the soil. It does  this by producing an organic acid which dissolves soil phosphates into a form  which plants may use. A biofertilizer made from this organism is applied either  by coating seeds with the fungus (called inoculation), or applying the  fertilizer directly into the ground.
Another example is the bacterium 
.  This bacterium lives on the plants roots in cell collections called nodules.  The nodules are biological factories that can take nitrogen out of the air and  convert it into an organic form that the plant can use. Because the bacteria  live within the roots, they transfer the nutrient directly into the plant. 
 works with legumes, such as beans, groundnut, and soybean.
Biofertilizers have been found to:
Increase       crop yield by 20-30%.
Replace       chemical nitrogen and phosphorus by 25%.
Activate       the soil biologically.
Restore       natural soil fertility.
Provide       protection against drought and some soil borne diseases.
    Insect pests of important crops can be  difficult to control. Thanks to fermentation methods, however, bioinsecticides  have been developed, based on the insecticidal proteins of bacteria, fungi, and  viruses.
One of the most widely used  bioinsecticides is a naturally occurring soil bacterium called 
 or Bt. Bt produces a protein which is poisonous to insects.  Within 15 minutes of being eaten, the Bt toxin begins to create ulcers in the  insects stomach lining. The insect stops eating and eventually dies.  Researchers have identified between 500 and 600 strains, or types of 
. Bt is very selective  it affects only a specific species of  insect pest and does not harm humans, birds, fish, or beneficial insects.
    Some fungi can cause disease in  insects, and as many as 200 different insects are known to be susceptible to  such diseases. These fungi are thus used in fungi-based bioinsecticides.

        Source: Keith Weller/USDA
Inexpensive fermentation technology is  used to mass produce fungi. Spores are harvested and packaged so they can be  applied to insect-ridden fields. When the spores are applied, they use enzymes  to break through the outer surface of the insects bodies. Once inside, they  begin to grow and eventually cause death.
One bioinsecticide, Bb, is based on the  action of 
, a fungus which is found worldwide in soils  and plants. In China,  over two million hectares are sprayed with Bb annually to control forestry  pests.
Bioinsecticides based on Bb have many  advantages. The fungus does not grow in warm-blooded organisms (such as  humans), nor does it survive long in water reservoirs or rivers. However, its  spores can withstand long periods of dryness and other harsh environmental  conditions. Studies to date have shown that the fungus also does not harm  plants and becomes inactivated by the suns ultraviolet rays in one to eight  weeks.
    Insect pests are also susceptible to  viral diseases, and virus-based insecticides exploit this property in order to  control the spread of pests.
An example currently being tested is  the Baculovirus group. Baculoviruses affect insect pests like corn borers,  potato beetles, flea beetles, and aphids. One particular strain is being used  as a control agent for Bertha army worms. These worms attack canola, flax, and  vegetable crops, and have been known to clean out as many as one million  hectares of prairie crops at high infestation levels. Farmers used chemical  insecticides to control the worms in the past. Bioinsecticides do not persist  long in the environment, unlike synthetic pesticides. They also have shorter  shelf lives and are effective in small quantities, safer to humans and animals  compared to synthetic insecticides, and very specific, often affecting only a  single species of insect. However, bioinsecticides also have some  disadvantages. They work slowly and the timing of their application is relatively  critical. Moreover, because most of these bioinsecticide agents are living  organisms, their success is affected by several factors like temperature, pH,  moisture, UV, soil conditions, and other microbial competitors present in the  environment.
    Weeds are a constant problem for  farmers. They compete with crops for water, nutrients, sunlight, and space;  harbor insect and disease pests; clog irrigation and drainage systems;  undermine crop quality; and deposit weed seeds into crop harvests. If left  uncontrolled, weeds can reduce crop yields significantly. 

        Source: Scott Bauer/USDA
Wasps injecting their eggs    into oriental fruit fly eggs
Farmers fight weeds with tillage, hand  weeding, synthetic herbicides, or a combination of all techniques.  Unfortunately, tillage leaves valuable topsoil exposed to wind and water  erosion, a serious long-term consequence for the environment. For this reason,  more and more farmers prefer reduced or no-till methods of farming.
The use of bioherbicides is another way  of controlling weeds without the environmental hazards posed by synthetic  herbicides. Bioherbicides are made up of microorganisms and certain insects  (e.g. parasitic wasps, painted lady butterfly) that can target very specific  weeds. The microbes possess invasive genes that can attack the defense genes of  the weed, thereby killing it.

    Due to better understanding of the  genetics of both microorganisms and plants, scientists have been able to  isolate pathogens whose genes match particular weeds, and which can cause fatal  diseases in those weeds, and in those weeds alone. Some bioherbicides contain  such microorganisms, and they are sent out into the field when weeds are most  susceptible to illness. The specificity of the microbes for a specific weed  makes such bioherbicides very useful, since they can kill only certain weeds  without damaging important crops.
Bioherbicides can also survive in the  environment long enough for the next growing season, when there will be more  weeds to infect. They are cheaper compared to synthetic pesticides, and could  essentially reduce farming expenses if managed properly.
          Sub-saharan Africa    is home to fields of sorghum and corn, as well as a weed that parasitizes    either crop. Striga can wipe out hectares and hectares of important cereals,    lowering crop yields and increasing the cost of planting and production.
Using bioherbicides coupled with work    on genetic modification of certain cereals, scientists have been able to    lower Striga parasitism and increase corn and sorghum harvests.
Sorghum seeds, for instance, can be    inoculated with Fusarium, a fungus, through a coating of Arabic gum. The    preparation of the coating material and inoculum itself takes up to 14 days    and is conducted by village women.
The most recent Striga shield is a    new hybrid maize called Ua Kayongo, whose seeds are coated with the Strigaway    herbicide. Ua Kayongo is Imazapyr Resistant maize (IR-maize), whose    resistance is based on a naturally occurring herbicide resistance in maize,    and which was later incorporated into Kenyan maize varieties by African plant    breeders at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and    the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI).
    As biofertilizers, microorganisms can  work symbiotically with plants while receiving their own nutrition. As  bioherbicides, they can work alone, or in concert with other species, to remove  weeds. And, as bioinsecticides, they protect plants from destructive pests.  Although microorganisms are often labeled as dangerous or deadly, they can  actually be instrumental in saving crops, increasing yields, and protecting  soils for the next planting season.
http://www.inoculants.com/encyclopedia/encyclopedia_5.html
Integrated Pest  Management Resource Centre. Biopesticides. (
http://www.ipmrc.com/expert/biopesticides/index.shtml
Integrated Plant Protection   Center. Database of  Microbial Biopesticides. (
http://www.ippc.orst.edu/biocontrol/biopesticides/
International Biopesticide Consortium  for Development. Biopesticides. (
http://www.biopesticide.org/biopesticides.htm
UPLB Compendium of Mature and Developed  Technologies. (
http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/bio/ferti.htm
http://www.vusat.org/learning/agri/FAQs/biofertilizer.htm
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/soil_quality/soil_biology/bacteria.html
http://www.dehs.umn.edu/iaq/fungus/penicillium/bilaii.html
Gene Switching and   GURTs: What, How and Why?











Document Number: 7258 
Gene Switching  and GURTs: What, How and Why?
Pocket K No. 21: Gene Switching  and GURTs: What, How and Why?
Genetic Use Restriction  Technologies (GURTs) is an ongoing topic of discussion under the Convention  on Biological Diversity. The current focus surrounding this topic concerns  whether and how GURTs may impact indigenous peoples, local communities and  small-holder farmers. Indeed, in the most recent debate on this topic held in  February 2005, the representatives of the indigenous peoples and local  communities requested clear and objective information on GURTs so that they  could understand the issues and better participate in the discussion.
This Pocket K seeks to respond to  that request by explaining what gene switching and GURTs technologies are, how  they work, and why public and private sector scientists, as well as  governments, are pursuing further research and development in this area.
What is gene switching and how does  it work?
Biotechnology-based gene switching  is the use of genetic engineering to control specific genetic material (genes)  in plants to achieve certain desired results. The targeted genes are controlled  through so-called switch mechanisms. These mechanisms activate (turn on),  deactivate (turn off), or adjust upward or downward specific plant functions.
This can also be described as  controlling the expression of plant genes. Gene switching mechanisms may be  established, among other things, in response to an external trigger (e.g.,  rainfall, light patterns, chemistry), to activate the expression of genes at  critical times, or in particular locations within the plant. One must say  biotechnology-based gene switching because gene switching occurs naturally  and without human intervention in nature all the time (e.g., the presence of  water activates plant genes responsible for germination; light patterns turn on  reproduction stages; pests activate defense mechanisms).
Much of the current research focuses  on gene switching applications to control one or more genes related to specific  traits of the plant. In these cases, all the other genes in the plant are  untouched and continue to function normally. Seed from these plants could be  saved by farmers (if applicable national laws permit seed saving) and planted  the next year resulting in a normal crop, but in almost all cases, without the  special trait expression that was present the first year (e.g., herbicide or  insect tolerance).
Some applications of biotechnology-based  gene switching are not limited to controlling specific traits, but instead  control genes responsible for reproduction or seed germination. Plant gene  switching can be used to control plant reproduction in a number of different  ways, for example, by limiting production of pollen or by producing non-viable  seed. In other words, biotechnological controls in the plant allow for normal  planting and harvesting of the product, but the plant variety will not be able  to reproduce in subsequent years. Commercially available examples of this are  seedless grapes and watermelons.
Why are scientists exploring gene  switching?
Because of the significant  potential beneficial applications of this technology, many public and private  sector scientists see gene switching as the future of biotechnology.
For instance, researchers are  exploring the use of gene switching to allow a plant to express a gene only  when it is needed. That is, a drought tolerant plant will produce the gene for  drought tolerance only when drought occurs. In better weather and soil  conditions, the plant will not produce the gene, and its resources will be  channeled to important activities, such as food and energy production. Farmers  who save seed in this context would be able to grow a normal crop the  subsequent year, but the special drought resistance feature would no longer  function.
Other examples include the  following:
The  development of sentinel plants that would notify farmers when there is a nutrient  deficiency or a pest infestation in their fields  enabling the application of  pesticides and/or fertilizers only when absolutely necessary.
Targeted  release of Bt or other pest protection mechanisms within a plant, helping to  further reduce the potential development of pest resistance in conjunction with  refugia and integrated pest management (IPM) processes.
The  development of sterile progeny, further contributing to environmental risk  management processes in centers of origin and other sensitive environments or  areas with stringent biosafety frameworks.
How are gene switching  technologies regulated?
While present decision-making  concerns only laboratory experimentation, field testing and commercialization  of products of gene switching technologies will occur in the coming years.  National biosafety frameworks regulate viable products of genetic engineering,  including any plants and organisms that may be created through gene switching  technologies, on a case-by-case basis through scientific risk assessment.  Accordingly, any unique attributes of products of gene switching, including  those that result in sterile seed, automatically are considered in risk  assessment and decision-making.
Because of the detailed  case-by-case approach to biosafety reflected in national regimes (and also  integrated into the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety), gene switching products  are and can continue to be regulated under the same biosafety system as any  other biotechnology application. Nevertheless, the CBD has created guidance for  regulators concerning GURTs. Decision V/5 recommends that CBD Parties not  approve products created through the use of GURTs for field testing until  appropriate scientific data justifies the testing and for commercialization and  strictly controlled scientific assessments concerning impacts and adverse  effects are carried out and conditions for their safe and beneficial use  validated. 1 
What is the purpose of producing  sterile seeds?
GURTs can be used to produce  genetically engineered plants which will grow and can be harvested, but cannot  produce viable seed, thus preventing unintended introduction of the crop to the  environment. A number of government bodies have recognized this potential  biosafety benefit of GURTs2, and funds have been allocated to support  additional research.3 
An important motivation for  companies to create sterile seeds is to protect their technology and investment  by preventing unauthorized saving and planting of seeds in subsequent years.  The farmer who purchases this seed will know that he will not be able to save  seed from his crop because these products will be labelled by manufacturers  with information about the added value trait and any restrictions related to  patents and/or plant variety protection. GURTs products may also cost more than  conventional seed. Some farmers may choose to buy these higher priced seeds   even though seed saving will not be possible  because of particular benefits  (e.g., higher yields, higher quality traits, and more efficient plants) they  will offer. Other farmers will continue to be able to choose other seed  products without these technological improvements.
Calls for a moratorium on the  technology have been rejected repeatedly by CBD bodies. The latest rejection of  a blanket ban occurred in February 2005 when the CBDs Subsidiary Body for  Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice instead recommended that the CBD  reaffirm its existing recommendation, which allows for case by case assessment.4 Neither have  the International Agricultural Research Centers rejected the technology as some  have asserted. Instead, this particular research system has decided not to use  applications designed to prevent seed germination because of its specific  purpose of breeding crop varieties for resource poor farmers.5 
Biotechnology based gene switching  in plants describes a wide range of mechanisms to control plant gene expression  for purposes beneficial to human beings and our environment. These technologies  hold promise to more efficiently and effectively use traits in plants. In the  case of the applications that result in plants that do not reproduce, the  technology also offers an additional layer of biosafety protection as well as  serving to protect research and development investments.
All genetically modified organisms  created through biotechnology-based gene switching can and should be reviewed  and assessed on a case by case basis, under scientifically sound regulatory  frameworks, in line with existing CBD guidance.
http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-05&id=7147&lg=0
See,  e.g., Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification, CGM/041214-01/02, at p.  51 (identifying GURTs as a possible solution for added biosafety for plant made  pharmaceuticals); New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (2001  Report) (the use of sterility technology in commercial forestry trees should  be investigated as it has the potential to reduce pollen production with its  associated allergenicity problems and prevent wild pine escape.).
See,  e.g. Press release concerning Bavarian Research Foundation award for three year  research collaboration between Icon Genetics, Research Centre Freising, and the  University of Munich 
http://www.icongenetics.com/html/news_details.php?id=5928&ityp+2
http://www.biodiv.org/recommendations/?m=SBSTTA-10&id=10691&lg=0
http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/icw98/icw98sop.pdf











Document Number: 5907 
Pocket K No.  22: Plant Disease Diagnostics
    Important agricultural crops are  threatened by a wide variety of plant diseases and pests. These can damage  crops, lower fruit and vegetable quality and wipe out entire harvests. About  42% of the worlds total agricultural crop is destroyed yearly by diseases and  pests. Farmers often must contend with more than one pest or disease and new  pesticide-resistant pathogenic strains attacking the same crop. 
However, crop losses can be minimized,  and specific treatments can be tailored to combat specific pathogens if plant  diseases are correctly diagnosed and identified early. These need-based  treatments also translate to economic and environmental gains.
The traditional method of identifying  plant pathogens is through visual examination. This is often possible only  after major damage has already been done to the crop, so treatments will be of  limited or no use. To save plants from irreparable damage by pathogens, farmers  have to be able to identify an infection even before it becomes visible.
Is this possible? What happens when  pathogens attack a plant? An attack by disease-causing organisms generates a  complex immune response in a plant, resulting in the production of  disease-specific proteins involved in plant defense and in limiting the spread  of infection. Pathogens also produce proteins and toxins to facilitate their  infection, before disease symptoms appear. These molecules play vital role in  the development of plant diagnostic kits.
Advances in molecular biology, plant  pathology, and biotechnology have made the development of such kits possible.  These kits are designed to detect plant diseases early, either by identifying  the presence of the pathogen in the plant (by testing for the presence of  pathogen DNA) or the molecules (proteins) produced by either the pathogen or  the plant during infection. These techniques require minimal processing time  and are more accurate in identifying pathogens. And while some require  laboratory equipment and training, other procedures can be performed on site by  a person with no special training.
So far, diagnostic kits have been  designed to detect diseases in crops such as rice, potatoes, papaya, tomatoes,  and banana. Similar kits are also increasingly important for identifying  genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in shipments of conventional crops.
    DNA diagnostic kits are based on the  ability of single stranded nucleic acids to bind to other single stranded  nucleic acids that are complementary in sequence (referred to as homologous).
The tool used in DNA diagnostic kits is  the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). There are 3 steps involved in PCR. The DNA  is first unwound, and its strands separated by high temperatures. As the  temperature is lowered, short, single-stranded DNA sequences called primers are  free to bind to the DNA strands at regions of homology, allowing the (Taq)  polymerase enzyme to make a new copy of the molecule. This cycle of  denaturation-annealing-elongation is repeated 30-40 times, yielding millions of  identical copies of the segment.
The primers in PCR diagnostic kits are  very specific for the genes of a pathogen, and amplification will occur only in  diseased plants. (Figure 2)
Figure 1: PCR-based Diagnostic    Methods
Source: Alberts, et. al., 1994.

          Photos courtesy of 
The primers in PCR diagnostic kits are  very specific for the genes of a pathogen, and DNA amplification will occur  only in diseased plants. (Figure 1)
Several PCR-based methods have  successfully been adapted for plant pathogen detection. Real-time PCR (RT PCR)  follows the general principle of polymerase chain reaction; its key feature is  that the amplified DNA is quantified, using fluorescent dyes, as it accumulates  in the reaction mixture after each cycle. It offers several advantages over  normal PCR, including: reduced risk of sample contamination, provision of data  in real time and simultaneous testing for multiple pathogens. Real-time PCR  protocols are among the most rapid species-specific detection techniques  currently available.
DNA microarrays are also of great use  for simultaneous pathogen detection. This is important, as plants are often  infected with several pathogens, some of which may act together to cause a  disease complex. Microarrays consist of pathogen-specific DNA sequences  immobilized onto a solid surface. Sample DNA is amplified by PCR, labeled with  fluorescent dyes, and then hybridized to the array (Figure 2).
Source: Alberts, et. al., 1994.

          Photos courtesy of 
PCR-based diagnostics is very sensitive  compared to other techniques; detection of a small amount of DNA is possible.  PCR can also help farmers detect the presence of pathogens that have long  latent periods between infection and symptom development. Moreover, it can  quantify pathogen biomass in host tissue and environmental samples, and at the  same time detect fungicide resistance. PCR-based detection, however, is  expensive compared to protein-based diagnostic methods, and also requires  costly equipments. 
So far, PCR kits have been developed to  detect black Sigatoka disease in bananas, Phytophthora infestations in  potatoes, and Fusarium infection in cotton.
    The first step in a defense response  reaction is the recognition of an invader by a hosts immune system. This  recognition is due to the ability of specific host proteins, called antibodies,  to recognize and bind proteins that are unique to a pathogen (antigens) and to  trigger an immune reaction (Figure 3a).
Figure 3: Antibody-Antigen    Interaction
Protein-based diagnostic kits for plant  diseases contain an antibody (the primary antibody) that can either recognize a  protein from either the pathogen or the diseased plant. Because the  antibody-antigen complex cannot be seen by the naked eye, diagnostic kits also  contain a secondary antibody, which is joined to an enzyme. This enzyme will  catalyze a chemical reaction that will result in a color change only when the  primary antibody is bound to the antigen. Therefore, if a color change occurs  in the kits reaction mixture, then the plant pathogen is present, (Figure 3b).
The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay  (ELISA) method makes use of this detection system, and forms the basis of some  protein-based diagnostic kits. ELISA kits are very easy to use because test  takes only a few minutes to perform, and does not require sophisticated  laboratory equipment or training.

    There are already numerous ELISA test  kits available on the market. Some of them detect diseases of root crops (e.g.  cassava, beet, potato), ornamentals (e.g. lilies, orchids), fruits (e.g.  banana, apple, grapes), grains (e.g. wheat, rice), and vegetables. ELISA  techniques can detect ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane, tomato mosaic  virus, papaya ringspot virus, banana bract mosaic virus, banana bunchy top  virus, watermelon mosaic virus, and rice tungro virus.
One of the first ELISA kits developed  to diagnose plant disease was by the International Potato Center (CIP). It can  detect the presence of all races, biovars, and serotypes of Ralstonia  solanacearum, the pathogen that causes bacterial wilt or brown rot in potato.  They also developed a kit that samples for the presence of any of the following  sweet potato viruses: SPFMV (sweet potato feathery mottle virus), SPCSV (sweet  potato chlorotic stunt crinivirus), SPMSV (Sweet potato mild speckling virus),  SPMMV (Sweet potato mild mottle virus), SwPLV (Sweet potato latent virus),  SPCFV (Sweet potatochlorotic fleck virus), SPCaLV (Sweet potato caulimovirus),  and C-6 (new flexuous rod virus).
    With even more advances in molecular  biology and immunology, scientists and farmers alike will be able to improve  plant disease diagnosis. Efforts are already underway to produce better  diagnostic kits to detect pathogens in crops important to developing countries.  For instance, the Department of Biotechnology of Indias Ministry of Science and  Technology is developing diagnostic kits to detect viruses in fruits,  ornamentals, spices, and plantation crops. The Genetic Engineering Services  Unit of Egypts Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute has  developed diagnostic kits and testing services to detect viruses in crop  plants.
Diagnostic kits are an investment: they  may be expensive, but the costs can be offset by gains, such as reduced crop  losses and more environment-friendly crop-management practices. Their  development should be made a priority by both the public and private sectors in  developing countries.
: Protein produced by immune systems in response to pathogen  attack. 
: A substance foreign to a living body that stimulates the  production of antibodies. Antigens include proteins, bacteria, and viruses.
: Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay, a test designed to detect the  presence of antigens or antibodies.
: Polymerase Chain Reaction, a technique patterned after DNA  replication, where millions of copies of a DNA fragment are produced, making  the DNA fragment easier to isolate, clone, and sequence.
: Short, single-stranded DNA fragments designed to be  complementary to a region of the genome. Primers are used as the starting point  for PCR.
    Alberts, et. al. The Molecular Biology  of the Cell. 4th ed. 1994.
http://www.cipotato.org/market/ARs/Ar98/InBrief.htm
http://www.agriculture.gov.bb/files/sweet%20potato%20paper.pdf
Bioinformatics for   Plant Biotechnology











Document Number: 4353 
Bioinformatics  for Plant Biotechnology
Pocket K No. 23: Bioinformatics  for Plant Biotechnology
As of July 30, 2006, scientists  around the world are pursuing a total of 2,126 genome projects. There are 405  published complete genomes, and 1,665 ongoing projects. To the field of  medicine, this means that there will be a wider field in which to discover  potential cures to various diseases. In agriculture, these studies pave the way  to understand plant evolution, and use this knowledge to improve crops.
To be able to handle all this  genetic information, share and make sense of it, scientists need databases to  store the information, where it can be accessed and mined. They also need  tools, such as computer software, to manage the information; and algorithms  (mathematical formulae) to analyze the information and use it to answer  specific questions, such as the location of genes, the structure of proteins,  and species relatedness. To do all this (and more), scientists turn to  bioinformatics.
Bioinformatics is a new science  that combines the power of computers, mathematical algorithms, and statistics  with concepts in the life sciences to solve biological problems. Through  bioinformatics, scientists have been able to analyze various genomes. Examples  of these include those of maize (at 
http://www.tigr.org/tdb/tgi/plant.shtml
This Pocket K takes a look at the  science of bioinformatics, which can take plant biotechnology from in vitro to  in silico, and where work is moved from the lab to the hard drive (and back to  the lab again).
What data does bioinformatics deal  with?
Bioinformatics, in general, deals  with the following important biological data:
DNA, RNA, and protein sequences - The  sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA, and the sequence of amino acids in a  protein, can be obtained through laboratory sequencing methods.
Molecular Structures - Higher molecular  structure can be obtained by combining thermodynamic data and computer modeling  with measurements from laboratory techniques, such as x-ray diffraction and  nuclear magnetic resonance imaging.
Expression Data - Scientists use microarrays  in the laboratory to determine when and where genes are expressed. Such  microarrays can also measure overall gene expressions in certain cell types, or  in specific environmental conditions.
Bibliographic Data - The number of  scientific articles has increased dramatically in the last few decades, due to  the increasing number of research projects and genome sequencing programs.  These articles are organized in public databases available online.
What can bioinformatics do with  this data?
The first step to making sense of  all the biological sequences and structures is to formulate a method to manage  the data, as well as how to process and maintain it. Data management is the  first and most fundamental task of bioinformatics, and bioinformaticians do  this by assembling information into databases.
A database is a collection of  information stored in a systematic way. In bioinformatics, this database may  consist of DNA sequences, RNA sequences, or even protein sequences. These  sequences may be organized according to their function, or according to the  species from which they came, or the journal articles which reported them  first. A database may also contain journal articles and abstracts.
With the data assembled,  bioinformaticians can find means by which to mine, retrieve, and use the data.  This is usually done through computer programs, which can search databases and  retrieve information, depending on a scientist's needs.
How can bioinformatics improve  plant biotechnology?
It can aid scientists in basic  research
Knowing the complete sequence of a  plant's genome can pave the way for all future studies of that organism. For  instance, scientists at the United States Department of Agriculture's  Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) are now analyzing gene expression  patterns in crops such as soybean and barley, in order to determine the  function of genes involved in the resistance of plants to environmental stress.
Research teams hail from developed  and developing countries alike. The International Rice Research Institute,  based in the Philippines,  is working on the complete genome of rice. Brazilian scientists have already  completed the gene sequence of Xylella fastidiosa, a plant pathogen that  infects citrus plants.
The worldwide Potato Genome  Sequencing Consortium, led by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative and the Wageningen University  and Research Center is another example. Teams from  countries such as Brazil, Chile, Russia,  India, China, Peru,  and New Zealand  are working together to sequence all 840 million base pairs of DNA on potato's  12 chromosomes. All this data may be used by scientists to improve potato,  which is the world's fourth most important crop.
It can be used to design better  plants
Once the genes responsible for  certain plant traits are known, scientists can identify the basis for disease  resistance and stress tolerance, and thus design methods by which plants can be  made hardier and more resilient. Scientists also use bioinformatics to help  them design plants with higher quality fruit, or with the ability to survive in  extreme environmental conditions.
Australia's Queensland Agricultural   Biotechnology Center,  for example, is studying papaya, an important food crop in the tropics, where  it is also used in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries. To identify the  genes involved in papaya ripening, researchers looked at expressed sequence  tags (EST) of the fruit's genome. ESTs are short DNA sequences of expressed  genes which have been used as a tool for rapid gene discovery. Researchers were  able to pinpoint genes that were highly expressed during the ripening process;  once these genes are localized, scientists can produce better papayas which may  ripen later, or taste better.
It can be used to harness genetic  diversity
By knowing which plants are closely  related, scientists can figure out which sexually compatible species have  desirable characteristics (such as longer stalks for rice plants, or larger  grains for barley, corn, or wheat). The wild relatives of today's plants may be  sources of crop improvement genes. Scientists at the University of Wisconsin,  for instance, are seeking to improve potatoes by studying the genomes of wild  potato species. Researchers at the Weizmann Institute in Israel, on the  other hand, are working on understanding the process of gene exchange between  crop plants and their wild ancestors, in order to use these processes to  incorporate desirable genes from wild relatives into important crop plants.
It can be used to design new tools  to study gene function
Scientists first discovered  microRNAs (miRNAs), a family of gene sequences, in plants. These small RNA  molecules control various aspects of plant growth and development. They target  certain DNA sequences, and, in doing so, keep certain genes from being active.  Mutations in miRNAs can cause faulty floral development, or even plant death.
miRNA molecules can be designed to  silence whole gene families. As a result, scientists are turning to miRNA  technology to develop the next generation of plants. Several projects are now  underway in the University of California, Riverside  and the Whitehead Institute to predict and identify miRNA families in important  crops such as rice.
It can be used to test, analyze,  and identify plants
With more and more microarray  profiles online, scientists can learn about and exchange information concerning  differences in gene expression. They can also test plants for differences in  gene expression or protein profiles under different stress conditions, such as  drought, disease, or insect infestation. If certain genes are expressed in high  amounts during these stress conditions, then they may hold the key to a plant's  survival under stress - and they may be used to improve other plants that may  not have the same gene.
To test if GM plants are comparable  to their conventional counterparts, scientists carry out protein or RNA  profiling. In a recent research, scientists compared GM potato to conventional  potato by analyzing the crops' proteome, and found that there were no new  proteins unique to individual GM lines. Scientists from the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences used microarrays,  as well as analysis software, to compare gene expression profiles of transgenic  and wild type wheat. They found that there were no significant differences in  gene expression in the two wheat types.
Bioinformatics at    your fingertips: The NCBI Online
The National Center    for Biotechnology information (NCBI) is an online resource and database for    scientists, researchers, and the general public alike. Housed under the United States'    National Institutes of Health, the NCBI website is full of tools that can aid    interested parties in doing the following:
 - NCBI contains a search engine called    the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool, or BLAST. This search engine is    similar to others online, except that the queries are nucleotide (BLASTn) or    protein (BLASTp) sequences. Scientists can use the BLAST search to look for    DNA or protein sequences similar to those they have. Search matches can then    tell them what their gene or protein is, what organism it is from, and what    other organisms have the same gene or protein sequence.
 - ENTREZ is the integrated, text-based    search and retrieval system used at NCBI for its major databases. Through    ENTREZ, scientists can find out how many genes or proteins of interest are    publicly available, how many such genes or proteins have already been    sequenced in a given organism, and what research has already been published    in the field.
 - The main database of the NCBI is at    GenBank, and sequence "depositors" can add to the nucleotide and    protein sequences through an online tool such as BankIt.
 - NCBI also has a number of bioinformatics    tools available aside from the popular BLAST, all designed to mine data from    their online databases. For instance, Spidey can align one or more RNA    sequences to a single genomic sequence, and determine where the gene ends and    where other sequences begin. If a scientist is working with protein    sequences, he/she can use CDArt to see what parts of the sequence are    responsible for a given function, and what other proteins have similar domain    architectures.
The more scientists know about  plant genomes, the more questions they ask, and the more information they  unearth. Bioinformatics not only provides information, but leads to more  experiments. For instance, a recent study by scientists from Iowa State University investigated unique sequences  in the oat genome. This allowed the researchers to find specific regions of DNA  that would both identify oat types through PCR, as well as serve as markers in  marker-assisted selection.
There are many tools in  bioinformatics, with many functions to suit the needs and expertise of the  scientists using them. Gene and protein databases are constantly being updated  with information that aid scientists all around the world, in whatever field of  the life sciences they are working. Bioinformatics carries benefits for plant  researchers: it can aid in plant breeding and genetic engineering, and allow  plant scientists to produce better crops for the future.
Martienssen,  Robert A. Crop Plant Genome Sequence: What Is It Good For? Crop Sci.  44:1898-1899 (2004).
The  Genomes Online Database (GOLD). 
The National Center for Biotechnology Information. 
Photo  Credits: ARS Image Gallery at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/. NCBI  Logo courtesy of NCBI online at http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Biotechnology for Green   Energy: Biofuels











Document Number: 6540 
Biotechnology for  Green Energy: Biofuels
Pocket K No. 24: Biotechnology for  Green Energy: Biofuels
Biofuels are alternative fuels made  from plant and plant-derived resources. Biofuels are used mainly for  transportation. There are two types of biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel.
Bioethanol, the principal fuel used  as substitute for petrol for road transport vehicles, is mainly produced by the  sugar fermentation process of cellulose (starch), which is mostly derived from  maize and sugar cane. Biodiesel on the other hand is mainly produced from oil  crops such as rapeseed, palm, and soybean (Table 1).
Table 1: Main energy    crops worldwide
Sources: United    States Department of Agriculture,     United States    Department of Energy, the European Commission.
Energy demand is projected to grow  by 50% by 2025, with much of the increase in demand predicted to originate from  developing countries. The vast majority of energy is currently derived from  fossils fuels, a limited, non-renewable and polluting resource.

    Brazil is the worlds leader in biofuels, with 30% of transport fuel currently  derived from biomass. In addition, many countries are setting up new  initiatives for the production and use of biofuels for transportation (2; Table  2). Switching to biofuels for transportation needs would reduce energy  dependency on oil imports and could boost rural development, providing farmers  with an additional source of income.
Table 2. Biofuel    Production, Top 12 Countries, 2004. Adapted from (2).
Several countries have set goals  for increasing the proportion of biofuels used for transport: the US plans to  replace 30% of the liquid petroleum with biomass-derived products by 2025 (3);  India has a target to increase the proportion of biofuels from 5% to 20% by  2012 (4); and the European Union targets close to 6% of fuels to be derived  from biomass by 2010 (4).
Despite the uncertainty in  understanding something as complex as global climate, there is strong evidence  that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is resulting in  significant global warming. Fossil fuel and electricity consumption are main  sources of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol (5), an international agreement  made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)  was established with the aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in  the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with  global climate.
Environmental advantages of biofuels
The main environmental advantage of  biofuels stems from the fact that they are carbon-neutral: the carbon dioxide  they release upon combustion is initially extracted from the atmosphere during  biomass production, resulting in zero net greenhouse gas emissions.
Biofuels also reduce the release of  volatile organic compounds, as the addition of ethanol to gasoline oxygenates  the fuel mixture so it burns more completely. Ethanol also eliminates the need  to add lead. In addition, biofuels are biodegradable and non-toxic, meaning  spillages represent far less of a risk than fossil diesel spillages.
The cost of biofuels needs to be  estimated not only in terms of energy derived, but also in terms of how much  energy/resources are required for the production and distribution of biofuels  (6). The production of energy crops requires land, fertilizers, and farm  machinery, while the fermentation and distillation of biofuels needs biomass  and water. The environmental impacts of producing biomass include increased  soil erosion, and pollution related to an increased use of fertilizers,  pesticides, and herbicides.
Calculating energy efficiency is  however very difficult, as we also have to factor in the resources saved by  substitution of a renewable energy source for a fossil fuel product, a  non-renewable resource. Energy efficiency calculations involve many assumptions  on how energy crops are grown, harvested and processed, and also on what  resources are saved, which makes these calculations controversial (6).
In addition, the cost of biofuels  will also ultimately depend on several parameters that need to be better  addressed and are inherently difficult to quantify. Among these are: increased  security of supply; effect on climate change; employment generation; and the  impact of an expanding bioenergy sector on land demand, and how this will  affect alternative land uses, such as food production and biodiversity  conservation.
The cost of biofuels is also  inextricably linked to the cost of fossil fuels, and is likely to remain so for  the next decades. Therefore, currently the main driver for biofuel production  is governmental policies. The development of a second generation of perennial,  woody energy crops, and the improvement of the efficiencies of biorefineries,  will likely shift the economic balance towards more economically competitive  applications of biofuels.
Plant Biotechnology and Biofuels
The US Department for Agriculture  (USDA) has estimated that one billion dry tons of biomass per year are needed  to replace 30% of transportation fuels with biofuels (7). According to an USDA study,  this amount of biomass could be produced by 2050, with feasible technological  advances while still meeting food, fibre and export demands. The biomass would  be mostly derived from crop residues and from the cultivation of perennial  energy crops.
The challenge for biotechnology is  therefore to substantially increase crop yield, and at the same time develop  crops with a suitable set of chemical and physical traits for energy production  (8).
Plant growth can be improved by  increasing the efficiency of light capture during photosynthesis (8, 9). The  most successful approaches have involved introducing genes from photosynthetic  bacteria into plants, without effecting changes in the level of activity of  plant-specific genes. Conventional breeding techniques are therefore unsuitable  for the development of crops with more efficient use of solar energy.
Also successful has been the  manipulation of genes involved in the metabolism of nitrogen, an essential  element in proteins and DNA. Over-expression of a glutamine synthesis gene  (GS1) in poplar trees significantly increases tree height (10). Further  strategies include extending the growth phase of plants, by reducing seed  dormancy, or by preventing or delaying flowering, as plants devote a large  proportion of their energy to making reproductive structures which could be  harnessed into vegetative growth.
Raising plant protection to  abiotic and biotic stress
Abiotic stress is the primary cause  of crop loss worldwide, reducing average yields by over 50%. Further losses  incur due to attack by pests and pathogens. Developing crops with improved  resistance to stress, and equipping plants with enhanced resistance to pests  and pathogens, are therefore at the center of numerous crop improvement  initiatives, both by conventional breeding and by novel biotechnological  methods (11). For example, transgenic rice over-expressing the chloroplastic  glutamine synthase gene (GS2) shows increased tolerance to high soil salinity.  Such initiatives will have a fundamental impact on plant productivity.
Bt cotton, a variety that has been  genetically engineered with the insecticidal gene from the soil bacterium  Bacillus thurengiensis is a very successful example of a biotech crop developed  with improved resistance to pests. The transgene produces a protein that  paralyzes the larvae of pest insects, including the cotton bollworm and the  Asian and European corn borers. According to a recent study (12), Bt cotton  contributed US$ 8.12 billion to the cotton sector in countries adopting the  technology (8 in 2005). The economic contribution of Bt cotton stems from both  increased yields and reduced production costs.
Optimizing the chemical and  physical attributes of biofuel sources
The switch to renewable biomass  sources will also require the development of a suite of energy crops tailored  with the desired chemical and physical characteristics.
For bioethanol production,  attention must shift from plant grains toward corn stovers (dried leaves and  stems), trees and perennial grasses, and low-cost agricultural and municipal  wastes. Several approaches would improve the efficiency of energy production  from biomass sources. As the biosyntheses of cellulose and of lignin are  co-regulated, reducing the proportion of lignin in a plant will also increase  the proportion of cellulose (13). An alteration of the properties of the cell  wall could also be a strategy to facilitate access by key hydrolysing agents  for a more efficient release of sugars for fermentation. In addition, research  is required to identify new potential biomass sources.
Concluding remarks: the road to  biofuels
Biofuels can replace 30% of current  transportation energy needs in an environmentally responsible way without  affecting global food production with plausible technology developments (8).  Current practices, however, do not make biofuels economically competitive, nor  optimize energy use and emission characteristics.
For biofuels to play an important  role in meeting future energy needs, a multidisciplinary approach is required,  in which the activities of biologists, agronomists, engineers, energy experts  and policy specialists are integrated. In addition to developing specific  high-yielding energy crops, the impact, efficiency and sustainability of  biorefinery facilities need to be improved. Research is required to enhance the  infrastructure for the development of biofuels (including transport,  distribution, and production chain), in order make the production of biofuels  economically sustainable. Commercialization and policy support are critical for  success.
Socio-economic concerns, such as  land management practices and the choice of biomass source, should be carefully  addressed so that biofuel production does not negatively impact either food  production or the preservation of biodiversity.
Equally important are studies to  obtain a clear diagnosis of the environmental impact of specific biofuels, in  terms of combustion emissions, which vary according to the specific biofuel  used; of energy inputs required for the manufacture of biofuels; and in terms  of the environmental footprint of fertilizers and herbicides used during the  production of energy crops.
Advanced  Energy Initiative. 2006. U.S.  Department of Energy. 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/index.html
Renewables  2005: Global Status Report. Notes and References Companion Document. Renewable  Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. 
http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/RE2005_Notes_References.pdf
National  Mission on  Bio-Fuel. The Energy and Resources Institute of India. 
http://www.teriin.org/projects/ES/jatropha.pdf
EU  Strategy for Biofuels. European Commission. 2006. 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/agriculture/biomass/biofuel/index_en.htm
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework  Convention on Climate Change. 
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
Harvesting  the Potential of BIOMASS. 2005.David J. Tenenbaum. Environ. Health Perspect.  2005 November; 113(11): A750-A753.
Biomass  as feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: the Technical  Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. 2005. United States Department of  Agriculture (USDA) and United States Department of Energy (DOE).
The  Path Forward for Biofuels and Biomaterials. 2006. Ragauskas, A.J., et al.  Science 311: 484-489.
Enhancing  crop yield in Solanaceous species through the genetic manipulation of energy  metabolism. 2005. Nunes-Nesi, A. et al.. Bioch. Soc.Trans. 33: 1430-1434.
Improved  growth in a field trial of transgenic hybrid poplar overexpressing glutamine  synthetase. 2004. Jing, Z. P. et al. New Phytologist 164: 137-145.
Recent  advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress: achievements and  limitations. 2005. Vinocur, B. & Altman, A. Curr. Op. Biotech.16:123-32.
GM  Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental Impact - The First Nine Years  1996-2004. 2005. Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot. AgBioForum Vol 8, Number 2  & 3, Article 15.
Combinatorial  modification of multiple lignin traits in trees through multigene  cotransformation. 2003. Li, L. et al. PNAS 100: 4939-4944.
Biotech Plants for   Bioremediation











Document Number: 7094 
Biotech Plants  for Bioremediation
Pocket K No. 25: Biotech Plants  for Bioremediation
Over the last century, global industrialization,  war, and natural processes have resulted in the release of large amounts of  toxic compounds into the biosphere. Pollutants fall into two main classes:  inorganic and organic. Inorganic pollutants comprise heavy metals such as  cadmium, mercury, and lead; nonmetallic compounds like arsenic; and radioactive  nuclear waste. Organic contaminants include petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents,  phenolic compounds, explosives, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
Pollution is a huge global environmental  problem. For example, 11.000 tons of mercury are released into the biosphere  each year (1). There are 12,000 contaminated sites listed in the United States, and 400,000 contaminated sites in  Western Europe, with thousands of additional  sites throughout the world (2). Widespread contamination affects large areas in  developing countries, where the pressure to use polluted land and water for  food production is also very high. The world market for remediation was  estimated to be between US$ 15-18 billion in 1998, and is expanding (2).
Conventional Remediation  Strategies
Conventional remediation for  polluted sites typically involves the physical removal of contaminants, and  their disposal in a designated site. Physical remediation strategies therefore  do not eliminate the problem, they merely shift it. In addition, physical  remediation strategies are also very expensive, disruptive to the environment,  may temporarily increase exposure to chemicals, and often leave residual  contamination.
Phytoremediation, the use of plants  to remove or degrade contamination from soils and surface waters, has been  proposed as a cheap, sustainable, effective, and environmentally friendly  alternative to conventional remediation technologies. Plants use solar energy  (through photosynthesis) to extract chemicals from the soil and to deposit them  in the above-ground part of their bodies, or to convert them to a less toxic  form. These plants can then be harvested and treated, removing the pollutants.
An ideal phytoremediator would  have: high tolerance to the pollutant; the ability to either degrade or  concentrate the contaminant at high levels in the biomass; extensive root  systems; the capacity to absorb large amounts of water from the soil; and fast  growth rates and high levels of biomass.
Although several species can  tolerate and grow in some contaminated sites, these species typically grow very  slowly, produce very low levels of biomass, and are adapted to very specific  environmental conditions. And trees- which have extensive root systems, high  biomass, and low agricultural inputs requirements- tolerate pollutants poorly,  and do not accumulate them. Conventional plants therefore fail to meet the  requirements for successful phytoremediators.
Cleaning Up More Efficiently with  Green, Biotech Mops
The remedial capacity of plants can  be significantly improved by genetic manipulation and plant transformation technologies.  The introduction of novel traits for the uptake and accumulation of pollutants  into high biomass plants is proving a successful strategy for the development  of improved phytoremediators. This Pocket K reviews some of the research  efforts in this field, and highlights future challenges.
Cadmium, Zinc, Lead, and Selenium
Toxic metals affect crop yields,  soil biomass, and fertility, and accumulate in the food chain. Metal-tolerant  species protect themselves from the toxicity of metal ions by binding metals  ions with specific proteins that render them in a safer form. Three classes of  proteins are important for metal detoxification in plants: metallothioneins,  phytochelatins, and glutathione. The genes coding for these have been  successfully used to improve phytoremediators through genetic engineering.
) transformed with the phytochelatin TaPCS1 shows very high levels of  accumulation of zinc, lead, cadmium, nickel, and boron, and produces high  biomass (3). In 
, Indian mustard, and tobacco plants,  improved metal tolerance was achieved through the over-expression of enzymes  that induce the formation of phytochelatins (4, 5, and 6).
Plants naturally tolerant to heavy  metals have also been used as a source of genes for phytoremediation.  Transgenic 
 plants expressing a selenocysteine  methyltransferase (SMTA) gene from the selenium hyperaccumulator 
 contain eight times more selenium in their biomass when grown on  selenite compared to non-transgenic controls. Comparison of gene expression  profiles between 
 and the closely related species 
, which is tolerant to cadmium and hyperaccumulates zinc, is also  helping identify major genes required for metal tolerance (6).
Mammalian P450 cytochrome genes  have been used to confer herbicide resistance to crop plants, which can be used  in herbicide rotation systems designed to delay the evolution of herbicide  resistance in weeds, and to reduce the environmental load of agricultural  chemicals (5, 6). Herbicide resistance is also provided by the over-expression  of the maize glutathione S-transferase I (GSTI) gene (6).
Millions of tons of explosives have  been released into the environment, with the resulting pollution of vast  expanses of land and water resources. RDX (Research Department Explosive) was  the primary explosive used during World War II, and newer derivatives are  extensively used to date. Explosives, and their degradation products, are  extremely toxic and corrosive.
Tobacco plants engineered with the  bacterial gene for a NADPH-dependent nitroreductase tolerate and degrade high  levels of TNT (9), and Arabidopsis plants carrying the xplA gene from  Rhodococcus bacteria are highly resistant to of RDX (6).
Landmines affect millions of  people, both combatants and civilians, in over 80 countries. Sixty to 70  million active landmines exist throughout the world, and these claim the lives  and limbs of 50 people every day, and threaten the livelihood of many more by  denying them access to humanitarian aid, agricultural land, and water  resources. Efforts are underway to develop transgenic plants that can be used  to warn civilians of the presence of landmines in a field (10). Arabidopsis  whose roots change color when they come into contact with degradation products  of landmines have been developed. Scientists are now working to allow the plant  to transmit the signal to their leaves, to effect human-readable changes for a  practical explosives detection system.
Mercury is a highly toxic element  found both naturally and as an introduced contaminant in the environment, and  is a very serious global environmental problem. Organic mercury  (organomercurials), the most toxic form to living organisms, is produced when  bacteria in the water and soil convert elemental mercury into methylmercury.  Methylmercury is easily absorbed and accumulates at high levels in the food  chain. Mercury poisoning affects the immune system, damages the nervous system,  and is harmful to developing fetuses.
Detoxification of organomercurials  has been achieved in transgenic plants by transforming Arabidopsis, tobacco,  poplar trees, Indian mustard, and eastern cotton wood with two bacterial genes,  merA and merB. (5, 6, 7). The combined actions of merA and merB transform  methylmercury to the volatile elemental form, which is 100 times less toxic,  and is released by the plant to the atmosphere at non-toxic concentrations  through transpiration.
Arsenic occurs naturally in rocks  and soil, and is released into underground water. Consumption of contaminated  drinking water leads to skin disorders, gangrene, and cancer of the kidneys and  bladder. In addition, high levels of arsenic in agricultural land degrade  soils, reduce crop yields, and introduce the pollutant to the food chain (8).  Arsenic contamination threatens up to 40 million people in Bangladesh  alone, a problem described by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the  largest poisoning of a population in history.
Scientists have engineered  Arabidopsis plants with arsenic tolerance by introducing two bacterial genes: 
 converts arsenate, the arsenic form absorbed by  plants, to arsenite. Double transgenics are not only highly tolerant of  arsenic, they also have improved cadmium tolerance, and a six-fold increase in  the level of biomass compared to wild-type controls (6).
Although the use of biotechnology  to develop transgenic plants with improved potential for efficient, clean,  cheap, and sustainable bioremediation technologies is very promising, several  challenges remain.
A  better understanding of the molecular basis of the pathways involved in the  degradation of pollutants is needed. Further analysis and discovery of genes  suitable for phytoremediation is essential.
Phytoremediation  technologies are currently available for only a small subset of pollutants, and  many sites are contaminated with several chemicals. Therefore, phytoremediators  need to be engineered with multiple stacked genesin order to meet the  requirements of specific sites.
Phytoremediation  technology is still at an early development stage, and field testing of  transgenic plants for phytoremediation is very limited. Biosafety concerns need  to be properly addressed, and strategies to prevent gene flow into wild species  need to be developed.
The  true costs of benefits of phytoremediation with biotech plants must be  determined.
Political  will and funding are required, both to pursue basic research into  phytoremediation, and to implement novel strategies.
Quantitative  assessment of worldwide contamination of air, water and soils by trace metals.  1988. Nriagu J.O. & Pacyna J.M. Nature 333:134-139.
U.S. and International Markets for  Phytoremediation, 1999-2000. Glass D. 
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_id=301701
An  engineered plant that accumulates higher levels of heavy metals than Thlaspi  caerulescens, with yields of 100 times more biomass in mine soils. 2006. Martinez M. et al.  Chemosphere 64: 478-485.
Phytoremediation:  novel approaches to cleaning up polluted soils. 2005. Krmer U.  Curr. Op. Biotech. 16: 133-141.
Phytoremediation:  green technology for the clean up of toxic metals in the environment. 2005.  Grato L. P. et al. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 17: 53-64.
Transgenic  Plants in Phytoremediation: Recent Advances and New Possibilities. 2005.  Cherian S. & Oliveira M. Am. Chem. Soc. 39: 9377-9390
Phytodetoxification  of hazardous organomercurials by genetically engineered plants. 2000. Bizily  S.P. et al. Nature Biotech. 18: 213- 217.
Worldwide  occurrences of arsenic in ground water. 2002. Nordstrom D.N. Science 296:  2143-2144.
An  explosive-degrading cytochrome P450 activity and its targeted application for  the phytoremediation of RDX. 2006. Rylott E.L., et al. Nature Biotech. 24:  216-219.
Feasibility  of landmine detection using transgenic plants. 2006.
Deyholos  M., et al.. Proceedings of SPIE 6217.
Molecular Pharming and   Biopharmaceuticals











Document Number: 8373 
Molecular  Pharming and Biopharmaceuticals
Pocket K No. 26: Molecular  Pharming and Biopharmaceuticals
With the advent of genetic engineering,  scientists are able to engineer living organisms, from the simple yeasts to the  more complex plants, to produce specific pharmaceuticals. Biopharmaceuticals  are drug products (proteins, including antibodies) produced in living systems  and used for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes or as dietary supplements.
The use of plants to express  proteins can be more practical, safe and economical compared to other  biological systems. Plant systems allow production with low start-up costs  because the expensive equipment used in microbial systems are not required. The  production of these compounds in plants is sometimes called molecular pharming.
The first full size native protein  expressed in plants was human serum albumin, produced in 1990 in transgenic  tobacco and potato plants. Years after this pioneering work, two plant-derived  pharmaceuticals (PDPs) or plant-made pharmaceuticals (PMPs) have been  commercialized (one in Cuba  and one in the US).  Europe is expected to commercialize PDPs in  2009
. A wide array of PDPs are now in the pipeline for commercialization to  treat diseases such as cystic fibrosis and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, among others  (see Table 1). There are also various veterinary applications of plant-derived  vaccines and therapeutic proteins but these will not be discussed
Table 1: Plant-derived    pharmaceuticals for the treatment of human diseases that are in the pipeline    for commercialization.
Various single-chain    Fv antibody fragments
Cystic fibrosis,    pancreatitis
Hepatitis B virus    surface antigen
Lysozyme,    Lactoferrin, Human serum albumin
Sources: Compiled by    ISAAA, 2007.
What Plants are Used for Biopharma  Production?
Transgenic tobacco is by far the most  popular choice in many studies on plant-produced proteins because of its high  biomass yields and rapid scalability. In addition, it is not used as food or  feed, and so carries a reduced risk of transgenic material contaminating food  and feed supplies1. Transgenic tobacco has recently been used in Cuba for the  commercial production of a recombinant antibody against hepatitis B2. 
Aside from tobacco, other leafy  crops such as lettuce and alfalfa have been studied for biopharmaceutical  production. Harvested material from leafy crops must be processed immediately  due to the rapid degeneration of proteins in leaves. To circumvent the problem  of short shelf life, cereal grains like rice, wheat, barley, and maize are also  being developed to produce the PDPs1. Maize, for example, has already been used  for the commercial production of recombinant avidin, 
-glucuronidase and  trypsin by ProdiGene Inc. in the United States
Potato was the first system to be developed  for vaccine production, followed by tomatoes, bananas, carrots, lettuce, maize,  alfalfa, spinach, white clover and 
 as alternative production  hosts. 
Finally, there has been significant  progress in the use of plant species which can easily be handled in the  laboratory and in the production plant. Simple plants include 
Chlamydomonas  reinhardtii, Lemna
How would Biopharma Benefit  Developing Countries?
Agriculture is the lifeblood of  many developing countries. Agricultural economies would benefit from a  plant-based pharmaceutical platform to improve healthcare. PDPs offer a  cost-effective method of production of molecules that could help control  infectious diseases prevalent in developing countries, such as malaria and  HIV/AIDS3. Tobacco has already successfully been used to produce an anti-HIV  cream, currently under laboratory trials in the UK
, while a  Belgian pharmaceutical company, Dafra Pharma, has commissioned the Plant  Research International (PRI) to begin research in optimizing the production method  of anti-malaria artemisinin via transgenic chicory plants
With plants, production of  biopharmaceuticals can be tailored to suit local or regional production.  Primary extraction facilities could be built in developing countries so that  they could derive maximum benefits from the technology. Bringing the technology  closer to the target population would draw out greater involvement from these  countries, and shift the focus in current drug production to specific regional  diseases
. This would also alleviate some of the problems and obstacles  associated with the delivery and storage of conventional vaccines and medicines  to remote areas with limited infrastructure.
Demand for specific pharmaceuticals  is very high especially in developing countries. Recombinant hepatitis B  vaccine from genetically-modified yeast, for instance, can not be made in  sufficient quantities and at a low enough cost to meet the current demands. The  possibility of large-scale production in transgenic plants could offer one of the  few practical solutions to overcome these dilemmas. The use of PDPs would  undoubtedly assist vaccination programs in developing countries by reducing the  costs of vaccine production, purification, storage and administration
What are the Risks, Concerns and  Issues of PDPs?
The production of plant-derived  pharmaceuticals introduces several unique challenges for biosafety regulation  and risk-management. Most of these arise from the fact that the plants are  generally grown in the open environment. An important environmental concern is  therefore the potential gene flow to weeds or related crops through pollination  or seed contamination. In addition, and especially in the case where food crops  are used for the production of drugs, there are issues about PDPs accidentally  entering the food chain and being consumed by non-target organisms.
It is impossible to keep the  environmental risks associated with PDPs at absolute zero
. A simple  approach would be to grow the transgenic plants producing PDPs in physical  isolation. However, a more realistic approach would be to minimize the  environmental exposure of these proteins through a combination of precautionary  measures. These could comprise the use of genetic use restriction technologies  or GURTs, which prevent the unintended escape of the crop to the environment by  engineering plants that produce non-viable seeds
. Other  strategies include the induction of biopharmaceutical production in the plants  after harvesting, and the expression of the proteins in a form that must be  treated for activation
. This means that the protein would be in  its inactive form in the plant, and only after further modifications or  processing the protein would acquire pharmaceutical properties.
A major concern for many developing  countries is the lack of biosafety legislation for genetically modified plants.  Without a biosafety framework in place, developing countries cannot perform  trials of PDPs. In addition, a major challenge is the high cost of development  and of regulatory compliance. Although large scale production of PDP may be  more economical, the intial stages of development and biosafety tests may be  prohibitively costly. Regulatory requirements for drug development and  manufacture, the high failure rate of new drugs, and the protection of  intellectual property also contribute to the price of new vaccines
The adoption of PDPs may also raise  ethical and religious issues. Among the ethical objections to GM plants, and to  genetic engineering in general, are concerns that altering living organisms is  like playing God
The production of plant-derived  pharmaceuticals may provide a cheaper and better alternative source of  medicines for both developed and developing countries. The latter will stand to  benefit the most from PDPs because of reduced costs of drug production, the  possibility of large scale production, and the complementarity of the  technology with agriculture. Locally grown crops can be developed for PDPs,  which could make them more practical and economical for use in developing  countries. However, there are risks, concerns, and other issues which need to  be addressed before this technology can be commercially released around the world.
Fischer,  R., Stoger, E., Schillberg, S., Christou, P. and R. M. Twyman. 2004. Current  Opinion in Plant Biology. 7:152-158.
Sparrow,  P., Irwin, J.A., Dale, P.J., Twyman, R.M. and J.K. Ma. 2007. Transgenic  Research. 16:147-161.
Ma, J.  K., Chikwamba, R., Sparrow, P., Fischer, R., Mahoney, R. and R. M. Twyman.  2005. Trends in Plant Science. 10:581-585.
Sexton,  A., Drake, P.M., Mahmood, N., Harman, S.J., Shattock, R.J., and J. K. Ma. 2005.  FASEB Journal. http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/doi/10.1096/fj.05-4742fje.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/biotechnology/20070508/3406093en-1.html.
EMBO.  2005. EMBO Reports. 6:593-599.
Ledford,  H. 2007. Nature. 445:132-133.
ISAAA-Global Knowledge   Center on Crop Biotechnology. 2006. Pocket K No.  21: Gene Switching and GURTs: What, How and Why?
Daniell,  H., Streatfield, S. J. and K. Wycoff. 2001. Trends in Plant Science. 6:219-226.
Robert,  J.S. and D.D. Kirk. 2006. The American Journal of Bioethics. 6:W29-W41.
Biotechnology and   Biofortification











Document Number: 6279 
Biotechnology and  Biofortification
Pocket K No. 27: Biotechnology and  Biofortification
The Ideal Diet: Sufficient and  Balanced
A major challenge of our time is  that one sixth of the worlds population suffers from hunger, a situation which  is totally unacceptable. In addition, many more people, over half of the global  population, are afflicted by a different form of food deficiency (FAO, 2004).  This hidden hunger is due to the quality, rather than the quantity, of the  food available, and it is closely related to the fact that in many poor  developing countries people rely only or mostly on low-protein staple crops for  food.
Nutrient deficiencies pertain  mainly to proteins and micronutrients like vitamin A, iron, zinc, selenium and  iodine. Conventional strategies to combat nutrient deficiencies include dietary  supplements and food fortification programs. These programs, however, present  several problems: the target populations are often not reached (especially in  poor rural populations in developing countries); they are often not sustainable  over time; and they address mostly the symptoms rather than the underlying  cause of the problem.
An adequate and diverse diet, comprising  fruits, vegetables and animal products, is the best solution for good nutrition  both in terms of energy requirement and micronutrients needs. However, this  remains out of reach for a large proportion of the worlds population.  Introducing biofortified staple crops with increased nutritious content can  therefore have a very big impact, as the strategy relies on improving an  already existing food supply (Nestel 
Biotechnology and Biofortification
Biofortification capitalizes on the  consistent daily intake of food staples, thus indirectly targeting low-income  households who cannot afford a more diverse diet. After the initial investment  of developing fortified crops, no extra costs are met, making this strategy  very sustainable. Furthermore, the improved varieties can be shared  internationally. Biofortified seeds are also likely to have an indirect impact  in agriculture, as a higher trace mineral content in seeds confers better  protection against pests, diseases, and environmental stresses, thereby  increasing yield (Welch and Graham, 2004). Biofortification is not a panacea in  itself but a very important complement to dietary variety and to  supplementation.
Biofortified crops can be developed  by traditional breeding methods, provided there is sufficient genetic variation  in crop populations for the desired trait (such as high protein content). In  staple grains such as rice, improvement of some complex traits such as vitamin  A is not possible using conventional breeding strategies, as there are no  natural rice varieties rich in this vitamin. All plants produce pro-vitamin A,  but only in the green organs of the plant and not in the starch-storing part of  the seed. Conventional breeding is also very difficult in vegetatively  propagated varieties (such as cassava and potatoes), due to the scarcity of  genetically well-defined breeding lines. In addition, conventional breeding can  change important traits of the crops desired by consumers, such as taste.  Agricultural biotechnology methods, and in specific genetic engineering (GM),  represent therefore a very valuable, complementary strategy for the development  of more nutritious crops.
A significant portion of the  developing worlds population relies largely on one or more of the staple crops  for their nutrition, and these are the subject of biofortification projects,  both by conventional breeding and by modern biotechnology methods. Rice, the  worlds most important cereal crop for human consumption, is the food staple of  more than 3 billion people, many of them very poor. Maize constitutes a staple  human diet in at least 22 countries, mostly in Africa and Latin   America. Wheat is a very important human food grain and the staple  food for 35% of the worlds population. Potato is the most important non-cereal  food crop, and ranks fourth in terms of total global food production. Cassava  feeds about 800 million of the worlds most deprived populations, mostly in Africa.
Biofortification for Increased  Protein Content
Human cells can produce only 10 out of the  20 amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and so the missing essential  amino acids must be supplied in the food. As the body cannot store excess amino  acids, their intake must be daily. In many poor developing countries, the daily  intake of essential amino acids is often not sufficient due to the scarcity of  high-protein sources such as meat, fish, or soybean. Rice, cassava and potato  are important sources of carbohydrates, but they are low in protein content.
Suitable protein candidates for  biofortification include the storage protein Sporamin A from sweet potato, the  seed albumin AmA1 protein from Princes Feather (
),  and ASP1, an artificial storage protein rich in essential amino acids. ASP1 has  been introduced and expressed successfully in rice and cassava, and efforts are  under way to optimize expression and increase the level of protein accumulation  in transgenic plants.
These encode the enzymes phytoene  synthase (PSY) and phytoene desaturase (CRTI). Golden Rice 1 contains the PSY  gene from daffodil and the CRTI gene from the bacterium Erwinia uredovora, both  expressed only in the rice seed (Ye 
., 2005). Half the daily recommended allowance of vitamin A for a  1-3 year old child would therefore be provided for in 72g of Golden Rice 2.  Golden Rice is in advanced testing stages, and is expected to be released in a  few years.
Iron deficiency anemia affects more than 2  billion people in virtually all countries, which makes iron deficiency by far  the most common micronutrient deficiency worldwide. Iron is found in  vegetables, grains, and red meat. However, the bioavailability of iron in  plants is low, and in rice, the problem is aggravated by the presence of  phytate, a potent inhibitor of iron resorption, and by the lack of iron  resorption-enhancing factors.
Therefore, scientists had to  increase the iron content in grains, reduce the level of phytate, and add  resorption-enhancing factors (Sautter 
., 2007). Expression of the  iron storage protein ferritin from French bean and soybean in the endosperm of  rice results in a 3-fold increase of iron in seeds. In order to decrease the  level of phytate, an enzyme that degrades it (known as phytase) has also been  transformed into rice, and efforts are currently under way to optimize the  construct. Finally, over-expression of a cysteine-rich protein that transports  metals in rice can improve the rate of iron resorption during digestion.
Folic acid deficiency is a global  health problem that affects mainly, though not exclusively, women over the age  of 30, and it is the main cause of anemia in at least 10 million pregnant women  in developing countries.
In food, most of the folic acid  occurs as folate. In order to engineer tomatoes with higher level of folate,  scientists have over-expressed in the fruit the genes encoding the enzymes  catalyzing the synthesis of two folate precursors (Daz de la Garza 
.,  2007). In plants were both traits were combined by crossing, vine-ripened  transgenic fruit accumulated up to 25 times more folate than controls.
Challenges for the Adoption of  Biotech Biofortified Crops
A major problem of developing  fortified crops is the cost of research and of regulatory compliance, due to  due to the extreme precautionary regulation of biotech crops. In the case of  biofortified crops, where profit margins for private technology developers are  slim, the scarcity of public funds exacerbates this problem (Powell, 2007).
GM technology tends to be  proprietary, so intellectual property (IP) issues also need to be duly  considered. As many as 16 patent and 72 intellectual property issues had to be  resolved in the process of making Golden Rice available to poor farmers at no  cost (
).  A successful biofortification strategy requires widespread adoption of the  crops by farmers and consumers, and this presents several important challenges  (Powell, 2007). Public acceptance is also essential, especially if the new  trait changes perceptibly the qualities of the crop, such as color (like in  Golden Rice), taste, and dry matter content. Adequate information programs will  play an essential role in ensuring acceptance.
Wide dissemination of the  technology, a requisite for success, also relies on good market networks and channels  for the dissemination of agricultural information. The lack of agricultural  infrastructure in some developing countries, especially in Africa,  is a significant challenge for adoption of new biofortified varieties.
Biofortified crops, either by conventional  breeding methods or by modern biotechnological tools, are not a panacea. The  ultimate aim in global nutrition remains a sufficient and diverse diet for the  worlds population. However, biofortified crops can complement existing micronutrients  interventions, can have a significant impact on the lives and health of  millions of people, especially those most in need.
.  (2007). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104: 42184222.
.  (2007). PLoS ONE 2: e350. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000350.

    FAO. (2004).  http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/Y5160E00.htm.
.  (2006). J. Nutr. 136: 1064-1067.
.  (2005). Nat.Biotech. 23:482-487.

    Powell K.  (2007). Nat. Biotech. 25: 525 - 531.
.  (2006). Proc. Nutr. Soc.65:153-159.

    Welch R. M.  and Graham R. D. (2004). J. Exp.Bot. 55: 353-364.
.  (2000). Science 287:303-305.
Kenya Biotechnology   Development Policy Highlights











Document Number: 1411 
Kenya  Biotechnology Development Policy Highlights
Pocket K No. 28: Kenya  Biotechnology Development Policy Highlights
Highlights of the Kenya  National Biotechnology Development Policy.
Biotechnology is any technological  application that uses living organisms, or derivatives thereof to make or  modify new products or improve existing ones. While advances in biotechnology  have great potential to improve the economy, it is imperative that it be  applied systematically, responsibly and in a way that responds to the countrys  priority needs. In this regard, the government of Kenya has developed a comprehensive  national policy to guide research, development and commercialisation of modern  biotechnology products. The policy, which was approved in September 2006, has  been the result of several years of work involving all major biotechnology  stakeholders nationally, internationally and elevant government departments.
What does the Policy mean for Kenya?
The policy charts the vision of the  Kenyan government towards the development and safe application of  biotechnology. It provides those developing and applying the technology with a  clear framework under which to operate. The policy commits the government to  give priority to the provision of relevant institutional, infrastructural and  legislative framework and, in particular, the enactment of new legislation on  biosafety.
What are the objectives of the Policy?
Some of the key objectives of the  policy are to:
Prioritize, promote, and coordinate research  in basic and applied bio-sciences.
Promote sustainable industrial development  for production of biotechnologyderived products.
Create enabling administrative and legal  frameworks for biotechnologydevelopment and commercialisation.
Develop mechanisms for the provision of  sustainable funding for biotechnologyresearch and products development.
Support and facilitate capacity building on  all aspects of biotechnology includingintellectual property access and  protection, biosafety and bioethics.
Support the development and retention of  human resources in science,innovation and biotechnology.
Stimulate collaboration among public,  private sectors and international agenciesin order to advance biotechnology  both locally and internationally.
Promote public understanding of the  potential benefits and address stakeholderconcerns/issues on modern  biotechnology.
The policy covers all biotechnology  applications, including tissue culture and micropropagation, biopesticides and  biofertilizers, livestock technology, DNA Marker technology, and genetic  engineering. It also covers research, development and use of biotechnology in  various key fields such as agriculture, environment, human and animal health  and industry. The policy takes cognizance of international instruments, such as  the Cartagena Protocol on
The policy outlines six priority  areas of focus

    Under this, the Government will  focus on the following priority areas: 
Biotechnologies  to develop new plant varieties with beneficial genetic traits for pest and  disease resistance, improved nutritional value, tolerance to drought and  salinity. Special attention will be paid to conservation of germplasm of  traditional and wild crop plants. 
Animal  reproductive biotechnologies such as artificial insemination, embryo transfer,  genetic improvement of local breeds, and somatic cell nuclear transfer  (cloning) techniques. Special attention will be paid to the development of  livestock that are resistant to diseases, have improved meat, milk or wool  quality, can increase proteins in their milk or meat (biopharm animals), or  which have characteristics that are environmentally friendly. 
New  plant and animal diagnostic products, improved animal vaccines, biological  pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers

    The government will pay particular  attention to:
Reviewing  of curricula at all levels to promote the spirit of scientific inquiry by  encouraging independent student projects, exposing students and teachers to  biotech activities in Kenya  and internationally through study tours, expert guest lectures; and promoting  acquisition of entrepreneurial skills. 
Strengthening  the teaching of biosciences at the formal education level. 
Attracting  and retaining talent in biosciences. 
Developing  scientific and related infrastructures. 
Spearheading  formal and informal public education and awareness creation programs.

    The Government will support the  following priority activities for fast-tracking economic exploitation of  biodiversity:
The  development of a centrally managed database on species in different ecosystems  and the traditional knowledge associated with the species.
Creation  of research fund to facilitate molecular characterization and bioprospecting  for novel products for development and industrial production. 
Establishment  of national culture collection centers for the preservation and utilization of  economically beneficial microorganisms. 
Accelerate  the establishment of viable in situ and ex situ (Gene banks) conservation  centers. 
Focused  exploitation of fauna, flora and microbes in marine and extreme habitats for  novel genes for development of osmo tolerant crops, enzymes, biopolymers,  marine pollution biosensors, bioactive molecules, etc.
4. Environmental  Biotechnology

    The Government will ensure  environmental sustainability by developing and adopting appropriate  biotechnologies to address:
Monitoring  of environmental pollution
Eco  restoration of degraded habitats
Afforestation  and reforestation
Control  of biological invasions
The  potential for value-added products from biomass 
Applications requiring use of  modern biotechnology for all purposes, will be subject to approval by the  designated authority, 

    To realize fast and meaningful  economic benefits from medical biotechnology, the government will focus on the  following areas:
Basic  and applied research in bioinformatics, molecular and cellular biology,  genomics, proteomics, stem biology (strictly using ethically obtained stem  cells only), and other new platform biotechnologies as appropriate
Development  of molecular diagnostics, recombinant vaccines, and drug delivery systems. 
Development  of traditional herbal medicines into superior industrial therapeutic products
Screening  of biodiversity components for bioactive compounds for value added therapeutic  products.
The  policy outlaws any activities or research dealings involving human cloning, use  of unethically procured stem cells, and the introduction, use or release of the  Terminator Technology and associated products into Kenya.

    Key priority areas will be to:
Develop  initiatives that will attract major investment in biotechnology research and  product development from local and international companies or institutions.
Promote  industrial skills development.
Provide  a conducive environment for small and medium size biotechnology products  businesses. 
Ensure  high quality standards, competitiveness of products on local and international  markets.
I. Prioritization and  Coordination of Research and Development

    The policy recommends establishment  of a National Biotechnology Enterprises Programme that will consist of a  National Commission on Biotechnology, a National Biotechnology Education Centre  and a National Biosafety Authority.
Functions of the National  Commission on Biotechnology will be to consolidate and maximize on available  resources of institutions engaged in training and R&D through:
Identification  and implementation of national priority areas for R&D
Provision  of advice/guidance on and/or supervision of the allocation of primary resources  and responsibilities to public R&D institutes and universities 
Tracking  and evaluation of inventions, patents and commercialization of discoveries 
Identifying  and linking R&D centers of excellence and the private sector. 
The National Biotechnology  Education Centre will:
Coordinate  and facilitate training and knowledge-sharing 
Develop  and maintain bioscience research, innovation and biotechnology database
Develop  and maintain a National culture collection 
A National Biosafety Authority will  be responsible for safe acquisition, development and commercialization of  biotechnology and its products thereof. The authority will be the central  coordinating and implementation body and will work together with other government  regulatory bodies to ensure adherence to laws and regulations.
II. Public Education and  Awareness Creation

    There are four basic elements to  the principle of public awareness and participation that the Government will  adopt:
Creation  of public awareness on biotechnology issues and investment opportunities 
Access  to information held by public authorities;
Public  participation in decision making process; 
Access  to judicial and administrative provisions.
III. Public Protection  and Support
Protecting  Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is a critical aspect of biotechnology  innovation, and ensuring effective public and private sector  participation in research and product development. 
The  Government recognizes the existing policies and legislation on protection of  traditional knowledge and resources.
IV.  Infrastructure,Facilities and Equipment
The  National Biotechnology Enterprises Programme to put in place mechanisms to  create linkages and networks among public research institutes and universities  for optimum access and utilization of available resources. 
Enhancement  of public/private partnerships. 
Support  initiatives for the establishment of biotechnology parks at R & D  institutions as incubators to stimulate the growth of small and medium size  businesses with potential to mature into high technology companies.
V. Financial and  Business Support
Create  incentives to encourage partnerships between public research institutes and  universities, and the private sector for the purpose of attracting private  sector investment in biotechnology based start up firms. Incentives include but  not limited to subsidies on private sector capital investment and tax  exemptions. 
Waiver  of taxes on research materials and equipment 
Encourage  specialized technological financing agencies to provide loans to firms or  consortia and research institutions. 
Direct  public budgetary allocation to biotechnology research and development.
The policy defines a road map for  biotechnology and should effectively guide the country into a pre-eminent  position of a knowledge-based economy for overall sustainable economic growth,  poverty alleviation and wealth creation. 
It pronounces the Governments  commitment to provide an enabling environment for the acquisition and  development of biotechnology responsibly for speedy exploitation of the immense  potential in agriculture, environment, bioresources, health and industry . 
Furthermore, the Government will  ensure that information on the development and use of the bio-technology is  accurately and transparently disseminated to the public and industry to allow  informed choices on its application while respecting their traditional methods  of production.
For more information: Biosafety  Office 
Functional Foods &   Biotechnology











Document Number: 5008 
Functional Foods  & Biotechnology
Pocket K No. 29: Functional Foods  & Biotechnology
Functional Foods are foods or dietary  components that claim to provide health benefits aside from basic nutrition
.  These foods contain biologically active substances such as antioxidants that  may lower the risks from certain diseases associated with aging. Examples of  functional foods include fruits and vegetables, whole grains, soy, milk,  enhanced foods and beverages and some dietary supplements. 
 Diet and health are closely  related. Thus, crops are now being enhanced through biotechnology to increase  levels of important biologically active substances for improved nutrition, to  increase bodys resistance to illnesses, and to remove undesirable food  components. Which substances are the ones targeted by biotechnology for  improved health benefits of crops?
Higher Levels of Phytosterols for  Reduced Cholesterol
Phytosterols and phytostanols are  cholesterol-like molecules found in all plant foods, but the highest  concentrations occur in unrefined plant oils, including vegetable, nut and  olive oils. Nuts, seeds, whole grains and legumes are also good dietary sources  of phytosterols
. Studies have shown that these compounds can lower  the risk of cardiovascular diseases and the levels of bad cholesterol. 
 As phytostanols are more stable  than phytosterols during food processing, genetic engineering has been applied  for the development of rapeseed and soybean oils with modified ratios of  phytosterols to phytostanols
. Plants were transformed with a gene  from yeast encoding the enzyme 3-hydroxysteroid oxidase, which converts  phytosterols to phytostanols.
Higher Levels of Carotenoids for  Increased Vitamin A 
Carotenoids are yellow, orange, and  red pigments found in plants. Some carotenoids are converted by the body into  vitamin A. Vitamin A is essential for normal growth and development, immune  system function, and vision
 Transgenic plants that have been  developed with increased carotenoid production include:
Canola  (Brassica rapa) with increased carotenoids developed by introducing a gene  coding for an enzyme responsible for lycopene biosynthesis
One of the reasons why pollution,  radiation, cigarette smoke and herbicides are bad for our health is because  they generate harmful free radicals in our body. Free radicals can cause damage  to the DNA and proteins, harm cellular components like the cell membrane, and  can eventually lead to degenerative diseases such as cancer.
Antioxidants are important  biological compounds that can protect the body by neutralizing the activity of  free radicals. Antioxidants occur in different forms, phenolic compounds such  as flavonoids and tocopherols being the most common. They are found in most  fruits and vegetables such as cabbage, carrots, broccoli, aubergine, berries,  and potatoes and plentiful in coffee, tea, and red wine. 
To enhance the flavonoid content of  potatoes, Lukaszewicz and colleagues conducted single and multiple-gene  transformations for the enzymes in the biosynthesis of flavonoids
.  Transgenic plants exhibited significantly increased levels of phenolics, and  improved antioxidant capacity.
Higher Levels of Essential Fatty  Acids
Essential fatty acids, good fats include,  but are not limited to, linoleic acid (LA), alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and other  polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). These fatty acids are considered essential  because they cannot be synthesized by our body. A large number of scientific  research studies suggest that higher dietary essential fatty acid intakes are  associated with reductions in cardiovascular disease risk
The main food sources of the  long-chain omega-3 fatty acids are fish. Plants lack the enzymes to make  long-chain fatty acids needed by mammals
. Scientists at the University of Bristol  modified Arabidopsis thaliana to produce long-chain PUFAs. The transgenic  plants were modified with three genes encoding different enzymes that convert  linoleic and alpha-linolenic acids to the long-chain PUFAs
. This experiment  opened the possibility for the improvement of crops.
Other Biotech Functional Foods 
Soybean is one of the major sources of  edible oil. Oil from soybean seeds contains the unstable linoleic and linolenic  acids, which affect its stability and result in the production of harmful fatty  components during processing
Genotypes with elevated oleic acid  content and reduced linoleic and linolenic acid levels are therefore desirable  to improve the functionality of soybean oil by increasing oil utility at higher  temperatures
, and by extending its shelf-life. In 2004, Monsanto  launched the VISTIVE soybean, which has the Roundup Ready trait. It contains  less than 3% linolenic acid, compared to 8% for traditional soybeans
Other GM soybeans were developed by  DuPont to contain high oleic acid: transgenic lines G94-1, G94-19, and G168.  The soybean lines were produced by silencing a gene that controls the activity  of an enzyme responsible for the conversion of linolenic acid from oleic acid
.  The result is a more heat stable soybean oil which may be used in food  applications such as frying.
The poor nutritional quality of  corn is due to the low-lysine and low-tryptophan content of its major seed  storage proteins, zeins. Lysine is an important component of animal feeds,  especially for swine and poultry. Kernels with reduced levels of zein proteins  have been shown to have increased levels of lysine and tryptophan
Opportunities and Challenges for  Developing Countries
Functional foods through  biotechnology can provide developing countries food sources with increased nutritional  value. Staple starchy crops such as cassava and yams have been modified to  lower the amylopectin content of starch, which has been associated with  diet-related conditions such as type 2 diabetes. In areas of drought and poor  soil quality, where high quality proteins are scarce, genetic modification has  been undertaken on some legumes and in soybean to increase the levels of high  quality proteins
Currently, commercialization of  genetically-modified nutritionally-enhanced crop is very limited due to many  factors that include the cost of introducing a new product to the market and  the lack of suitable regulatory controls. In addition, the development and  marketing of functional foods require significant research efforts because most  markets require scientific evidence and proof of functionality
Functional foods sprung from the  desire to prevent the onset of diseases associated with an ageing population.  Developing countries, especially China  and countries in Latin America, face  increasing health problems related to life style: diabetes and cardiovascular  diseases among others. In these cases foods with improved nutritional qualities  and added function would be useful; hence, developing countries need to  increase the investment on rigorous scientific research on potential functional  foods.
 http://ific.org/nutrition/functional/index.cfm 
 http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/sterols/index.html#sources 
 Venkatramesh M, Karunanandaa B, Sun B,  Gunter CA, Boddupalli S, Kishore GM. 2003. Expression of a Streptomyces  3-hydroxysteroid oxidase gene in oilseeds for converting phytosterols to  phytostanols Phytochemistry. 62(1):39-46. 
 http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/carotenoids/
 Shewmaker CK, Sheehy JA, Daley M, Colburn  S, Ke DY. 1999. Seed-specific overexpression of phytoene synthase: increase in  carotenoids and other metabolic effects. The Plant Journal. 20(4):401-412.
 Bramley PM, Rmer S, Fraser PD, Kiano JW,  Shipton CA, Misawa N, Schuch W. 2000. Elevation of the provitamin A content of  transgenic tomato plants. Nature Biotechnology. 18:666-669.
 Fraser PD, Romer S, Shipton CA, Mills PB,  Kiano JW, Misawa N, Drake RG, Schuch W, Bramley PM. 2002. Evaluation of  transgenic tomato plants expressing an additional phytoene synthase in a  fruit-specific manner. PNAS. 99(2):1092-1097.
 Lukaszewicz M, Matysiak-Kata I, Skala J,  Fecka I, Cisowski W, Szopa J. 2004. Antioxidant Capacity Manipulation in  Transgenic Potato Tuber by Changes in Phenolic Compounds Content. J Agric Food  Chem. 52:1526-1533.
 http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/othernuts/omega3fa/
 http://www.metabolicengineering.gov/me2005/Kinney.pdf 
 Shannon JG, Oliva ML, Sleper DA, Ellersieck  MR, Cardinal AJ, Paris  RL, Lee JD. 2006. Stability of Fatty Acid Profile in Soybean Genotypes with  Modified Seed Oil Composition. Crop Sci. 46:2069-2075. 
 http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=348 
 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/oleic_soybean-soja_oleique_e.html
 Huang S, Frizzi A, Florida  CA, Kruger DE, Luethy MH. 2006. High lysine and high  tryptophan transgenic maize resulting from the reduction of both 19- and 22-kD  a-zeins. Plant Molecular Biology. 61:525-535.
 Niba LL. 2003. The relevance of  biotechnology in the development of functional foods for improved nutritional  and health quality in developing countries African Journal of Biotechnology.  2(12):631-635.
 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Note19_FunctionalFoods_web.pdf
Contributions of   Agricultural Biotechnology in Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger











Document Number: 4844 
Are Food Derived from GM Crops Safe?
Pocket    K No. 3: Are Food Derived from GM Crops Safe?
Using traditional and modern methods superior plant varieties are produced with  improved characteristics that make them grow better or more desirable to eat.  GM crops are developed using the tools of modern biotechnology where precise  tools are used to introduce only the desirable traits into a plant. In  contrast, in traditional plant breeding, genes from two parents are mixed in  many different combinations in the hope of getting the desired trait. Both  methods have the potential to alter the nutritional value of plants or lead to  unintended changes in concentration of natural toxicants or anti nutrients.  However, these concerns maybe less frequent in transgenic plants since only a  limited number of genes are transferred during genetic modification, unlike  when traditional breeding methods are used. 
Foods derived from GM crops have undergone more testing than any other food  in history. Before entering the marketplace, they are assessed using guidelines  issued by several international scientific agencies such as the World Health  Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Organization for  Economic Cooperation and Development. These guidelines include the following: 
Papayas      resistant to Papaya Ringspot Virus (PRSV) are now available.
GM food products should be regulated in the same  way as foods produced by other methods. The risks associated with foods derived  from biotechnology are of the same nature as those for conventional foods.
These products will be judged on their  individual safety, allergenicity, toxicity, and nutrition rather than the  methods or techniques used to produce them.
Any new ingredient added to food through  biotechnology will be subject to pre-market approval in the same way a new food  additive, such as a preservative or food color, must be approved before it  reaches the marketplace.
How are foods derived from GM crops assessed for food safety?
Before any GM food can enter the market, it has to be exhaustively tested by  the developer and independently evaluated for safety by scientists or experts  in nutrition, toxicology, allergenicity, and other aspects of food science.  These food safety assessments are based on guidelines issued by competent  regulatory agencies of each country and include: a description of the food  product; detailed information about its proposed use; and molecular,  biochemical, toxicological, nutritional, and allergenicity data. Typical  questions that must be addressed are:
Does the GM food have a traditional counterpart  that has a history of safe use?
Has the concentration of any naturally occurring  toxins or allergens in the food changed?
Have the levels of key nutrients changed?
Do new substances in the GM food have a history  of safe use?
Has the foods digestibility been affected?
Has the food been produced using accepted,  established procedures?
Even after these and other questions about the GM food are answered, there  are still more steps in the approval process before the GM food can be  commercialized. In fact, GM foods are the most studied food products ever  produced.
In nature, plants contain low concentration of toxins to protect it from  insect pests and diseases. A list of many common plant toxins and anti  nutrients is available in the Food and Drug Administration of the USA. It has  guidelines that determine the normal and acceptable toxin levels of all crops  varieties consumed based on toxicological studies. Natural toxin levels of GM  crops are similar to their conventional counterparts. 
The protein products of the inserted gene in the commercialized GM plants  are evaluated in the toxicological tests. Information on anticipated processing  conditions that may result in the removal or denaturation of the proteinaceous  material is part of the assessment. GM plant products are subjected to acute  toxicity studies based on the premise that the mode of action of many known  proteins is through acute mechanisms. High doses of purified transgenic  proteins which are expressed in bacteria or plant systems are administered  orally. This is sufficient to evaluate the toxic potential of the new proteins.
Summary of Acute Toxicity Evaluation of Proteins Introduced in  Commercial GM Crops

    *(1) Cry = crystal protein endotoxins produced by some  strains of Bacillus thuringiensis

  (2) NPT = neomycin phosphotransferase, a marker  enzyme

  (3) CP4 EPSPS = 5  enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase gene form Agrobacterium sp.  Strain CP4. 

  (4) GUS = beta glucuronidase reporter gene

    ** NOEL = No observed adverse effect level.
Toxins of commercialized GM plants are easily digestible in a short time,  thus, they are non toxic to humans.
GM corn products have been available in the      market for a few years now.
One of the publics biggest concerns related to GM foods is that an allergen  (a protein that causes an allergic reaction) could be accidentally introduced  into a food product. There are about 500 amino acid sequences of known protein  allergens and 90% of all food allergies are associated with only eight foods or  food groups  shellfish, eggs, fish, milk, peanuts, soybeans, tree nuts, and  wheat. These, and many other food allergens are well characterized and so it is  extremely unlikely that they would ever be introduced into a GM food. A variety  of tests and questions must be considered to determine whether the food poses  any increased risk of allergenicity
Allergens have shared properties, they are stable during digestion and food  processing, and are abundant in foods. Proteins introduced into commercially  available GM foods do not have any of these properties. They are from sources  with no history of allergenicity or toxicity; do not resemble known toxins or  allergens biochemically and structurally; and their functions are well  understood. They are also present at very low levels in the GM food, are  rapidly degraded in the stomach and have been confirmed as safe in animal  feeding studies. The novel proteins in these GM crops have a history of safe  use with no allergenic concerns. 
The material (DNA) that encodes the genetic information is present in all  foods, and its ingestion is not associated with any ill effects. In fact, we take  in DNA every time we eat as it is present in all plant and animal material even  when it is cooked or raw.
All      assessed GM foods are as safe as their traditional counterparts.
Some GM crops contain genes such as antibiotic resistance genes to identify  cells into which the desired gene has been successfully introduced. Concerns have  been raised that these marker genes could move from GM crops to microorganisms  that normally reside in a persons gut and lead to an increase in antibiotic  resistance. There have been numerous scientific reviews and experimental  studies of this issue and they have come to the following conclusions:
The likelihood of antibiotic resistance genes  moving from GM crops to any other organisms is extremely remote or virtually  zero: less than 10-14 to 10-27; and
Even in the unlikely event that an antibiotic resistance  gene is transferred to another organism, the impact of this transfer would be  negligible, as the markers used in GM crops have limited clinical or veterinary  use.

    Nevertheless, in response to public concerns, scientists have been advised  to avoid using antibiotic resistance genes in GM plants. Alternative marker  strategies are being used in developing the next generation of GM plants (See  PK 36).
Substantial Equivalence (SE) in Safety Assessment of GM Foods
Absolute safety is unattainable for any food as people react differently to  natural ingredients of food. Substantial equivalence (SE) is an alternative  approach used for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods where  traditional toxicological testing and risk assessment to whole foods could not  be applied. It is based on the idea that existing products used as foods or  food sources can serve as basis for comparison. The safety assessment is  therefore based on a comparison of the modified food to its traditional (non  GM) counterpart in terms of molecular, compositional, toxicological and  nutritional data. SE has been used in the safety assessment of GM crops  available today. 
Mon 810 for example has been compared rigorously as to the levels of major  nutritional components (protein, fat, ash, carbohydrates, calories and  moisture) with the non transgenic counterpart Mon 818. Results showed that the  amino acid composition, fatty acids, inorganic composition (calcium and  phosphorous), carbohydrate components (starch, sugars and phytic acid, crude  fiber), and tocopherol content of Mon 810 are within the range of Mon 818.
Foods derived from GM plants are safe. Major issues and safety concerns on  the biosafety of foods derived from GM plants have been addressed. Protein  products of the inserted genes in the commercially available GM plants have  passed the rigorous tests and showed that they are non toxic, non-allergenic,  and the nutritional content is comparable to their non GM counterpart. GM  plants that are being developed also undergo similar testing before they are  released commercially. 
International agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, World  Health Organization, the European Commission, the French Academy  of Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Society of  Toxicology have reviewed these health issues and have come to an agreement that  GM foods are safe for human health.











Document Number: 9706 
Contributions of  Agricultural Biotechnology in Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger
Pocket K No. 30: Contributions of  Agricultural Biotechnology in Alleviation of Poverty and Hunger
Reduction of poverty and hunger are  key priorities and targets top of global agenda with year 2015 being the  benchmark to reverse the trend by 50%. However, a decade after the 1996 World  Food Summit, where this target was set, there are more hungry people in the  world than there were then. The number is increasing at the rate of four  million a year, with Africa having the largest  proportion of people living in absolute poverty. Agriculture remains  predominantly traditional and majority of her countries exhibit a high  dependency on food aid, which accounts for a quarter of all global food aid  shipments. Reversing this trend requires strategic interventions that would  dramatically raise agricultural productivity while taking into consideration  realities and diversity of Africas farming  systems.
Stark Reality of Hunger and  Poverty Status
Poverty  causes more sickness, suffering and death than any other problem on earth
One  fifth of humanity (1.1 billion people) are afflicted by a vicious cycle of  poverty
About  852 million people worst hit by hunger and poverty are in developing countries
Out of  38 countries perpetually experiencing food emergencies globally, 25 are in Africa
In  2006, about 3 million people suffered from acute hunger in Kenya.
Global Status and Trends in Modern  Biotechnology
Globally, in 2006, biotech crops  occupied 102 million hectares, grown by 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries  (11 developed; 11 developing countries). The global area under biotech crops  has increased at unprecedented rate from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 90.0  million hectares in 2005 (a 50-fold increase). At this pace, the contribution  of biotech crops to the Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty by 50%  by 2015 is significant.

     The global net economic benefit  to biotech crop farmers in developing countries in 2005 was US$13 billion.

     A 14% reduction in environmental  footprints has been recorded.

     Six European countries  Germany, France,  Spain, Portugal, Czech  Republic and Slovakia grew  commercial biotech crops in 2006
Experiences and Evidence from South Africa
South Africa is the only African country with commercial  biotech crops, grown since 1997. Total

    hectarage increased drastically  from 197,000 ha in 2001 to 1.4 million ha in 2006. To date, the country has  commercialized Bt cotton, Bt maize (both yellow and white) and soybean,  enhancing farm incomes by an estimated US$ 76 million for the period 1998-2005.
106  research organizations and companies participating in biotech activities.
622  research groups involved in biotechnology-related activities.
At  least 154 biotechnology products and/or services
Over 20  million pine and eucalyptus trees produced annually through tissue culture (tc)  and some 12 million tc banana plants.
Agriculture accounts for 70 percent  of fulltime employment, 33 per cent of total GDP and 40%

    of total export earnings in Africa. Yet, productivity level of most crops fall below
At the  onset, African farmers face a multitude of highly complex and interrelated  problems.
No  single approach will provide solutions to the declining agricultural  productivity trends
Conventional  crop improvement ALONE will not cause a dramatic quantum jump to bridge the  huge food deficit and poverty face of Africa
A successful strategy should have  MULTIPLE APPROACHES that address principal factors in the food, feed, fibre and  fuel availability MATRIX. These include: good governance, improved  infrastructure, farmer education, improved seed quality and delivery systems,  inputs, market access, fair trade and appropriate technologies that integrate  proven indigenous knowledge practices with emerging technologies such as modern  biotechnology.

    Selected tools used to improve  agricultural productivity: Biotechnology is one among several tools  available to complement but NOT to replace conventional agriculture
The Case for Modern Agricultural  Biotechnology
Biotechnology enables diverse  applications in agriculture, health, industry and the environment. Overwhelming  evidence demonstrates that biotechnological tools - tissue culture, genetic  engineering and molecular breeding (marker-assisted selection) continue to  provide promising opportunities for achieving greater food security while  improving the quality of life. Biotechnology however is not a magical bullet. A  high quality seed requires good agronomic practices, appropriate inputs and  support services for the farmer to reap benefits. The comparative advantage of  currently available biotech crops is the inbuilt defense against insects and  tolerance to weed killers making them suitable for the average farmer. The  technology is scale neutral and with proper stewardship, even the very small  farmers benefit.
Status of Bt Cotton in South Africa
Early adopters of Bt cotton were  small-scale farmers in Makhatini Flats in the Eastern Cape who have been growing the crop  since 1999 with the following milestones:
Adoption  rate increased from 7% in 1997/1998 to 90% in 2001/2002.
Almost  80% of cotton seed planted is genetically modified.
The  number of pesticide sprayings has reduced from 10 to 4 per season.
Women  and children have more time for family welfare and education respectively
Lower  production costs provide farmers with higher gross margins - US$ 70-130 per 2  ha of cotton.
Status of Bt Maize in South Africa
Bt maize, grown since 2001,  occupies the largest acreage out of the three commercial biotech crops  with the following milestones:
Bt  maize occupied 166,000 ha in 2001 rising to 1.2 million ha in 2006, (87% of all  biotech crops).
White  Bt maize for food is well accepted and occupied 704,000 ha in 2006 equivalent  to 44% of the total white maize area.
Farmers  planting Bt maize on average earn US$ 43 more per/ha from Bt varieties than  from non-Bt varieties.
One of the most important  developments in GM crops in the near future will be drought-tolerance. Drought  is among the biggest production constraint facing Africa.  Other major challenges in the fight against hunger and poverty include climate  change and biofuels production. Exploiting biotechnological opportunities to  address these challenges call for greater cooperation among all players from  both the public and private sectors.
Possible Biotech  Products for Future Use in Africa
With over a decade of production  and consumption, biotech food and feed products depict a history of safe use  with no credible evidence of risks to human health or the environment. This has  been confirmed by a number of reputable independent scientific bodies such as  the Research Directorate General of the European Union, the French Academies of  Sciences and Medicine and the British Medical Association.
In May 2004, the Food and  Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN reported: to date, no verifiable  untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the  consumption of foods derived from genetically modified foods have been  discovered anywhere in the world. 
Health Benefits of Biotech Crops
Besides reduction in pesticide  residues, biotech crops have potential to increase the nutritional value of  foods and enhance human health in various ways:
Lower  levels of infestation by insects reduces fungal and mycotoxin in maize.
Nutritionally  enhanced rice for betacarotene, would provide an alternative source of vitamin  A to save millions of children who go blind every year.
Biotech  processes can reduce presence of toxic compounds - e.g. cyanide in cassava.
Environmental Benefits of Biotech  Crops
Cumulative  reduction in pesticides usage  estimated 224,300 MT of active ingredients for  the period 1996-2005. This has contributed to reduction of pesticide residue in  foods and minimized impact on non-target organisms.
Increased  productivity per unit of land, minimizing encroachment into marginal lands,  destruction of forests and pollution of fresh water resources.
Responsible and safe deployment of  modern biotechnology can significantly enhance prospects for alleviating  poverty and hunger in Africa. To realize the  technologys potential however, African governments should create an enabling  policy environment and conducive institutional arrangements for investment in  R&D and commercialization of these products. Mechanisms to facilitate  access to proprietary technologies and to invigorate the public sector towards  development of products relevant to local conditions should be strengthened.

    One of the major constraints to  embracement of modern biotechnology in Africa  is misinformation. This continues to influence acceptance and policy choices.  Generation of accurate and science-based information is therefore crucial to  inform decision making, which would lead to greater appreciation of the  contributions of biotechnology to food security and wealth creation.
The Role of  Agricultural Biotechnology in Hunger and Poverty Alleviation for Developing  Countries 2006, By: Prof. M .O. Makinde, Prof. J. R. Webster, Mr. N. Khumalo  & Dr. D .P. Keetch
Production of this  Pocket K is a collaborative initiative among the National Council for Science  and Technology (NSCT), Ministry of Agriculture, Program for Biosafety Systems  (PBS -IFPRI) and ISAAA Africenter
Biotechnology with   Salinity for Coping in Problem Soils











Document Number: 1905 
Biotechnology  with Salinity for Coping in Problem Soils
Pocket K No. 31: Biotechnology  with Salinity for Coping in Problem Soils
High salinity in agricultural  fields has been a problem since the beginning of cultivation practices, since  the evaporation of irrigated water of poor quality leaves behind salt solutes  which accumulate in the soil over time. While irrigation has made it possible  to extend agriculture to semi-arid and arid areas of land, and has been partly  responsible for the large increases in food production of the last 40 years, it  has also resulted in large-scale water lodging and salinity. Land degradation  due to increased salinity presently affects about 20 percent of worlds area  under irrigation, without taking into account arid areas or deserts, which  comprise a quarter of the total land of the planet (1). Most crops are very  sensitive to salt, which severely affects yield; increases the severity of  other stresses, diseases and pollutants; and can be lethal to the plant. The  excessive presence of salt also has a very negative effect on the soil  structure, affecting porosity and water retention properties, and can  eventually render fields unsuitable for agriculture.
A more rational and sustainable use  of natural resources- land and water- is therefore essential to reverse the  degradation of the environment and to ensure sustained productivity. Changes in  farming practices, such as the selection of suitable species and varieties for  cultivation, and the use of mixed cropping systems to mitigate the accumulation  of salt in soils are all needed.
Meeting current and future food  demands necessitates nevertheless a short term increase of food production in  both irrigated and rain-fed lands, including those areas where water scarcity  and high salt concentrations represent important constraints to yield. The  development of crop varieties with increased tolerance to abiotic stresses such  as drought and salinity is therefore an important strategy to this end (2). 
Salt stress effectively decreases  the availability of water in the soil to plants, and hence there is a  substantial overlap between plant responses to drought and to salinity (see  pocket K 30 for more information on drought tolerance, 3). Generally, varieties  developed to be more tolerant to drought and that use water more efficiently,  will also be more resilient to salt stress (4; 5). However, in addition to  affecting the water balance of the plant, salt poses another problem to plants:  excess accumulation of salt ions in cells is toxic, and potentially fatal. Salt  ions impair enzyme function, inhibit protein synthesis, affect the structure  and permeability of cell membranes, inhibit photosynthesis, and lead to the  production of toxic reactive oxygen species.
Development of Salt-Tolerant Crops  by Conventional Breeding
The existence of plants that thrive  in soils with high level of salts (termed halophytes), and the occurrence of  variation between crop cultivars in salt sensitivity, indicate that salt  tolerance is to a large extent under genetic control. Halophytes represent only  about 2 percent of plant species, however, they can be found among half of the  terrestrial plant families and are very variable and diverse. Although the  development of tolerance to salt is believed to have occurred independently  several times during the evolution of land plants, halophytes seem to have  evolved the same basic method for dealing with salinity: storing harmful salt  ions in the cell vacuole and accumulating organic solutes (which act as  osmoprotectants) in the cell cytoplasm (6). 
Conventional breeding requires the  identification of genetic variability to salinity among different varieties or  cultivars of a crop, or in sexually compatible species, and breeding this  tolerance into lines with suitable agronomic characteristics. Conventional  breeding programs for salinity tolerance include the development of rice, wheat  and Indian mustard varieties tolerant to salt and to alkali soils by the  Central Soil Salinity Research Institute in Karnal, India  (7) and efforts to incorporate salt tolerance to wheat from wild related  species (8). A number of genomic tools, such as molecular markers and gene  profiling methods, can greatly improve the efficiency of breeding programs, and  should be fully exploited for conventional breeding initiatives.
Engineering Salt-Tolerant Crops by  Genetic Modification
 has played a vital role in the elucidation of the basic processes underlying  stress tolerance, and the knowledge obtained has been transferred to a certain  degree to important food plants (4). Several features make 
 an ideal model organism: a small fully-sequenced genome, a small size, and a  short life cycle. In addition, a wealth of genomic resources is available for 
,  and insights gained can be used to improve our understanding of the same  processes in crop plants, which are less amenable to genetic studies. Many of  the genes known to be involved in stress tolerance have been isolated initially  in 
Mutant analysis- the screening for  mutations that affect the plants response to stress- has been a crucial tool  in the discovery of genes acting in the network. Screens designed include those  aimed to identify mutations with increased or decreased sensitivity to drought,  salinity and cold stresses. Also important has been the use of DNA microarray  technology, which allows monitoring changes in gene expression in response to  stress, and to identify genes that are either induced or repressed by the  treatment (5).
The development of salt-tolerant  crops by genetic engineering have focused on the following strategies:  increasing the plants ability to limit the uptake of salt ions from the soil;  increasing the active extrusion rate of salt ions; and improving the  compartmentalization of salt ions in the cell vacuole where they do not affect  cellular functions. Genes encoding osmoprotectants have also been the targets  of genetic modification experiments, but although their over-expression in some  cases improves salt tolerance, in general they also affect plant growth in the  absence of stress with negative effects in yield, a highly undesirable trait  for farmers (2, 9).
Salt intake is controlled by low  and high affinity ion transporters: trans-membrane proteins that move ions across  the cell membrane, which are also required for the intake of potassium ions  (K+). The efflux of ions from the plant depends on the activity of the 
 but recently identified in rice, and shown to be functionally conserved between  dicots and monocots (10). Vacuolar membrane transporters, including the one  encoded by 
, play a role in the  sequestration of ions into the vacuole. 
 proteins are also conserved  across species, and have been isolated from several crops. Over-expression of 
, rice, canola and tomato have been reported to  increase the tolerance to salt stress (3).
Salt tolerance is a very complex  trait, both at the physiological and at the genetic levels, and is also very  influenced by other environmental factors acting on the plant at the same time.  In addition, the genetic control to salt stress differs in different stages of  the plants life cycle: tolerance at the adult stage does not necessarily  correlate with tolerance at the seedling and juvenile stages, or to the ability  to germinate in the presence of salts (2, 9). Rice, for example, is much more  affected in grain filling than in vegetative growth by the presence of salt in  the soil. To complicate matters further, it is very difficult to design field  trials to test the agronomic performance of improved salt-tolerant varieties,  as the salt concentration in soils is very variable, and is complicated by the  presence of additional pollutants and inland water intrusion .
Plant genomes need to be very  plastic, a feature required to cope with a variable environment that requires a  constant adjustment of the plants metabolism. It is therefore essential  to test newly developed stress-tolerant varieties to multiple stresses in  laboratory conditions, and the importance of carrying out extensive field  studies in a large range of conditions that assess tolerance as absolute yield  increases cannot be over-emphasized (11).
 Yeo A. R.  (1999). Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam)  78: 159-174.
 Yamaguchi  T. and Blumwald E. (2005). Trends in Plant Sci. 10: 615-620.
 ISAAA  (2007). PK30 Biotechnology for the Development of Drought Tolerant Crops.
 Zhang J.  Z. et al. (2004). Plant Phys. 135:615-621.
 Shinozaki  K. and Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K. (2007). J. Exp. Bot. 58: 221-227.
 Glenn E.  P. et al. (1999). Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 18: 227-255. 
 Central  Soil Salinity Research Institute (2001).

      http://plantstress.com/files/salt_karnal.htm
 Colmer et  al. (2006). J. Exp. Bot. 57: 1059-1078.
 Flowers T.  J. (2004). J. Exp. Bot. 55: 307-319.
 Martnez-Atienza et al. (2007). Plant Phys. 143: 1001-1012.
 Mittler  R. (2006). Trends in Plant Sci. 11: 15-19.
Biotechnology for the   Development of Drought Tolerant Crops











Document Number: 8772 
Biotechnology for  the Development of Drought Tolerant Crops
Pocket K No. 32: Biotechnology for  the Development of Drought Tolerant Crops
Adverse  environmental factors, of which water scarcity represents the most severe  constraint to agriculture, account for about 70 percent of potential yield loses  worldwide
. Agriculture is the largest consumer of water in the  world, and in the drier areas of the world, which include many developing  countries, the use of water for agriculture can exceed 90 percent of  consumption. 
Global warming is also predicted to  affect most severely developing countries, where agricultural systems are most  vulnerable to climatic conditions and where small increases in temperature are  very detrimental to productivity. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the  United Nations
 estimates that by 2025 approximately 480 million  people in Africa could be living in areas with  very scarce water, and that as climatic conditions deteriorate, 600,000 square  km currently classed as moderately constrained will become severely limited.
Water becomes an increasingly scarce and  precious commodity. It is thus essential to improve water use efficiency in  agriculture. This will require an integrated approach to water resources  management to encourage an efficient and equitable use of the resource, and to  ensure sustainability. The development of crop varieties with increased  tolerance to drought, both by conventional breeding methods and by genetic  engineering, is also an important strategy to meet global food demands with  less water. 
Developing Drought Tolerant Crops
Conventional breeding requires the  identification of genetic variability to drought among crop varieties, or among  sexually compatible species, and introducing this tolerance into lines with  suitable agronomic characteristics. Although conventional breeding for drought  tolerance has and continues to have some success, it is a slow process that is  limited by the availability of suitable genes for breeding. Some examples of  conventional breeding programs for drought tolerance are the development of  rice, wheat and Indian mustard varieties tolerant to salt and to alkali soils  by the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute in Karnal, India
;  the development of maize hybrids with increased drought tolerance
;  efforts to incorporate salt tolerance to wheat from wild related species
;  and the incorporation of drought tolerance as a selection trait in the  generation of new maize and wheat germplasm by the International Maize and  Wheat Improvement Center
The development of tolerant crops by genetic  engineering, on the other hand, requires the identification of key genetic  determinants underlying stress tolerance in plants, and introducing these genes  into crops. Drought triggers a wide array of physiological responses in plants,  and affects the activity of a large number of genes: gene expression  experiments have identified several hundred genes which are either induced or  repressed during drought
Plant Drought Tolerance Mechanisms
Plants respond to their changing environment  in a complex, integrated way that allows them to react to the specific set of  conditions and constraints present at a given time. Therefore, the genetic  control of tolerance to abiotic stresses is not only very complex, but is also  highly influenced by other environmental factors and by the developmental stage  of the plant. 
The physiological responses of  plants to a deficit of water include leaf wilting, a reduction in leaf area,  leaf abscission, and the stimulation of root growth by directing nutrients to  the underground parts of the plants. Plants are more susceptible to drought  during flowering and seed development (the reproductive stages), as plants  resources are deviated to support root growth. In addition, abscisic acid (ABA), a plant stress  hormone, induces the closure of leaf stomata (microscopic pores involved in gas  exchange), thereby reducing water loss through transpiration, and decreasing  the rate of photosynthesis. These responses improve the water-use efficiency of  the plant on the short term. 
Plant cells are required to maintain water  balance. To mantain this water balance, plants absorb water when water  potential is negative Cells can decrease their water potential through  the accumulation of solutes, such as sugars, amino acids, organic acids and  ions  especially potassium (K+). As cellular enzymes are severely inhibited by  the presence of ions, these must be removed from the cytosol (the ground fluid  substance of the cell) and stored in special storage cell organelles, the  vacuoles. Compatible solutes that accumulate in the cytosol and do not  interfere with enzymatic reactions comprise sugar alcohols (mannitol and  sorbitol), the amino acid proline, and glycine betaine. The synthesis of these  compounds by the plant enhances tolerance to drought
The plants response to drought is  accompanied by the activation of genes involved in the perception of drought  stress and in the transmission of the stress signal. One group are genes that  encode proteins that protect the cells from the effects of desiccation
. These  genes include those that govern the: accumulation of compatible solutes;  passive transport across membranes; energy-requiring water transport systems;  and protection and stabilization of cell structures from desiccation and damage  by reactive oxygen species
A second group of genes activated by drought  is comprised by regulatory proteins that further regulate the transduction of  the stress signal and modulate gene expression. At least four independent  stress-responsive genetic regulatory pathways are known to exist in plants,  forming a highly complex and redundant gene network
. Two of the pathways  are dependent on the hormone ABA,  and two are ABA-independent. These pathways are also implicated in the  perception and response to additional stress factors, including cold, high  temperature and salinity.
Genetic Engineering Drought  Tolerant Plants
Although not a crop plant,  Arabidopsis has played a vital role in the elucidation of the basic processes  underlying stress tolerance, and the knowledge obtained has been transferred to  a certain degree to important food plants
. Many of the genes known to be  involved in stress tolerance have been isolated initially in Arabidopsis. The introduction  of several stress-inducible genes into plants by genetic engineering has  resulted to increased tolerance of transgenics to drought, cold and salinity  stresses
. Some examples are reviewed in the following section.
Genetic manipulation of the stress  response to abscisic acid (ABA)
ABA levels in the plant greatly increase in response to water stress,  resulting in the closure of stomata thereby reducing the level of water loss  through transpiration from leaves and activate stress response genes. The  reaction is reversible: once water becomes available again, the level of ABA drops, and stomata  re-opens. Increasing the plants sensitivity to ABA has therefore been a very important  target for improving drought tolerance.
, encodes the -subunit of a  farnesyl-transferase, and is involved in ABA  signaling. Plants lacking 
 activity have increased tolerance to  drought, however are also severely compromised in yield. In order to have a  conditional, reversible down-regulation of ABA, a group of Canadian researchers used a  drought-inducible promoter to drive the antisense expression of 
. Transgenic plants  performed significantly better under water stress, with consistently higher  yields over conventional varieties. Importantly, there was no difference in  performance between transgenic and controls in conditions of sufficient water,  demonstrating that the technology has no yield-drag
. Multi-location trials  have confirmed yield increases due to enhanced protection to drought to be  15-25 percent compared to non-transgenic controls (
http://www.performanceplants.com
Performance Plants Inc, a Canadian  plant biotechnology company, is developing the technology for  commercialization, under the name Yield Protection Technology (YPT). YPT is  also being developed for maize, soybean, cotton, ornamentals and turf grass to  be available to farmers in early 2011.
ABA-independent gene regulation to  drought stress
,  are important in the ABA-independent drought tolerant pathways, that induce the  expression of stress response genes. Over-expression of the native form of 
,  and of a constitutively active form of 
, increases the tolerance of  transgenic 
 plants to drought, high salinity and cold.  Although these genes were initially identified in 
 plants,  their presence and role in stress tolerance have been reported in many other  important crops, such as rice, tomato, barley, canola, maize, soybean, rye,  wheat and maize, indicating that this is a conserved, universal stress defense  mechanism in plants
. This functional conservation makes the 
 genes  important targets for crop improvement for drought tolerance through genetic  engineering.
Although significant progress has  been made in elucidating the genetic mechanisms underlying drought tolerance,  considerable challenges remain. In field conditions, crops are subjected to  variable levels of multiple stresses, thus one area of studies that deserves  much more attention is the response of plants to a combination of stresses.  There, plants response to multiple stresses cannot be inferred from the  response to individual stress
. It is thus essential to test newly  developed varieties to multiple stresses, and to carry out extensive field  studies in a large range of conditions that assess tolerance as absolute yield  increases.
 Another major challenge is the  increasing difficulty and expense in obtaining approvals for field trials of GM  plants. As a number of measures are in place to ensure the safe and responsible  design of field tests, excessive precaution should not become a barrier  to making sure we use all the tools available to us for a more sustainable  agriculture.
 Boyer J.  S. (1982). Science 218: 443-448.
 FAO  (2007). http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000654/index.html
 CSSRI  (2001). http://plantstress.com/files/salt_karnal.htm
 Bruce W.  B. et al. (2002). J. Exp. Bot. 53: 13-25.
 Colmer T.  D et al.. (2006). J. Exp. Bot. 57: 1059-1078.
 Ribaut  J-M. & Poland D. (2004). http://www.cimmyt.org/english/docs/proceedings/molecApproaches/pdfs/MolecularApproaches.p
 Sahi C. et  al. (2006). Physiologia Plantarum 127: 1-9.
 Umezawa et  al. (2006). Curr. Op. Biotech.17: 113-122.
 Shinozaki  K. and Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K. (2007). J. Exp. Bot. 58: 221-227.
 Zhang J.  Z. et al. (2004). Plant Physiol. 135: 615-621.
 Wang et  al. (2005). Plant J 43: 413-424. 
 Mittler  R. (2006). Trends Plant Sci. 11: 15-19.
Communicating Crop   Biotechnology











Document Number: 5032 
Communicating  Crop Biotechnology
Pocket K No. 33: Communicating  Crop Biotechnology
Crop biotechnology, while merely one of the  many possible scientific options to improve agricultural productivity, has  triggered increased interest in its consistent and substantial benefits. About  12 million farmers in 23 countries have planted biotech crops spread across  114.3 million hectares (James, 2007). At the same time, it has sparked debate  on its perceived risks and safety and is often caught in a maelstrom of  controversy. Diverse issues like scientific, political, economic, ethical,  cultural, and even religious viewpoints are being espoused by different  stakeholders. A focus on societal and ethical implications has made it a  recurring and contentious public policy issue. 
Crucial therefore to balancing  issues and concerns surrounding biotechnology is adequate science-based,  authoritative information to enable various stakeholders to engage in an  objective and transparent debate. Mutual understanding and dialogue will enable  the global community to understand the attributes of crop biotechnology and  assure acceptable by the public. 
To improve the understanding of  biotechnology and how its products contribute to personal well-being, a  strategic plan for public communications is important. Traynor et al. (2007)  identify some specific objectives for public communication: make evident to  decision makers that modern biotechnology can be an effective tool for  increasing agricultural productivity, and thereby economic growth, without  imposing unacceptable risk to the environment or human and animal health; and  enable members of the public to make informed decisions about appropriate uses  of biotechnology by providing accurate information about benefits, risks and  impacts.
Why is communication important?
Deliberate strategies to implement science  communication in general, and biotechnology communication in particular, is  crucial so that knowledge and experiences can be shared to enable stakeholders  to make better informed decisions as to how, when and where biotechnology  should be used. 
Hence, there is a need for a  multi-stakeholder process or dialogue to ensure public acceptance for crop  biotechnology and in evolving enabling policies. A process of deliberation is  expected between and among stakeholders to converge diverse ideas. The  participation of various stakeholders in knowledge generation and validation  assures responsible use of the technology and guarantees people of having a  choice or say in its adoption.
Saner (2007) enumerates reasons why  we need to involve the public, among which include: potentially improve public  policy, a more informed and engaged public, more solid support for regulatory  decisions, and greater public confidence in government. Communication therefore  include these activities: inform or educate to help understand a policy or  program; gather information to anticipate communication challenges; facilitate  discussion among stakeholders; engage citizens for shared agenda setting and  generate options; and partnering or reaching agreement among stakeholders.
What are the steps in implementing  communication activities?
There are five important steps in  implementing communicating activities. The process is cyclical, as it involves  a continuous flow of reassessment and refinement. Versoza (2003) enumerates  these steps as:
 This stage involves obtaining information  to guide the communication strategy. It identifies the behaviors desired, key  messages, audiences or stakeholders to reach, the communication channels to  reach the audience, and specific units to implement the communication  activities. 
 A clear course of action is determined on  the basis of the assessment earlier done. Decisions are made with regards  desired behaviors, key messages, audiences, communication channels, and  activities including supporting elements such as budget, timeline,  communication research plan, and a capacity building component. 
Material  development and pretesting.
 Production of communication materials entails working with the audience  to develop messages that will be effective with them. Hence, messages must be  clear and easy to understand, and culturally sensitive. 
 The delivery and distribution of  communication materials whether through print, radio or television, or through  interpersonal communication means depends not only on quality and timeliness,  but also on availability of good supporting services. 
 These  are carried out simultaneously with implementation to determine audience  response to messages, and subsequent changes in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs  and practices. This process enables mid-course corrections and identifies new  opportunities to improve the communication component. The final  evaluation enables learnings to be used for future communication programs.
What communication activities can  be implemented to increase greater awareness and understanding of  biotechnology?
Biotech communication strategies  must be linked with each countrys cultural and political climate. Public  support or consumer acceptance for biotech is crucial for deriving any benefits  associated with the technology. It is driven by a number of interrelated  factors: knowledge level, awareness of benefits, confidence, and trust. 
A strategic and complementary  combination of interpersonal communication and different mass media modalities  is recommended. Interpersonal communication is needed to achieve acceptance and  use of technology while mass media help promote awareness, knowledge and understanding.  The choice of and combination of communication strategies is determined by  specific information requirements and needs. 
Personal interfaces allow people to  interact in close proximity, use sensory channels to relay messages, and  receive immediate feedback. Building networks and enhancing partnerships, or  interacting with various stakeholders is essential to get information across,  obtain immediate feedback, and correct/modify understanding of messages.  Use face-to-face communication with multi-media strategies like  publications, electronic-based formats, videos, CD ROMs, and exhibits. The  possibilities and combinations are endless and are limited only by  communicators imagination and willingness to think out-of-the-box.
What are some lessons learned in  communicating biotechnology?
Experiences learned from communicating  biotechnology through the years have given rise to several lessons. These  include:
Communication  is not merely a one-way process of dishing out information to people based on  the assumption that lack of understanding stems from inadequate information or  that ample information can compel action. Rather, it involves social  negotiation and dialogue between and among varied audiences  policy makers,  academicians, scientists, and ultimately, consumers. 
Biotechnology  is an example of science in the making and therefore likely to be provisional  and controversial. Science in the making depends much more from those involved  in the process of public understanding of science. The various publics need  to take an active role in the process of creating knowledge  hence, an  informed discussion on science and biotechnology, regulations, safety issues,  ethical dimensions, socio-economic perspectives as well as communicating  biotechnology.
Science  communication should be looked at as a dynamic process with various  communication strategies as mere components. Communicators are not merely  skilled people who are expected to process information. Instead, they must  contribute to being part of the process of developing socially robust  knowledge and facilitating its development.
In  embarking on any science communication initiative, it is important to take  stock of the current environment for biotech taking into consideration  scientific developments, political support, role of key players vis a vis  biotech, and influence of stakeholders in decision-making process. There  is a need to identify issues considered most important to stakeholders, key  information sources, information gaps that need to be addressed; barriers and  opportunities to biotechnology acceptance in the country, among others.
The  different publics are not merely passive potential audiences for science  communication but as active constituents of the system in which the scientific  community thrives and functions. 
Communication  modalities are merely tools to facilitate communication. The choice on their  use and frequency as well as combination of strategies is dependent on  stakeholders needs and concerns, and objectives. Evaluation is necessary to  determine if we are gaining impact from their use.
Organizations  involved in communicating biotechnology should not be merely information  centers. They should strive to be significant players in the development of  enabling environments for informed decisions regarding the role of crop  biotechnology.
Network of Biotechnology  Information Centers
The International Service for the  Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has a network involved in  biotechnology communication  the Global  Knowledge Center  on Crop Biotechnology based at ISAAAs Southeast Asia  Center, and Biotechnology Information  Centers located in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. 
Together the Centers work together  towards becoming a common voice on crop biotechnology by consistently sharing  messages that are credible and compelling.
Castillo,  Gelia. 2003. Science Communication Whose Time Has Come: An Evaluation Report on  the Global Knowledge Center  on Crop Biotechnology, International Service for the Acquisition of  Agri-biotech Applications. Los Baos, Laguna,   Philippines. 
 James, Clive.  2007. The Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007. ISAAA Brief  No. 37. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
 Navarro,  Mariechel. 2008. Bridging the Knowledge Divide: Experiences in Communicating  Crop Biotechnology. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech  Applications (ISAAA). Los Baos, Laguna,   Philippines. 
 Saner, Marc.  2007. What is Public Involvement? Paper presented during the High Level Policy  Dialogue Workshop on Public Perception of Agricultural Biotechnology. Lima, Peru,  October 4-5, 2007. Public involvement continuum also available at  http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/public-consult/res-centre/process_e.html
 Traynor,  Patricia, Marta Adonis, and Lionel Gil. 2007. Strategic Approaches to Informing  the Public about Biotechnology in Latin America.  In Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. Retrieved from  http://www.ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol10/issue2/full/12/index.html
 Verzosa,  Cecillia Cabanero. 2003. Strategic Communication for Development Projects. The  International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, USA. Retrieved  from  http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/Resources/toolkitwebjan2004  pdf. 











Document Number: 105 
Pocket K No. 34: RNAi for Crop  Improvement
RNA interference (RNAi) is a method  of blocking gene function by inserting short sequences of ribonucleic acid  (RNA) that match part of the target genes sequence, thus no proteins are  produced. Since Science named it as Breakthrough of the Year and Fortune  magazine hailed it as Biotechs Billion Dollar Breakthrough in 2003, RNAi has  significantly gained prominence as the method of choice for researchers  sleuthing the structure and function of important genes. 
RNAi has the potential to become a  powerful therapeutic approach toward targeted and personalized medicine.  The range of diseases and disorders it might address is unprecedented;  from cancer to cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative disorders and even  HIV. Even more exciting is the potential of RNAi in agriculture. RNAi has  provided a way to control pests and diseases, introduce novel plant traits and  increase crop yield. Using RNAi, scientists have developed novel crops such as  nicotine-free tobacco, non-allergenic peanuts, decaffeinated coffee, and  nutrient fortified maize among many others.
Complete plant genome sequences has brought  new dimensions in genetic modification to improve plant characteristics.  Scientists believed that they could produce any gene products by just  introducing foreign genes in plants, which was not always the case
. Plant biologists found out that  introducing multiple copies of a gene that codes for purple petunia flowers  led, not as expected to a deeper purple hue, but rather to plants with white or  variegated flowers. Through an unknown mechanism, the introduced transgenes  were silenced as well as the plants purple-flower gene
. In another research, gene silencing was  also observed when plants were infected with RNA viruses engineered to contain  fragments of the plant gene.
The mechanism causing these effects  was not known until American scientists Andrew Fire and Craig Mello discovered  that injecting double stranded ribonucleic acids (dsRNA) into the worm
 triggered the silencing of genes with sequences  identical to that of the dsRNA
. They called the phenomenon RNA  interference. Re-examining the co-suppression pathway in petunia and  virus-induced gene silencing revealed that all these processes led to the  accumulation of dsRNAs, hence the RNAi pathway. Fire and Mello were awarded the  2006 Nobel price for Physiology or Medicine for their discovery.
In addition to its roles in  regulating gene expression, RNAi is used as an immune response to infection
 and as a natural defense mechanism against  molecular parasites such as jumping genes and viral genetic elements that  affect genome stability
. Specific types of bacteria have also been shown to trigger the RNAi  pathway in plants.
The entry of long double stranded RNA, such  as an introduced transgene, a rogue genetic element or a viral intruder,  triggers the RNAi pathway of cells. This results in the recruitment of the  enzyme Dicer.
Dicer cleaves the dsRNA into short, 20-25  basepairs long, fragments, called small interfering RNA (siRNA).
An RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) then  distinguishes between the two siRNA strands as either sense or antisense. The  sense strands (with exactly the same sequence as the target gene) are degraded. 
The antisense strands on the other hand are  incorporated to the RISC. These are used as guide to target messenger RNAs  (mRNA) in a sequence-specific manner.
Messenger RNAs (mRNA), which codes for amino  acids, are cleaved by RISC. The activated RISC can repeatedly participate in  mRNA degradation, inhibiting protein synthesis. 

    Figure 1.  Mechanism of RNAi
RNAi for Disease and Pathogen  Resistance
Gene silencing was first used to develop  plant varieties resistant to viruses. Engineered antiviral strategies in plants  mimic natural RNA silencing mechanisms. This was first demonstrated when  scientists developed Potato virus Y- resistant plants expressing RNA  transcripts of a viral proteinase gene
. Immunity has since been shown to other  viruses such as the Cucumber and Tobacco Mosaic Virus, Tomato Spotted Wilt  Virus, Bean Golden Mosaic Virus, Banana Bract Mosaic Virus, and Rice Tungro  Bacilliform Virus among many others. 

    In addition, plants can also be  modified to produce dsRNAs that silence essential genes in insect pests and  parasitic nematodes. This approach was used to develop root-knot nematode
 and cotton bollworm11 resistant varieties.
RNAi has also been used to generate  male sterility, which is valuable in the hybrid seed industry. Genes that are  expressed solely in tissues involved in pollen production can be targeted  through RNAi. For instance, scientists have developed male sterile tobacco lines  by inhibiting the expression of TA29, a gene necessary for pollen development
. RNAi was also used to disrupt the  expression of Msh1 in tobacco and tomato resulting to rearrangements in the  mitochondrial DNA associated with naturally occurring cytoplasmic male  sterility
RNAi and Plant Functional Genomics
A major challenge in the  post-genomic era of plant biology is to determine the functions of all genes in  the plant genome
. Compared to other techniques, RNAi offers specificity and  efficacy in silencing members of a gene or multiple gene family. In addition,  the expression of dsRNAs with inducible promoters can control the extent and  timing of gene silencing, such that essential genes are only silenced at chosen  growth stages or plant organs
There are several ways of  activating the RNAi pathway in plants. The various RNAi techniques have  advantages and disadvantages with respect to how persistent their effects are  and the range of plants to which they can be applied. These include the use of  hairpin RNA-expressing vectors, particle bombardment, Agrobacterium- mediated  transformation and virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) 
Engineering Plant Metabolic  Pathways through RNAi
RNAi has been used to modify plant  metabolic pathways to enhance nutrient content and reduced toxin production  (Summarized in Table 1). The technique takes advantage of the heritable and  stable RNAi phenotypes in plants.
Table 1. Examples of  novel plant traits engineered through RNAi.
Increased concentration of    lycopene (carotenoid antioxidant)
Higher flavonoid and b-carotene    contents
Increased levels of amylose for    glycemic management and digestive health
Production of non-narcotic    alkaloid, instead of morphine
Reduced levels of the carcinogen    nornicotine in cured leaves
Arsenic hyperaccumulation for    phytoremediation
Lower gossypol levels in    cottonseeds, for safe consumption
Longer shelf life because of slow    ripening
Reduced production of    lachrymatory factor synthase
lachrymatory factor synthase gene
With RNAi, it would be possible to  target multiple genes for silencing using a thoroughly-designed single  transformation construct. Moreover, RNAi can also provide broad-spectrum  resistance against pathogens with high degree of variability, like viruses
.  Recent studies have hinted possible roles of RNAi-related processes in plant stress  adaptation. 
 Although much progress has been  made on the field of RNAi over the past few years, the full potential of RNAi  for crop improvement remains to be realized. The complexities of RNAi  pathway, the molecular machineries, and how it relates to plant development are  still to be elucidated.
 Tang G. et  al. (2007) Metabolomics 3:357-369
 Novina  C.D. and Sharp P.A. (2004) Nature 430:161-164
 Napoli C. et al. (1990) Plant Cell 4: 279-289
 Fire A. et  al. (1998) Nature 391: 806-811
 Fritz J.S.  et al. (2006) Science STKE 339: 27
 Gupta P.K.  (2006) Current Science 91:1443-1446 
 Mansoor S.  et al. (2006) Trends in Plant Science 11:559-565
 Qu J. et  al. (2007) Journal of Virology 81: 6690-6699
 Huang G.  et al. (2006) PNAS 103: 14302-1406
 Mao Y.  (2007) Science 25: 1307-1313
 Baum J.A.  (2007) Nature Biotechnology 25:1322-1326
 Nawaz-Ul-Rehman M.S. et al. (2007) Molecular Biotechnology 36: 159-165
 Sandhu  A.S. et al. (2007) PNAS 104: 1766-1770
 Matthew L  (2004) Comparative and Functional Genomics 5: 240-244
 Sato F.  (2005) Plant Biotechnology 22: 431-442
 Burch-Smith T.M. et al. (2004) The Plant Journal 39:734-746
 Kusaba M.  et al. (2003) Plant Cell 15: 1455-1467











Document Number: 9073 
Pocket K No. 35: Bt Brinjal in India
Brinjal or baingan, known as eggplant and  aubergine in North America and Europe respectively, is a very important common  mans vegetable in India.  It is often described as a poor mans vegetable because it is popular amongst  small-scale farmers and low income consumers. A poor mans crop it might be,  but brinjal is also called by some as the King of Vegetables. It is featured  in the dishes of virtually every household in India, regardless of food  preferences, income levels and social status. Low in calories and high in  nutrition, the vegetable has very high water content and is a very good source  of fiber, calcium, phosphorus, folate, and vitamins B and C. It is also used in  ayurvedic medicine for curing diabetes, hypertension and obesity. In addition,  dried brinjal shoots are used as fuel in rural areas. Brinjal has embedded  itself deeply into the Indian culture. Numerous folk songs in Indian languages  center on the humble vegetable.
Brinjal is grown on nearly 550,000  hectares in India, making  the country the second largest producer after China with a 26% world production  share. It is an important cash crop for more than 1.4 million small, marginal  and resource-poor farmers. Brinjal, being a hardy crop that yields well even  under drought conditions, is grown in almost all parts of the country. Major  brinjal producing states include: West Bengal (30% production share), Orissa  (20%), and Gujarat and Bihar (around 10%  each). In 2005-2006, the national average productivity of brinjal was recorded  around 15.6 tons per hectare.
In spite of its popularity among small and  resource-poor farmers, brinjal cultivation is often input intensive, especially  for insecticide applications. Brinjal is prone to attack from insect pests and  diseases, the most serious and destructive of which is the fruit and shoot  borer (FSB) Leucinodes orbonalis. FSB feeds predominantly on brinjal and is  prevalent in all brinjal producing states. It poses a serious problem because  of its high reproductive potential. FSB larvae bore into tender shoots and  fruits, retarding plant growth, making the fruits unsuitable for the market and  unfit for human consumption. Fruit damage as high as 95% and losses of up to  70% in commercial plantings have been reported.
Farmers resort to frequent  insecticide applications and biological control measures to counter the threat  of FSB. However, since FSB larvae are concealed within shoots and fruits, the  pest normally escapes insecticide sprays. Therefore farmers tend to over-spray  insecticides, because they rely mainly on the subjective assessments of the  visual presence of the pest. In addition to the financial cost associated with  indiscriminate insecticide applications and its negative effects on the  environment, high pesticide residues in vegetables and fruits pose serious risk  to consumers health and safety.
Although, several attempts have  been made to develop resistant cultivars through traditional plant breeding,  these have met with limited or almost no success. There are no existing brinjal  varieties with adequate resistance to FSB in India. Accordingly, scientists have  used biotechnology to develop a brinjal variety that can resist FSB attack.
Indias First Vegetable Biotech Crop
FSB-resistant brinjal or Bt brinjal was  developed using a transformation process similar to the one used in the  development of Bt cotton, a biotech crop that was planted on 7.6 million  hectares in India  in 2008. Bt brinjal incorporates the 
 gene expressing insecticidal  protein to confer resistance against FSB. The 
 gene is sourced  from the soil bacterium 
 (Bt). When  ingested by the FSB larvae, the Bt protein is activated in the insects alkaline  gut and binds to the gut wall, which breaks down, allowing the Bt spores to  invade the insects body cavity. The FSB larvae die a few days later.
Bt Brinjal was developed by the  Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco). The company used a DNA construct  containing the 
 gene, a CaMV 35S promoter and the selectable  marker genes 
, to transform young cotyledons of  brinjal plants. A single copy elite event, named EE-1, was selected and  introduced into hybrid brinjal in Mahycos breeding program. Mahyco also  generously donated the Bt brinjal technology to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural  University (TNAU), Coimbatore  and University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad. The event EE-1 was  backcrossed into open-pollinated brinjal varieties. Mahyco also donated the  technology to public research institutions in the Philippines  and Bangladesh.
Several other research  institutions, both public and private have also been developing Bt brinjal  using different genes. The National   Center on Plant Biotechnology  (NRCPB) has developed Bt brinjal varieties expressing the cryFa1 gene. The  technology was subsequently transferred to companies including Bejo  Sheetal, Vibha Seeds, Nath Seeds and Krishidhan Seeds. The Indian Institute of  Horticultural Research (IIHR) is also developing Bt brinjal using the cry1Ab  gene. Scientists are also looking for ways to develop Bt brinjal in conjunction  with other multiple and beneficial traits.
Bt brinjal is the first food crop  under evaluation for commercial release in India. Since its development in  2000, the crop has undergone rigorous scientific evaluation to assess its food  safety, environmental safety, human and animal health safety and biodiversity.  Figure 1 summarizes the protocol followed for the regulatory approval of Bt  brinjal.

    Figure 1. Development  and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in India.

    (Adapted from Choudhary and Gaur,  2008, GEAC Dossier 2008, MOEF, 2008)
Biosafety and Food Safety Assessments
Rigorous scientific tests,  including toxicity and allergenicity evaluation as well as nutritional studies  on rabbits, rats, carps, goats, broiler chickens and dairy cows, have confirmed  that Bt brinjal is as safe as its non-Bt counterparts. The safety of Bt brinjal  was further validated by the results of the studies on pollen escape, effects  on soil microflora and non-target organisms, agronomy, invasiveness and Bt  protein degradation. Results of the studies demonstrated that Bt brinjal does  not affect beneficial insects such as aphids, leafhoppers, spiders and lady  beetles.
Bt brinjal was found to be effective against  FSB, with 98% insect mortality in Bt brinjal shoots and 100% in fruits compared  to less than 30% mortality in non-Bt counterparts. The Multilocation Research  Trials (MLRTs) confirmed that Bt brinjal required, on average, 77% less  insecticides than non-Bt counterparts for control of FSB, and 42% less for the  control of all insect pests of brinjal. The benefits of Bt brinjal, translate  to an average increase of 116% in marketable fruits over conventional hybrids,  and 166% increase over popular open-pollinated varieties (OPVs). Furthermore,  the significant decrease in insecticide usage reduced the farmers exposure to  insecticides and results in a substantial decline in pesticide residues in  brinjal fruits. Scientists have estimated that Bt brinjal will deliver farmers  a net economic benefit ranging from Rs.16, 299 (US$330) to Rs.19,744 (US$397)  per acre with national benefits to India exceeding $400 million per  year.
Bt brinjal has enormous potential  to benefit both farmers and consumers. Results of studies submitted to  regulatory authorities in India  confirm that Bt brinjal offers the opportunity to provide effective control  against fruit and shoot borer, and decrease insecticide input by as much as  80%. Bt brinjal also yields significantly more marketable fruit than  conventional hybrids and open-pollinated varieties.
The remarkable success of Bt cotton  in India, which now occupies 80% of the 9.4 million hectares planted to cotton  in the country, is a clear demonstration that biotechnology can be harnessed to  contribute to alleviation of poverty and hunger. The development of Bt brinjal,  the first biotech vegetable crop, is an appropriate and timely step because it  will further demonstrate the significant benefits that biotechnology offers farmers,  consumers and India  as a nation.
In this context, the Genetic  Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), in its 97th meeting held on 14th Oct  2009 has recommended the commercial release of Bt Brinjal Event EE-1 developed  indigenously by Mahyco in collaboration with the University of Agricultural  Sciences (UAS), Dharwad and the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore. This is a  penultimate step to commercialize Bt brinjal hybrids and varieties in the  country (MOEF, 2009).
The insect-resistant Bt brinjal  hybrids and varieties were developed through close and harmonious cooperation  between public and private research institutions. The joint contribution of the  two sectors is of critical importance, given that national food security is a  strategic issue. The adoption and acceptance of Bt brinjal by farmers and  consumers in India  will be a very important event from which the country and the world can benefit  enormously.
Choudhary, B  & Gaur, K. 2008. The Development and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in India (Eggplant/Aubergine), ISAAA Brief No. 38,  ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
 James, C.  2008. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops 2008. ISAAA Brief No.39.  ISAAA. Ithaca, New York, USA
 Krishna,  V.V. & Qaim, M. 2007. Estimating the Adoption of Bt Eggplant in India: Who  Benefits from Public-Private Partnership?, Food Policy, pp. 523-543.
 Krishna,  V.V. & Qaim, M. 2008. Potential Impacts of Bt Eggplant on Farmers Health  in India.  Agricultural Economics, pp. 167-180.
 Indian  Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF).  2007. Development of Fruit and Shoot Borer Brinjal.  http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/macho.htm Accessed November 21,  2008.
 Food and  Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Agriculture Database.  2007. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor Accessed  November 21, 2008.
 Indian  Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR). 2008. Annual Report 2007-08 and  Vision 2025 Document. Bengaluru,   India. 
 George, S.,  Singh, H.S. & Naik, G., 2002. Brinjal Shoot and Fruit Borer (Leucinodes  orbonalis) Status in Coastal Districts of Orissa. In Resources Management in  Plant Protection During the 21st Century, Plant Protection Association of India, Hyderabad,   India.
 Soberon, M.  & Bravo A. 2008. Avoiding Insect Resistance to Cry Toxins from Bacillus  thuringiensis. Information Systems for Biology.  http://www.isb.vt.edu/articles/may0803.htm. Accessed November 20, 2008. 
 ABSP II.  2007. Fruit and Shoot Borer Resistant Eggplant- Fact Sheet, Cornell University,  Newsletter, Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II, South Asia, July  2007.

      Genetic  Engineering and Approval Committee (GEAC). 2008. Biosafety Data of Bt Brinjal  containing cry1Ac (EE1) event developed by M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co.  http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/bt_brinjal.html Accessed  November 24, 2008.
 Ministry of  Environment and Forest (MOEF), 2009. Press  Statement by Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State for Environment and Forest  (MOEF), Government of India dated 15th Oct 2009 available at:  http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Press_Bt%20Brinjal.pdf











Document Number: 5627 
Pocket K No. 36: Marker-Free GM  Plants
Selectable marker genes are vital  to the research and development of genetically modified (GM) crops. The methods  used to introduce foreign DNA in a plant cell, either by microinjection,  particle gun, electroporation or Agrobacterium, are relatively inefficient.  Pinpointing cells that successfully incorporated foreign DNA in an ocean of  non-transformed cells is akin to finding a needle in a haystack. To find  transgenic cells, a marker gene is co-introduced with the gene of interest.  These dominant genes confer resistance to antibiotics, such as hygromycin (hpt)  and kanamycin (nptII), and herbicides, such as phosphinothricin (bar) and  chlorosulfuron (als), that kill non-transformed cells. However, antibiotic and  herbicide resistance marker genes may not be required in mature plants,  especially when they are cultivated in fields. 
The presence of these marker genes in  commercialized transgenic crops has caused considerable public concern about  the medical implications of GM food consumption and GM crop cultivation.  Herbicide resistance genes might be transferred by outcrossing to weeds and  wild crop relatives. There also exists the possibility, albeit extremely rare,  of horizontal gene transfer from transgenic plants to soil and intestinal microorganisms,  resulting in pathogens against which antibiotics currently being used are  rendered ineffective. However, to date, no experiment has provided any evidence  that the antibiotic markers presently in use pose risks to human or animal  health.
Not all scientists agree with these  claims. The difficulty of proving that the marker genes are indeed harmless has  significantly limited the public acceptance of 
A lot of research effort has been directed  towards the development of marker-free transformation methods and selectable  marker elimination strategies. Besides minimizing public concerns, the absence  of resistance genes in transgenic plants could also reduce the costs for  developing GM products and lessen the need for time-consuming safety  evaluations, thereby speeding up the commercial release of new products.  Generation of marker free plants likewise supports single line  re-transformation, an important approach towards introduction of multiple genes  for complex traits such as resistance to several pathogens and tolerance to  abiotic stress. 
There are several ways to either  avoid or get rid of selectable marker genes. Methods that will allow the  removal of DNA in plants as efficiently as it is inserted have been developed,  such as the use of site-specific recombination, transposition and homologous  recombination. Researchers have also described several substitute marker  genes that have no harmful biological activities. The presence of these  non-bacterial genes allows the plants to metabolize non-toxic agents normally  harmful to them.
Alternatives to  Antibiotic/Herbicide Resistance Markers
Scientists have identified positive  selectable marker genes that are dependent on non-toxic substances that may be  substrates for growth or that induce growth of transformed cells or tissues.  These selectable markers only suppress the growth of non-transformed cells, in  contrast to antibiotic and herbicide resistance markers.
For instance, transgenic events can  be selected using markers that enable them to use a particular food source. An  example of this approach is the use of phosphomannose isomerase gene (
).  Cells that successfully incorporated foreign DNA can be identified since they  are capable of utilizing mannose as their sole food source. PMI has been used  as a selectable marker for transformation of many plant species, including  rice, wheat, millet, tobacco, sugarcane, apple and onion. Other selection  systems that rely on the growth of plant cells in the presence of a particular  sugar or sugar alcohol as their sole energy source include the use of 
 (glucose). Genes that  allow plants to survive in media supplied with amino acid analogs and D-amino  acids, such as 
 (D-amino acids), have also been used to identify  transformed cells. 
The use of alternative markers  completely eliminates concerns over the possible spread of antibiotic and  herbicide resistance genes into the environment. However, since these markers  entail the introduction of new metabolic pathways a more rigorous risk  assessment will be needed to establish the safety of the resulting transgenic  products. 
Researchers have also used visible  markers to make transgenic plants visually recognizable. The jellyfish gene for  the green florescent protein (GFP) makes genetically modified plant cells  appear green when exposed to ultraviolet light. Reporter genes such as the  firefly protein luciferase and plants red-purple anthocyanins have likewise  been used as visible markers for selecting stably transformed cell lineages. A  major disadvantage of this approach, however, is that transformed and  non-transformed cells must later be manually separated, which can be very tedious  and time consuming.
Conventional Genetics Lends A  Hand: Co-transformation
Although numerous alternative  markers exist, complete removal of selectable markers might be more favorable  in the long run since it is very likely that future regulatory legislation will  strongly favor the absence of superfluous transgenic material in GM crops.  
One of the simplest marker removal  strategies is the co-transformation approach. The principle of the strategy is  the integration of the transgene of interest and the marker gene into different  unlinked locations in the plant genome and their subsequent segregation in the  next generation to yield progenies carrying the transgene but not the markers.  Three approaches are used for co-transformation: (i) introducing two different 
 strains each with a transformation vector, one carrying the marker gene and the  other the target gene, (ii) using one bacterial strain carrying two  vectors, each with one gene, and (iii) using a bacterial strain harboring one  vector, with the two genes at separate sites. 
Co-transformation can be readily  integrated into existing transformation protocols. It has been used to  successfully eliminate selectable marker genes in several crop plants, with  transformation frequencies reaching as high as 85%. However, since the approach  relies on the segregation of genes during sexual reproduction, it cannot be  used for vegetatively propagated plants. Selection of the progenies carrying  only the target gene may also prove to be laborious, since statistically the  desired trait combination can only be found in one out of 16 progenies.
Molecular Cut and Paste: Site  Specific Recombination
Microbial site specific recombinases have  also been used to eliminate unwanted markers from GM plants. These enzymes act  as molecular scissors capable of cleaving DNA at specific sites. They can also  act as molecular glue, ligating the cleaved DNA fragments at a second target  sequence. The gene encoding these enzymes is introduced along with the marker  gene, which is flanked by palindromic sequences recognizable by the enzyme, and  the gene of interest. Once transformed cells have been selected, the  recombinase gene can be activated by an external stimulus. The recombinases  then cut out the marker genes and the genes for the enzymes themselves, making  the resulting plants devoid of any selectable markers. 
There are three well described  site-specific recombination systems that have been used successfully for the  removal of marker genes, the most widely used of which is the Cre/
 system from the bacteriophage P1 (see Figure). The Cre recombinase catalyzes a  reaction between two 
 sequences and results in excision of the DNA  fragment between them. The Cre recombinase gene can be introduced into  transgenic plants either by re-transformation, breeding or inducible  autoexcision. The autoexcision strategy is a one-step process that relies on  chemically-inducible promoters for gene activation. Several experiments have  demonstrated the advantages of this method in comparison to re-transformation  and crossing.
The lysine-fortified transgenic  maize LY038, in which the marker gene has been removed with the help of the  Cre-lox system, has been approved for cultivation in Canada,  Japan and the U.S. and for food and feed use in Australia, Mexico  and the Philippines.
Jumping Along Chromosomes: Marker  Deletion via Transposons
The process that enables certain  genes to jump at a certain position on the plant genome can also be used to  generate marker-free plants. The approach is analogous to site-specific  recombination, only that instead of a recombinase and recognition sites,  transposons or jumping genes are used. Transposons contain a gene for a special  enzyme, which recognizes certain signals in the DNA. The enzyme cuts the DNA  fragment flanked by these signals and integrates them randomly in the genome.  The most characterized transposons are those of the Ac/Ds family, which was  first discovered in maize, the special enzyme being the Ac (activator) transposase  and the Ds (dissociator) sequences the tag signals. 
The gene of interest or the marker  gene can be placed within the jumping sequence, in such a way that the two  genes can be separated from each other upon the activation of transposase.  Although the system has been shown to be effective, marker removal efficiency  via this strategy is poor, due to the low incidence of occurrence. This  approach can also be time-consuming since breeding or segregation is required  to separate the gene of interest and the marker gene.
Numerous approaches to eliminate  antibiotic and herbicide markers have been developed over the last several  years and further improvements are now underway. Recently, researchers have  described procedures to eliminate residual recognition sequences at  recombination sites. This may increase the appeal of site specific  recombination as the tool of choice to remove unwanted DNA sequences.  Scientists are also searching for ways to hasten the selection of marker-less  progenies after co-transformation or transposition. Novel marker elimination  strategies based on gene targeting and homologous recombination have been  reported. With these developments, the concern about an uncontrolled spread of  antibiotic and herbicide resistance genes in the environment might become  irrelevant in the future. 
Advances on the use of zinc-finger  nucleases have also been reported and their potential in removing transgenes  and utility in targeted gene replacement offer much promise.
Hare PD and  Chua NH. (2002) Nat. Biotechnol. 20:113-122 
Sundar IK and  Sakthivel N. (2008) J Plant Physiol 165: 1698-1716
Kondrk M. et  al. (2007) ISB News Report
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2007/news07.apr.htm#apr0705 
Tian L.  (2007) ISB News Report http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2007/news07.jul.htm#jul0701 
Darbani B. et  al. (2007) Biotechnol. J. 2:8390 
Puchta H.  (2003) Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 74:123-134
Verweire D et  al. (2007) Plant Physiology 145:1220-1231
Miki B and  McHugh S. (2004) Journal of Biotechnology 107:93-232
Ramessar K et  al. (2007) Transgenic Research 16:261-280
Marker Gene  Elimination, Concepts and Research Projects, GMO Safety  http://www.gmosafety.eu/en/gene_transfer/elimination/ 
Alternatives  to Antibiotic Resistance Markers, GMO Compass  

      http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/

      129.alternatives_antibiotic_resistance_marker_genes.html
 Goldstein DA  et al. (2005) J. Applied Microbiology 99:7-23
Keenan RJ and  Stemmer WPC. (2002) Nat. Biotechnol. 20:215-216
Lloyd, A et  al. (2005) PNAS 102:2232-2237
Stewart, CN  et al. (2009) http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/207870.html











Document Number: 9 
Rice is the  staple food of the two billion people living in Asia and Africa,  providing 40 to 70% of the total food calories. The past green revolution over  three decades ago has provided enough food and livelihood which averted the  looming hunger and famine then. With the imminent doubling of the world  population in 2050, world food production should be increased by 50% especially  the cereal staples
. Numerous scientific initiatives and strategies  were developed towards increased food production especially on rice. One of  these is the International Program on Rice Biotechnology (IPRB) of the  Rockefeller Foundation which has provided funds since 1984 to foster  cutting-edge genetics research aimed at helping rice farmers in the developing  world. Most of the rice experts and rice research laboratories in the  developing countries were trained and supported by the Program
 were started in the early 80s as tissue culture  experiments: playing with media components including hormones and complex amino  acids and sugars; explant sources; culture conditions; and regeneration  strategies. This period overlapped with the development of different genetic  engineering procedures for rice. Particle bombardment and 
-mediated transformation were considered the most efficient in  expressing reporter genes: beta glucuronidase (
A) and the green  fluorescent protein gene (
); and selectable marker genes: herbicide  and antibiotic resistance genes.
Pest and Disease-Resistant Biotech Rice
With the  discovery and availability of pest resistance genes within the IPRB program,  
 was developed to improve rices resistance to the devastating  pests yellow stem borer, bacterial blight, blast, and sheath blight. Stemborer  infestation of rice farms especially in the wet season poses extreme damage to  as much as 30%
. Stemborer resistance breeding has been a difficult  endeavor for the breeders since there is no high level of resistance in the  rice gene pool and screening for resistance has always been a problem. A number  of laboratories developed different local varieties to contain the 
1Ab, 1Ac 1Aa, 2A, 1B, or a combination of these genes) for  resistance against lepidopteran pests
. The first field testing  of the Bt rice was conducted in China  in 1998
. However, no Bt rice has been commercialized legally as  yet. In late 2009, Chinas  Ministry of Agriculture released biosafety certificates for Bt rice Huahui No.  1 and Bt Shanyou 63 with possible widescale planting in 2012
Bacterial  blight (BB), caused by 
 can cause up  to 50% yield loss in severe pathogen attacks. With the discovery,  identification and cloning of the 
 which confer broad-spectrum bacterial blight resistance, a  new strategy was unfolded
. A number of rice varieties including  IR64, IR72, IR50, CO39, Pusa Basmati-1, IR68899B, MH63, BPY5204 and some  Chinese lines were genetically-engineered to contain the gene
.  Field testing of some transgenic lines were conducted in China and the Philippines but no commercialized  lines has been out so far
Efforts to  develop rice for resistance to sheath blight were conducted by incorporating  genes coding for chitinase and glucanase enzymes that metabolize the fungal  cell wall, and other pathogenic-related proteins
. Increased  activity of the introduced chitinase and glucanase were induced with fungal  elicitors, however, field experiments need to be undertaken to determine  efficacy against the pathogen.
Simultaneously,  a collaborative effort to complete the DNA sequence of the rice genome was  forged between private and public institutions
. In February 2001,  the entire rice DNA sequence was completed and has been shared to facilitate  the understanding of the rice genetic structure and associated proteins to  enable rice breeders to produce more nutritious, productive and resource  efficient rice.
Problem on the  lack of irrigation in the rice paddies is aggravated by the presence of the  noxious weeds that affect the normal growth and yielding capacity of rice. Weed  control measures usually include application of herbicide combinations, crop  rotation, flooding and tillage which are expensive, labor intensive, and  harmful to the environment and non-target humans and animals. The development  of glufosinate-resistant 
 in 1999 was a welcome weed control  measure. Glufosinate ammonium is a natural, broad-spectrum, contact herbicide  that controls a wide range of weed species through the inhibition of the  glutamine synthetase enzyme consequently preventing photosynthesis. It is  highly degradable, has no residual activity, and has very low toxicity for  humans and wild fauna. Glufosinate-resistant rice has been approved for  commercialization in the USA,  Canada,  and Mexico
Rice is a  water-loving plant that uses 30% of the freshwater used for crops worldwide   two to three times more water than other food crops
. With the  imminent water shortage and increased salinity brought by global warming,  strategies to develop rice to combat these abiotic stresses were conducted  using stress-related genes and transcription factors identified in the model  plant Arabidopsis. This include the expression of the 
 gene in rice  that increased the leaf biomass and bundle sheath cells that would probably  contribute to enhanced photosynthesis assimilation, water use efficiency and  drought resistance
 in rice increased its salinity and drought tolerance
. Moreover, bacterial  genes for trehalose accumulation also increased tolerance to drought, salt, and  cold in transgenic rice
Rice is a good  source of carbohydrate, proteins, fiber, lipid and fats, minerals (potassium,  phosphorous, magnesium, calcium, sodium, copper and iodine) and vitamins  (thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6 and folic acid)
. In poor  countries which have less access to meat and fish, rice is predominantly eaten,  thus, important minerals and vitamins are lacking in the diet. This leads to a  widespread occurrence of vitamin A and E, iron and zinc deficiency which  afflict susceptible children, pregnant and lactating women. Food supplementation  and fortification programs conducted were found to be relatively expensive,  noncompliance is high, and requires infrastructure for delivery and targeting.  A novel approach is biofortification which uses biotechnological tools to  incorporate genes for increased amounts of these essential food nutrients.  Biotech rice with provitamin A (Golden Rice) has been developed
  and is being used to transfer beta carotene loci into high-yielding local  commercial cultivars through marker-assisted back cross breeding in the  Philippines, Bangladesh and India. Progress in molecular marker-aided breeding  projects the release of golden rice varieties by 2012. Biotech rice with  increased ferritin content was found to replenish the hemoglobin and liver iron  concentrations in rat experiments suggesting that biotechnological approaches  to manipulating ferritin expression of seed iron may contribute to a  sustainable solution to global problems of iron deficiency

  Rice is devoid  of essential amino acids such as threonine, tryptophan, lysine, and methionine.  Strategies to improve the lysine content of rice showed that inhibition of  lysine degradation through the RNAi approach increased free lysine level, and  affected the concentrations of the amino acids related to lysine metabolic  pathway, such as threonine and aspartic acid
. As plant proteins  are the primary sources of all dietary proteins consumed by human and animals  and are inexpensive to produce in comparison with meat, improving their quality  will make a significant contribution to future needs.
Rice can be  used as a vehicle to produce pharmaceuticals including vaccines. One of these  is the development of a rice-based oral vaccine containing the vaccine antigen  cholera toxin B subunit (CTB) which accumulates in the protein bodies of the  starchy endosperm cells. These are taken up by mucosal cells of the  gastrointestinal tracts for the induction of antigen-specific mucosal immune  responses with neutralizing activity
. In addition, the rice-based  CTB vaccine remained stable and maintained immunogenicity at room temperature  for more than 1.5 years, and was protected from pepsin digestion in vitro.  Other mucosal cell vaccines can be produced in rice to target diseases of the  respiratory and gastrourinary tracts and can be administrated economically in  the developing countries where need is often the greatest.

  Extended use of  antibiotics is documented to contribute to the development of antibiotic  resistance in commensal bacteria in poulty, pigs, cattle, and humans  necessitating the search for alternative strategies. Antibacterial molecules  such as lactoferrin and lysozyme were considered and expressed in rice grains  through biotechnology. Experimental feeding of broiler chickens fed with rice  containing lactoferrin and lysozyme showed that they improve the feed  efficiency, histological indices of intestinal health, and increased  bacteriostatic activity. This strategy can also be used in maintaining  intestinal health and in the prevention of diarrhea in other young animals  including human infants
Biotech rice  has been developed to address concerns that focus on the profitability of rice  farming such as pest and disease resistance and abiotic stress tolerance;  value-adding rice through nutritional improvement; using it as a vehicle to  produce pharmaceutical products; and as an instrument to provide environmental  protection and reduce global warming. In addition, basic studies to increase  rice yield are underway including the incorporation of genes in the C4 pathway,  a more efficient converter of light energy and carbon dioxide into food  assimilates
. Moreover, basic research on apomictic rice or the  production of cloned seed has been started and promising results are being  generated
. This will considerably reduce the cost of production of  hybrid rice, an important breeding strategy in rice production.
 Rice  Biotechnology: A need for developing countries. 2004 Swapan K Data Agbioforum  7(1&2):31-35.
 Rice Biotechnology: Rockefeller to End Network  After 15 Years of Success 1999. Dennis Normille (http://www/sciencemag.org/)
 IRRI Annual Report, 1999. Los Baos,  Laguna
 Achieving successful deployment of Bt  Rice. 2004. Sasha Ming High, Michael B. Cohen, Qing Yao Shu, and Illimar Altosaar.TRENDS in Plant  Science 9:6:286-292.
 Translational fusion hybrid Bt genes  confer resistance against yellow stem borer in transgenic elite Vietnamese rice  (
 L.) cultivars. 2006. N. H. Ho, N. Baisakh, N. Oliva, K,  Datta, R. Frutos, and S.K. Datta. Crop Scie. 46:781-789 
 Bt rice harbouring cry genes  controlled by a constitutive or wound-inducible promoter: protection and  transgene expression under Mediterranean field conditions. 2004. J.C. Breitler,  J.M. Vassal, Maria del Mar Catala, D. Meynard, V. Marfa, E. Mele, Monique  Royer, Isabel Murillo, Blanca San Segundo, E. Guiderdoni, and Joaquima  Messeguer. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2(5) :417-430.
 Transgenic rice plants with a  synthetic 
 were highly  resistant to eight lepidopteran rice pest species. Q. Shu, G. Ye, H. Cui, X.  Chang, Y. Xiang, D. Wu, M. Gao, Y. Xia, C. Hu, R. Sardana, and I. Altosaar.  Mol. Breed. 6: 433-439. 
 is resistant  against four lepidopteran species under field conditions. 2001. Plant  Biotechnol. 18:125-133.
 Crop Biotech Update 4 December, 2009.
 A receptor kinase-like protein encoded  by the rice disease resistance gene 
21. 1995. Song, W.Y. Song,G.L.  Wang, L.L. Chen, H.S. Kim, L.Y. Pi, T. Holsten, B. Wang, W.X. Zhai, H. Zhu, C.  Fauquet, and P.C. Ronald, Science  270:1804-1806.
 Transgenic elite indica rice  varieties, resistant to 
. 1998. S Zhang, W-Y. Song., L. Chen, D-L. Ruan, N. Taylor, P. Ronald, R. Beachy and C. Fauquet C.  Molecular Breeding 4:551-558.
 L.), IR72. 2000. Theoretical and Applied Genetics.  101:15-20.
 Genetic engineering of rice for  resistance to sheath blight. 1996. W. Lin, C.Anuratha, S. Datta, K. Potrykus,  S. Mathukrishnan and S.K. Datta. 1995. Bio/Technology 13:686-691. 
 Improving rice to meet food and  nutrient needs: Biotechnological approaches. 2002 S.K.Datta and G.S. Khush.  Journal of Crop Production. 6(1):229-247.
 The map-based sequence of the rice  genome. 2005.International Rice Genome Sequencing Project. 
 http://www/agbios/com/dbase.php?action=ShowProd&data=CL121%2C+Cl141%2C+CFX51 
 Water management in irrigated rice:  Coping with water scarcity. 2007. B.A.M. Bouman, R.M. Lampayan, and T.P. Tuong.  http://dspace.irri.org:8080/dspace/bitstream/10269/266/2/9789712202193_content.pdf 
 Improvement of water use efficiency in  rice by expression of HARDY, an 
 drought and salt tolerance  gene. 2007. A. Karaba, S. Dixit, R. Greco, A. Aharoni, K.R. Trijatmiko, N.  Marsch-Martinez, A. Krishnan, K. N. Nataraja, M.Udayakumar, and A. Pereira.  PNAS. 104(39):15270-15275.
 Arabidopsis CBF3/DREB1A and ABF3 in  transgenic rice increased tolerance to abiotic stress without stunting growth.  2005. S-J. Oh, S.I. Song, Y.S. Kim, H-Y. Jang, S.Y. Kim, M.Kim, Y-K. Kim, B.H.  Nahm, J-K Kim. Plant Physiology 138:341-351.
 Expression of a bifunctional fusion of  the 
 genes for trehalose-6-phosphate synthase and  trehalose-6-phosphate phosphatase in transgenic plants increases trehalose  accumulation and abiotic stress tolerance without stunting growth. 2003. I-C.  Jang, S-J. Oh, J-S. Seo, W-B. Choi, S.I. song, S.H. Kim, Y.S. Kim, H-S Seo,  Y.D. Choi, B.H. Nahm, and J-K. Kim. Plant Physiology. 131:516-524. 
 Food composition and nutrition tables.  6th ed. 2000. S.W. Souci, W. Fachmann, H. Kraut. Food Quality Control, World  Food Programme.  http://foodquality.wfp.org/FoodProcessing/Cerealmilling/Nutritionalimpact/tabid336/PageContentID/458/Default.aspx.
 Engineering the provitamin A  (b-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Y. Xudong, S. Al-Babili,. A. Klti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca,  P.Beyer, I. Potrykus. Science  287:303-305.2000,
 Improving the nutritional value of  Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. 2004. J.A. Paine, C. A. Shipton, S. C. Rhian, M.  Howells, M. J. Kennedy, G.Vernon, S.Y. Wright, E. Hinchliffe, J. L. Adams, A.  L. Silverstone, and R. Drake. Nature Biotechnology 23(4), 482-487
 Transgenic rice is a source of iron  for iron-depleted rats. 2002. L.E. Murray-Kolb, F. Takaiwa, F. Goto, T.  Yoshihara, E. C. Theil, and J.L. Beard. Journal of Nutrition.132:957-960. 
 Regulation of lysine synthesis and  catabolism in rice. 2008. Q-Q. Liu, M-L. Chan, R-X. Duan, H-X. Yu, M-H. Gu,  S.S. M. Sun. Abstract in Plant Genomics in China, PGCIX.  (http://www.plantgenomics.cn/abslist.cgi?absid=789). 
 Rice-based mucosal vaccine as a global  strategy for cold-chain and needle-free vaccination. 2007. T. Nochi, H. Takagi,  Y. Yuki, L. Yang, T. Masumura, M. Mejima, U. Nakanishi, A. Matsumura, A.  Uozumi, T. Hiroi, S. Morita, K. Tanaka, F. Takaiwa, H. Kiyono. PNAS.  104(26):10986-10991.
 When expressing lactoferrin and  lysozyme has antibiotic-like properties when fed to chicks. 2002. B.D.  Humphrey, N. Huang, K.C. Klasing. J. Nutrition. 132:1214-1218.
 The rice squad. 2002. Nature 416: 576-578. April  11, 2002.
 Apomixis: The plant breeders dream. 2001. (http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=2











Document Number: 6231 
Wheat is a  member of the grass family that produces modified fruit which is fused with its  single seed, forming the grain. The fruits are borne together in a panicle and  the edible part of the seed or grain is called kernel. The Middle   East is the geographical origin of wheat
. Wheat is a  staple food that is processed into flour and used for different types of  breads, pastries, pastas, and cereals. It is also used for fermentation of  alcoholic beverages
 (durum or macaroni wheat) are the commonly grown  species today
Wheat is the second most-produced cereal crop after maize,  with 683.15 million metric tons of global production in 2009
. The  top three producers of wheat are China,  India, and the United States of America.  China,  the top producer of wheat globally, utilizes its entire wheat yield. India also  cultivates for its own consumption. The U.S. produces around 1.3 to 2  billion bushels per year (1 bushel of wheat at 13.5% moisture=27.21kg) but half  of it is exported. Canada, Australia and Argentina also export a portion of  their wheat production. For the last decade or so, wheat hectarage has  consistently declined and failed to meet the target
Maize and soybean are getting ahead of wheat in terms of  production because conventional efforts for wheat are not keeping pace with the  modernized techniques used to improve maize and soybean
. Thus,  there is renewed emphasis on utilizing biotechnology approach to produce more  wheat, which may solve the problems that conventional breeding methods cannot.
BASF released the first herbicide tolerant wheat in 2007 in Canada commercially known as Clearfield wheat. Clearfield wheat is a product of mutation  breeding developed to survive the presence of imidazolinone herbicide which  blocks the activity of acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS). AHAS is the first  enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway of branched amino acids essential for plant  growth. Based on the results of the field trials in the U.S., Clearfield  is almost similar to the parental line in terms of vigor, time to maturity,  seed production (yield), disease resistance, and tendency to weediness
The first herbicide tolerant wheat produced through genetic  engineering was developed by Monsanto, the MON 71800 event, commercially known  as Roundup Ready wheat. A gene from common soil bacterium Agrobacterium  tumefaciens strain CP4 was introduced to wheat to produce a glyphosate tolerant  wheat line. The gene codes for the production of a novel form of the enzyme  5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) which functions in the  shikimate pathway, a biochemical pathway responsible for the synthesis of  aromatic amino acids and other aromatic compounds which are vital for growth  and survival. Although studies have proven that this glyphosate tolerant wheat  is safe and nutritious, just like the other conventional wheat varieties
,  Monsanto decided not to introduce Roundup Ready wheat to the market.
Wheat is affected by a number of fungal diseases such as  stem rust (
) which can easily spread in the wheat fields when the surrounding  is moist. Among these fungal pests, 
 is the worst, causing crown rot and head blight that result to production of  small and stunted grains or no grain at all. Some 
 strains also produce mycotoxins, or poisonous compounds  which when ingested by humans or animals may cause nausea, vomiting, hormonal  imbalance and other chronic diseases
. Syngenta has been working on  genetically modified 
-resistant  wheat but postponed the project in 2007 due to public concern over  biotechnology. This could be a candidate for reconsideration with the growing  interest for biotech wheat
. Syngenta also partnered with CIMMYT to  develop stem rust resistant varieties of wheat through marker-assisted breeding
In 2009, researchers from the Institute  of Plant Pathology in Zurich  and John Innes  Center in Britain separately revealed two  rust-resistance wheat genes that could be the best solution in eliminating the  rust fungus threat
 gene isolated by Zurich  researchers could be responsible in fighting off diseases. John Innes Center scientists identified the 
 gene which is found in wild wheat  but has been lost during domestication. The scientists infer that 
 recognizes a lipid from a disease  and then commands a resistance response.
The Chinese   Academy of Agricultural  Sciences (CAAS) possibly has the highest investment in the world for biotech  wheat. They are developing a wide range of traits such as resistance to yellow  mosaic virus, head scab, powdery mildew, and insect. A wheat line with  resistance to yellow mosaic virus is expected to be available in the market by  2015
. The Henan   Agricultural University  is also developing sprouting-tolerant wheat, to get rid of the 20% loss in  production due to early sprouting. This is expected to be commercially  available by 2012 or 2013
CSIRO Plant Industry researchers have already isolated two  salt tolerance wheat genes (
), which came from the old wheat  relative Triticum monococcum. Both genes inhibit sodium, which can be toxic to  plants, by limiting its passage from the roots to the shoots
.  Based on the field trials conducted in Australia in 2009, the lines with  the 
 gene produced 25% more yield  than those without the gene in saline conditions.
Wheat is also being developed to be safe for people with  celiac disease, which is caused by the consumption of gluten that leads to  damage to the small intestine resulting in obstructed absorption of nutrients  from food, and hence malnutrition. Washington State University (WSU) is  currently conducting experiments using genetic techniques to remove the  celiac-causing gliadins in the wheat grain with improved baking quality traits.  The variety is also expected to contain more lysine, an essential amino acid  that is usually scarce in wheat
    Drought resistance is an essential trait for wheat because  water is a limiting factor especially as the world faces the effects of global  climate change
. The effect of drought on cereal production can be  large enough to affect the economy of wheat-producing countries such as Australia,  where 1% subtraction in GDP (from 2002 to 2003) was attributed to drought. In Victoria, the wheat  supply decreased by 70% in 2007 due to severe drought conditions, leading to  the states loss of $300 million. In 2007, 30 wheat transgenic lines were  tested in Victoria  under the project of Professor German Spangenberg of the Department of Primary  Industries. Each wheat line contains six different drought tolerance genes from  maize (
). These genes  encode proteins that will regulate biochemical pathways to promote normal  growth under reduced amounts of water. If the trials are successful, the  researchers hope to have the drought-tolerant wheat ready for release in about  three years
. Similarly, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement  Center (CIMMYT) used a gene (DREB1A) from Arabidopsis thaliana to enhance the  characteristics of wheat. The genetically engineered wheat exhibited tolerance  to drought, low temperature and salinity
The Second Chance of Biotech Wheat 
The acceptance for biotech wheat or genetically modified  (GM) wheat has changed over the years since crop companies postponed their  plans of commercializing the transgenic wheat in 2003 and 2004 due to  widespread opposition
. A 2009 wheat growers survey conducted by  the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) showed that 76% of the  respondents are in favor of the petition supporting the commercialization of  biotechnology in wheat
. The International Food Information Council  also conducted Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology survey in 2010 in the  U.S. and reported that 73% of the respondents said they would likely purchase  bread, crackers, cookies, cereal, or pasta made with GM wheat developed to use  less water, land and/or pesticides
. Nine wheat-related  associations from major wheat producers Australia, Canada and the U.S. released  a GM Wheat Trilateral Statement, announcing the need for more investment in  R&D of GM wheat
Since there is renewed interest for GM wheat,  commercialization of biotech wheat could possibly push through. According to  the paper released by the Wheat Foods Organization entitled The Case for  Biotech Wheat, biotechnology can make an important contribution in  transforming the competitiveness equation (of wheat, which is declining) and  positioning it as a viable production option for producers. If the new  technologies available for crops are not used in developing enhanced wheat,  then the wheat production sector will continue to decline in acreage and supply
,  leaving farmers with fewer options in the future.
 Grains of Truth about Wheat. 2010. Wheat  Foods Council.  http://www.wheatfoods.org/_FileLibrary/Product/43/Wheat%20Facts.pdf.
 Cereal Biotechnology. 2000. PC Morris and JH  Bryce. Woodhead Publishing Limited. Cambridge,   England. 
 Improving Preharvest Sprouting Tolerance in  White-grained Wheat using Molecular Markers and Flour Quality of Selected  Lines. 2008. NS Kottearachchi. Iwate,   Japan.  http://ir.iwate-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10140/2840/1/renken-no415.pdf
 L. em Thell. (Bread Wheat). 2008. Australian  Government-OGTR.  http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/wheat-3/$FILE/biologywheat08.pdf.
 Wheat Data: Yearbook Tables-World wheat  supply and disappearance. 2010. USDA Economic Research Service.  http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/wheat/YBtable03.asp.
 Whatever  Happened to GM Wheat. 2009. JL Fox. Nature Biotechnology 27, 974-976.
 Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM  Crops: 2009 (Exec. Summ.). 2009. C. James. ISAAA. Ithaca, NY.
 Clearfield  Bread Wheat Variety BW7. 2007. Health Canada.  http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/nf140dd-draftvb-eng.php.
 The composition of grain and forage from  glyphosate tolerant wheat MON 71800 is equivalent to that of conventional wheat  (
 L.). 2004. JC  Obert, et al. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 10;52(5):1375-84.
 Fusarium Head Blight and Mycotoxin  Contamination of Wheat, A Review.1990. CHA Snijders. European Journal of Plant  Pathology. DOI: 10.1007/BF01974256.
 USDA FORUM: Syngenta Glad to See Support for  Biotech Wheat. 2010. Dow Jones Newswires.  http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=201002181922dowjonesdjonline000783#ixzz0v2tw09s3 
 Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable  Agriculture launches Syngenta and CIMMYT Wheat Ug99 Stem Rust Resistance  Research Partnership. 2009. Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture.  http://www.syngentafoundation.org/db/1/821.pdf.
 Biotech Could Save World Wheat Crops. 2009.  Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow.  http://www.cfact.org/a/1527/Biotech-could-save-world-wheat-crops.
 China approves big budget for GMO  amid food worries. 2008. N. Shuping.  http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSPEK11727520080710?

      feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&sp=true.
 China Plans $3.5 Billion GM Crops  Initiative. 2008. R. Stone. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5894.1279.
 Physiological Characterization of Two Genes  for Na+ Exclusion in Durum Wheat, 
. 2006. RA James, et al.  Plant Physiology. DOI: 142:1537-1547. 
 GM Wheat Means Hope for Celiac Sufferers.  2010. A. Nemeth.  http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/01/genetically-modified-foods-are-becoming-1/).
 Drought-tolerant Wheat: Promising Results.  2008. GMO Safety. http://www.gmo-safety.eu/science/grain/583.drought-tolerant-wheat-promising.html 
 Results of Transgenic Wheat Trial Look  Promising. 2004. CIMMYT Newsletter.  http://www.cimmyt.org/index.php/en/newsletter/120-2004/391-results-of-transgenic-wheat-trial-look-promising. 
 Monsanto Pulls the Plug on Genetically  Modified Wheat. 2004. Science Magazine. DOI: 10.1126/science.304.5674.1088a.
 76% of Wheat Growers Approve Biotech Petition.  2009. National Association of Wheat Growers.  http://www.wheatworld.org/wp-content/uploads/biotech-petition-press-release-20090226.pdf.
 2010 Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology  Survey. 2010. International Food Information Council.  http://www.foodinsight.org/Content/3843/Final_Executive%20Summary%20Food%

      20Tech%20Report_Website%20version_7-7-10.pdf 
 Will Cleverly Crafted Prose Win Over Science  and Evidence? The Case of GM Wheat. 2010. P Fitzgerald. Agrifood Awareness  Australia Limited.  http://www.afaa.com.au/letters_editor/GM_wheat_prose_or_science.pdf.
 The Case for Biotech Wheat. 2009. Wheat Foods  Council.  http://www.wheatfoods.org/_FileLibrary/FileImage/FINAL%20The%20Case%20for%











Document Number: 808 
Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment
The debate over the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops  is growing increasingly complex, intense, and extremely emotional. It is  further complicated as new research is published. Are GM crops safe for the  environment?
This Pocket K attempts to shed light on this issue by addressing basic  questions regarding GM crops and the environment.
Assessing the environmental impact of GM crops is often difficult as many  factors are considered. Some scientists focus on the potential risks of GM  crops, while others emphasize their potential benefits. Just what are the  issues and how can we address them?
What is the current environmental situation?
A growing population, global warming, and loss of biodiversity have a  tremendous impact on our environment.
By the year 2050, there will be 9.3 billion people living on this planet.  This means that in less than 50 years, world population is expected to increase  by 3 billion. Feeding these people will mean massive changes in the production,  distribution, and stability of food products.
Unfortunately, cropland and population are not uniformly distributed. For  example, China  has only 1.4% of the worlds productive land
 but 20-25% of the worlds population. This situation is further aggravated by  diminishing cropland due to erosion, fewer renewable resources, less water, and  a reduced population working the land.
The destruction of wilderness and forests and continued use of coal and oil  have led to a steady increase in carbon dioxide levels, resulting in global  warming. It is predicted that the average global temperature will rise by  1.4-5.8 C by the year 2100, with increasing fluctuations in weather conditions.  Climate change can radically alter rainfall patterns and therefore require the  migration of people and shifts in agricultural practices.
Further, an increasing human population is responsible for wilderness  destruction, water quality problems, and diversion of water. The loss of  habitat has resulted in many species being displaced.
Thus, to conserve forests, habitats, and biodiversity, it is necessary to  ensure that future food requirements come only from cropland currently in use.
What are the environmental benefits of GM crops? 
One of the significant environmental benefits of GM crops is the dramatic  reduction in pesticide use, with the size of the reduction varying between  crops and introduced trait.
A study assessing the global economic and  environmental impacts of biotech crops for the first nine years (1996-2004) of  adoption showed that the technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 172  million kg and has reduced environmental footprint associated with pesticide  use by 14%. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of  greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture equivalent to removing five million  cars from the roads.
In the USA, adoption of GM crops resulted  in pesticide use reduction of 46.4 million pounds in 2003.
The use of Bt cotton in China resulted  in pesticide use reduction of 78,000 tons of formulated pesticides in 2001.  This corresponds to about a quarter of all the pesticides sprayed in China in the  mid-1990s.
 Additionally, the  use of Bt cotton can substantially reduce the risk and incidence of pesticide  poisonings to farmers.
Herbicide tolerant crops have facilitated  the continued expansion of conservation tillage, especially no-till cultivation  system, in the USA.  The adoption of conservation and no-till cultivation practices saved nearly 1  billion tons of soil per year.
Biotech cotton has been documented to have  a positive effect on the number and diversity of beneficial insects in the US and  Australian cotton fields.
Adoption of Bt corn in the Philippines did  not show an indication that Bt corn had negative effect on insect abundance and  diversity.
How are GM crops assessed for environmental safety? 
GM crops are thoroughly evaluated for environmental effects before entering  the marketplace. They are assessed by many stakeholders in accordance with  principles developed by environmental experts around the world. 
 Among those who conduct risk  assessment procedures are the developers of GM crops, regulatory bodies, and  academic scientists.
 Most countries use similar risk assessment procedures in considering the  interactions between a GM crop and its environment. These include information  about the role of the introduced gene, and the effect that it brings into the  recipient plant. Also addressed are specific questions about unintentional  effects such as:
impact on non-target       organisms in the environment 
whether the modified crop       might persist in the environment longer than usual or invade new habitats 
likelihood and consequences       of a gene being transferred unintentionally from the modified crop to       other species 

    In addition to performing pre-commercialization tests for environmental  safety, every GM crop should also be subjected to post approval monitoring by  the product developer, independent researchers, and government scientists. This  helps ensure that biotech crops continue to be safe for consumers and the  environment.
Potential of the introduced genes to outcross to weedy relatives as well as  the potential to create weedy species 
Outcrossing is the unintentional breeding of a domestic crop with a related  plant. A major environmental concern associated with GM crops is their  potential to create new weeds through outcrossing with wild relatives, or  simply by persisting in the wild themselves. 
The potential for the above to happen can and is assessed prior to  introduction and is monitored after the crop is planted as well. A ten-year  study initiated in 1990 demonstrated that there is no increased risk of  invasiveness or persistence in wild habitats for GM crops (oilseed rape,  potatoes, corn, and sugar beet) and traits (herbicide tolerance, insect  protection) tested when compared to their unmodified counterparts.
 The  researchers stated, however, that these results do not mean that genetic modifications  could not increase weediness or invasiveness of crop plants, but they do  indicate that productive crops are unlikely to survive for long outside  cultivation. A recent study by De Nijs, et al (2004, in press) shows that only  very limited effects on the environment have been detected in relation to  outcrossing. It is therefore important, however, as regulations require, to  evaluate individual GM crops on a case-by-case basis, both prior to release and  after commercialization.
Direct effects on non-target organisms 
In May 1999, it was reported that pollen from 
 (Bt)-insect resistant corn had a negative impact on Monarch butterfly larvae.  This report raised concerns and questions about potential risks to Monarchs and  perhaps other non-target organisms. Some scientists, however, urged caution  over the interpretation of the study because it reflects a different situation  than that in the environment. The author indicated Our study was conducted in  the lab and, while it raises an important issue, it would be inappropriate to  draw any conclusions about the risk to Monarch populations in the field solely  on these initial results. In 2001, a study published in PNAS concluded that  the impact of Bt corn pollen on Monarch butterfly populations is neglible. 
A report from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that  the data provide a weight of evidence indicating no unreasonable adverse  effects of Bt proteins expressed in plants to non-target wildlife.  Furthermore, a collaborative research effort by North American scientists has  concluded that in most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and  laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density  that would be encountered in the field.
 A  Nature publication of Losey, 1999; and lab experiments on force-fed predators  (Hilbeck, et al, 1998; Hilbeck, et al, 1999) and extensive field work  demonstrated no significant impact on Monarch Butterfly populations (Fitt and  Wilson, 2003; Gatehouse, et al, 2002; Hansen and Obrycki, 2000; Hellmick, et  al, 2001).
Development of insect resistance
Another concern over the use of Bt crops is that it will lead to the  development of insect resistance to Bt. Insect resistance management plans have  been developed by government, industry, and scientists to address this issue.  These plans include a requirement that every field of insect-resistant crops  must have an associated refuge of non-GM crops in order for the insects to  develop without selection to the insect resistant varieties. 
 Additional resistance management practices are also being developed by  scientists all over the world. These must be performed in line with  post-approval monitoring, where GM crops, as well as their immediate  environment, will be constantly evaluated for changes even after the crop has  been released.
The environmental and ecological concerns potentially associated with GM  crops are evaluated prior to their release. In addition, post-approval  monitoring and good agricultural systems need to be in place to detect and  minimize potential risks, as well as to ensure that GM crops continue to be  safe after their release. Comparisons among GM, conventional, and other  agricultural practices, such as organic farming, will bring to light the  relative risks and benefits of adopting GM crops.
China  urges further protection of arable land, March 23, 2004. 
http://english.people.com.cn/200403/23/eng20040332_138213.shtml
Brooks, G and P Barfoot. 2005. GM crops: the global  economic and environmental impact  the first nine years 1996-2004. AgbioForum,  8(2&3): 187-196
Sankula, S and E Blumenthal.  2004. Impacts on US  agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003  an update of  eleven case studies. National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, Washington, DC,  October
Pray, CE, J Huang, R Hu and S   Rozelle. 2002. Five years of Bt cotton in China  the  benefits continue. The Plant Journal, 31(4):423-430
Hossain, F, CE Pray, Y Lu, J Huang and R Hu. 2004.  Genetically modified cotton and farmers health in China. International Journal of  Occupational and Environmental Health, 10: 296-303
Fawcett, R and D Towery. 2002. Conservation tillage and  plant biotechnology: how new technologies can improve the environment by  reducing the need to plow. Conservation  Tillage Information  Center, West Lafayette, Indiana. 
http://ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/BiotechPaper.pdf
Carpenter, J, A Felsot, T Goode, M Hammig, D Onstad and  S Sankula. 2002. Comparative environmental  impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn and cotton  crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa,  June.
Canola Council of Canada. 2001. An agronomic and  economic assessment of transgenic canola. Canola Council of Canada: 1-95. 
http://www.canola-council.org/production/gmo1.html
US National Research Council. 1989. Field testing  genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. Committee on  Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of Genetically Modified  Microorganisms and Plants into the Environment. National  Academy Press, Washington, DC
Organization  for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1992. Safety considerations for  biotechnology. OECD, Paris, 50 pp.
Government  of Canada.  1994. Assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with  novel traits. Dir. 9408, Dec. 16, 1994. Plant Products Division, Plant Industry  Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-food   Canada.
Crawley, MJ, SL Brown, RS Hails, DD Kohn and M Rees.  2001. Biotechnology: transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature, 409:682-683.
US  Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Bt biopesticides registration action  document preliminary risks and benefits sections Bacillus thuringiensis  plant-pesticides. 
Sear,  M, RL Helmich, DE Stanley-Horn, KS Obenhauser, JM Pleasants, HR Matilla, BD  Siegfried and GP Dively. 2001. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly.  PNAS 98(21):11937-11942
Yorobe,  JM, CB Quicoy, EP Alcantara and BR Sumayao. 2004. Impact assessment of Bt corn  in the Philippines.  University of the Philippines  Los Banos, College, Laguna,   Philippines
Ammann,  K. 2004. The impact of 
 on biodiversity. Botanic  Gardens, University   of Bern
Council  for Biotechnology Information. 2004. 
http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=1974
Documented Benefits of   GM Crops











Document Number: 8994 
Documented Benefits of GM Crops
Pocket K No. 5: Documented Benefits of GM Crops
The global area planted to GM crops has consistently increased over the past  years. Substantial share of GM crops has been grown in developed  countries. In the last few years, however, there has been a consistent increase  in the number of hectares being planted to GM crops in the developing world.  Thirty percent of the total global GM crop area is now being grown in  developing countries. A significant increase in GM crop area was reported in  developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.  Experiences from these countries show that resource-poor farmers can also  benefit from this technology.
This Pocket K documents some of the GM crop experiences of selected  developing countries.
Biotech crops have had a positive impact on farm income worldwide due to  enhanced productivity and efficiency gains. In 2004, direct global farm income  benefit was $4.8 billion. If the income gained from the additional plantings of  soybean in Argentina  is included in the estimate, the value rises to $6.5 billion. Over the period  of nine years between 1996-2004, farm incomes have increased by over $19  billion or $27 billion inclusive of second-crop GM soybean gains in Argentina.
 Soybeans planted right after  the wheat harvest are called second-crop soybeans. This double-cropping is  practiced by farmers to maximize land productivity and is usually done only  when the timing, weather and soil conditions are favorable.
Global farm income benefits from growing GM crops, 1996-2004 (US$    million)
1996-2004 increase in farm income
Note: HT = herbicide tolerant, IR = insect resistant, others =    virus-resistant papaya and squash, rootworm-resistant maize. Figures in    parentheses include second-crop benefits in Argentina.
Adopted from: G. Brookes and P. Barfoot, 2005
Since 1996, farmers planting biotech crops have reduced pesticide inputs in  their fields by 6.3% or over 172.5 million kg which led to an overall reduction  in the environmental footprint of biotech crops by 14%. Environmental footprint  is a measure of the effect or impact a product, process, operation, an  individual or corporation places on the environment, in this case, measuring  the environmental effects of pesticides.
The largest environmental gain was recognized in fields where HT soybeans  were planted. The volume of herbicides used by soybean farmers has decreased by  41 million kg over the past nine years. Similarly, significant reductions in  pesticide loads were experienced by farmers planting insect resistant (IR) and  herbicide tolerance (HT) biotech cotton.
Impact of changes in the use of herbicides and insecticides    in GM crops globally, 1996-2004 (US$ million)
Change to Pesticide    Use (million kg)
Change in field EIQ    (million field EIQ/ha units)
Note:    HT = herbicide tolerant, IR = insect resistant, Ai = active ingredient, EIQ =    environmental impact quotient. 

          (Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), a universal indicator where the various    environmental impacts of individual pesticides are integrated into a single    field value per hectare. This EIQ value is multiplied by the amount of    pesticide active ingredient (ai) used per hectare to produce a field EIQ    value.) Source: G. Brookes and P. Barfoot, 2005
Several studies on GM crop adoption in North America  and elsewhere highlighted the multiple benefits derived from GM crops. Examples  are the following:
An estimate cost savings by farmers planting HT  soybean was $78/ha in 2004, three times higher compared to the early years of  adoption. The annual total national farm income benefit from HT soybean has  dramatically risen from $4 million in 1996, to nearly $1.6 billion in 2004. 
Glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant corn  reduced the herbicide use in corn production by 18.5 million pounds (15.2 and  3.3 million pounds, respectively) in 2004. US farmers saved $139 million from  the reduced pesticide use. 
The US is estimated to have enhanced  farm income from biotech crops by $10.8 billion in the period 1996 to 2004. 
HT canola has boosted the total canola  production in Canada  by 8% in 2004. Adopters of biotech canola earned $121 million in 2004 - twenty  times more than in 1996. 
The net increase in farm income by HT maize  farmers in 2004 was $3.5 million. Average annual profits have improved by  $14-16/ha since 1999. 
Canada  is estimated to have enhanced farm income from biotech crops by $0.8 billion in  the period 1996 to 2004. 
Bt maize adoption in Spain in 2005 resulted in yield  increases of 6% on average, the net impact on gross margin $112 per hectare. 
 Farmers also  experienced savings on pesticide use by 24 to 102/ha. 
For 2003 and 2004, Australian farmers planting  IR cotton have significant cost savings of about $60-70/ha despite the high  cost of technology. In 2004, net farm income at the national level was  $15 million. 
Has adoption of biotech crops also benefited small-scale farmers in  developing countries? The developing country experiences above provide the  answer.
Cotton is a very important crop for India, accounting for 30% of its  agricultural GDP. India ranks  third in cotton production worldwide, and in 2005 India  produced 4.13 million tons,, following China  (6.31 million tons) and the US  (5.06 million tons)
. However,  due to the high incidence of pests, especially the cotton bollworms, India falls  short of the worlds average yield of cotton by 48%, an equivalent of 280 kg/ha
. Indian farmers often lose up to  50-60% of their crop to the cotton bollworm.
Adoption of Bt cotton started in 2002 with 3 hybrids planted in six Indian  states: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra  and Tamil Nadu2. By  2005, there were 20 Bt cotton hybrids approved for planting and a total of 1.3  Million hectares of Bt cotton plantations in India.2 In a landmark decision, the Genetic Engineering  Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF)  approved 43 new additional hybrids of Bt cotton varieties in 2006. 

    Actual farmer fields studies2  in 2002 and 2003 in the state of Maharashtra  revealed that:
Bt cotton yield increaed by 45% in 2002, and by  63% in 2003 compared to non-Bt cotton varieties
Higher revenues were attained by Bt cotton  farmers compared to those who planted conventional cotton. The average  income difference for 2002 and 2003 were 43% and 63%, respectively.
The average gross margin (difference of the  revenue and variable costs which include seed and insecticide costs) is much  higher for Bt growers compared to growers of non-Bt varieties.
Revenue from cotton yield    (rupees/ha)
*** P < 0.001; ns = not significant at 0.05
Less insecticide input against cotton bollworms  resulted in an average reduction in expenditure per hectare of 72% and 83% in  2002 and 2003, respectively. Savings in spray was around Rs 2,471 or  around $54 per hectare on average (1 US Dollar = 46 Indian Rupee)
Number and cost of insecticide sprays against cotton    bollworms
Number    of bollworm pest sprays per plot
Revenue from cotton yield    (rupees/ha)
** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; ns = not significant at 0.05
Bt Corn Adoption in the Philippines
A common corn pest in the Philippines  is the Asiatic corn borer which causes losses of up to 80% of production.  Across the country, corn yield levels averaged only 2.8 tons per hectare.

    The Philippine government approval of the commercial release of Bt corn  marked the first time that a GM food/feed crop was ever approved for planting  in Asia. Initial plantings of Bt corn for the  first year commercialization (2003) covered more than 10,000 hectares. Its  total hectarage in the wet and dry seasons in 2005 was 52,000 hectares, up from  50,000 hectares in 2004.
Adoption of Bt corn in the Philippines  provided the following benefits to small-scale farmers: 
Yield advantage of about 1.1 ton/ha or 30% yield  increase over conventional corn hybrids
Pesticide cost reduction by as much as 56%
Incremental income of up to PhP7,500/ha (US$135)
Premium price for Bt corn because of good  quality grains
Economic indicators between Bt and non-Bt corn farms
Rice is the most important crop in China, with the highest level of  production accounting for 28% of the worlds total production..11 Because of the importance of rice,  biotech research are being conducted to combat insect pests in rice. It  was estimated that the decrease in rice yield due to insect damage is estimated  to cost at least several billions of dollars worldwide.

    In China,  farm-level pre-production field trials of insect-resistant GM rice are already  underway. 
To establish whether farmers welfare improved by planting GM rice, farm  surveys of randomly selected farm household that cultivated the biotech crop  were conducted. 
The surveys showed that small and poor farm households who adopted GM  insect-resistant rice benefited by having higher crop yields and lower  pesticide usage compared to non-GM adopters. GM rice yields were 6 to 9% higher  compared to conventional varieties and it required less pesticide input by as  much as 80% or 16.77 kg/ha, which contributed to improved health to farmers.
The increasing number of farmers who have grown GM crops both in the  developed and developing countries is strong evidence of their advantages in  agricultural production and value to farmers. In 2005, after a decade of GM  crop adoption, the billionth acre, or the 400 millionth hectare equivalent, was  planted by one of 8.5 million farmers, in one of 21 countries. This  unprecedented high adoption rate reflects the trust and confidence of millions  of farmers in crop biotechnology.
Experiences of small farmers from China,  South Africa, the Philippines and  other developing countries using GM crops clearly show that small farmers can  also benefit from the technology. The most consistent observation from these  countries is that growing GM crops is a profitable farming endeavor.
Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot. 2005. GM Crops: The Global  Economic and Environmental Impact - The First Nine Years 1996-2004. AgBioForum,  8(2 & 3): 198-196.
Bennett, RM, Y. Ismael, U. Kambhampati, and S. Morse.  2004. Economic Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton in India.  AgBioForum, 7(3), 96-100.
James, C. 2005. Global Status of Commercialized  Biotech/GM Crops: 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Yorobe J.M., C.B. Quicoy, E.P. Alcantara and B.R.  Sumayao. 2004. (In Press) Impact assessment of Bt corn in the Philippines.  University of the Philippines  Los Baos, College, Laguna,   Philippines.
Sankula S., G. Marmon, and E. Blumenthal. 2005.  Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2004 - Impacts on US Agriculture.  Available at http://www.ncfap.org
Canola Council of Canada. 2001. An agronomic and  economic assessment of transgenic canola. Canola Council of Canada,  January. http://www.canola-council.org/production/gmo_toc.html
Brooks G. 2003. The farm  level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. Crop Biotech Brief, 3(3),  Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology, ISAAA  SEAsiaCenter. http://www.isaaa.org/kc 
J. Huang, R. Hu, S. Rozelle, and C. Pray. 2005.  Insect-Resistant GM Rice in Farmers' Fields: Assessing Productivity and Health  Effects in China.  Science, 308, 688-690.
Sen, A. 2005. Cotton Scenario in India.  www.indiaonestop.com/cotton/cotton.htm
Shetty,  PK. 2004. Socio-ecological Implications of Pesticide Use in India. Economic  and Political Weekly, December 4, Vol 39, No 49, pp 5261-5267.
Hsiaoping,  C. 2005. Rice Consumption in China:  Can China  Change Rice Consumption from Quantity to Quality? Rice is life: scientific  perspectives for the 21st century. Session 17. 497-499.
Xue  QZ, Duan XL, XU DP, Wu R Production and testing of insect-resistant transgenic  rice plants. Rice Genetics III IRRI, DAPO Box 7777 Manila, Philippines 1996.239-246
Brooks  G. 2003. The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. Crop Biotech Brief, 3(3),  Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology, ISAAA.
Bt Insect Resistant   Technology











Document Number: 5860 
Pocket K No. 6: Bt Insect Resistant Technology
Have you ever seen a leaf eaten off by plant pests? What  about an entire harvest destroyed by insects?  Plant pests cause a lot of problems to farmers and home gardeners alike.  Because of this, they have had very little recourse other than to continually  spray their plants with pesticides.  Unfortunately, some of these pesticides pose health risks to people who  are exposed to them. 
It is for this reason that scientists are constantly looking  for alternative ways of dealing with plant pests.
) a common soil bacterium so called  because it was first isolated in the Thuringia region of Germany.
Bt produces  a protein that paralyzes the larvae of some harmful insects, including the  cotton bollworm and the Asian and European corn borers, all of which are common  plant pests whose infestations produce devastating effects on important crops.
When ingested by the larva of the target insect, the Bt  protein is activated in the guts alkaline condition and punctures the mid-gut  leaving the insect unable to eat. The insect dies within a few days. 
It is because of its ability to produce the insecticidal  protein that much research is being done to exploit the organisms agronomic  value. To date, there are more than 200 types of Bt proteins identified with varying degrees of toxicity to some  insects.
Bt is easily  cultured by fermentation. Thus, over the last 40 years, Bthas been used as an insecticide by farmers worldwide.  Organic farming in particular has benefited from Bt insecticide, as it is one of the very few pesticides  permitted by organic standards. The insecticide is applied either as a spray,  or as ground applications. It comes in both granules and liquefied form.
The efficiencyof both applications is quite limited,  as target organisms often do not come in contact with the insecticide as they  are found on the underside of leaves or have already penetrated into the plant.  Scientists are working to overcome this problem through the use of modern  biotechnology.
Scientists have taken the Bt gene responsible for the production of the insecticidal  protein from the bacterium and incorporated it into the genome of plants. Thus, these plants have a built-in mechanism  of protection against targeted pests.  The protein produced by the plants does not get washed away, nor is it  destroyed by sunlight. The plant is thus  protected from the bollworm or the corn borer round the clock regardless of the  situation.
Safety Aspects of Bt Technology 
So how safe is the Bt  protein to non-target organisms? The specificity of Bt for its target insects is one of  the characteristics that make it an ideal method of biological pest  control. In fact, different strains of Bt have specific toxicity to certain target insects. The  specificity rests on the fact that the toxicity of the Bt protein is receptor-mediated. This means that for an  insect to be affected by the Bt  protein, it must have specific receptor sites in its gut where the proteins can  bind. Fortunately, humans and majority of beneficial insects do not have these  receptors. 
Before Bt crops are placed on the market, they must pass very  stringent regulatory tests, including those for toxicity and allergenicity. 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) has  already administered toxicology assessments, and Bt proteins have already been tested even at relatively higher  dosages. According to the Extension Toxicology Network (Extoxnet), a  pesticide information project of several universities in the US, no complaints were made after  18 humans ate one gram of commercial Btpreparation daily for five days, on alternate days...Humans who ate  one gram per day for three consecutive days were not poisoned or  infected. Furthermore, the protein was shown to be degraded rapidly by  human gastric fluid 
Soil ecosystems and groundwater
The Bt  protein is moderately persistent in soil and is classified as immobile, as it  does not move, or leach, with groundwater.  It does not particularly persist in acidic soil conditions and, when  exposed to sunlight, is rapidly destroyed due to UV radiation. 
Independent experts have conducted studies to investigate  the impact of Btcrops  on soil organisms and other insect species that are considered beneficial in  agriculture. No adverse effects have  been found on non-target soil organisms, even when these organisms were exposed  to quantities of Bt far higher  than what would actually occur under natural crop-growing conditions. Likewise, research done by the US-EPA  revealed no changes in the soil microbiota in fields with Bt plant material or conventional  plant material (Donegan, et al., 1995), or between fields of Bt and non-
On tests conducted on dogs, guinea pigs, rats, fish, frogs,  salamanders, and even birds, the Btprotein was found not to have any harmful effects. It is also  noteworthy that no toxic effects were found on beneficial or predator insects,  such as honeybees and lady beetles. (Extoxnet, 1996).
In 1999, it was reported that pollen from Bt corn had a negative impact on  Monarch butterfly larvae. This report raised concerns and questions about the  risks of Bt
 on  non-target organisms. Recent studies, however, show that Bt corn poses negligible threat to  Monarch butterflies in the field. A collaborative research effort by scientists  in the US and in Canada  has produced information to develop a formal risk assessment of the impact of Bt corn on Monarch butterfly  populations. They concluded that in most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and  laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density  that would be encountered in the field. 
 provide the farmer  with season-long protection against several damaging insect pests, and reduce  or eliminate the need for insecticide sprays. This eliminates the yield loss  that results from less than optimal pest control by applied farm insecticides,  and it allows the farmer more time for other farm management duties.
A study by the US Department of  Agriculture reported that 8.2 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients  were eliminated by farmers who planted Bt  crops in 1998. Significant reductions have also been reported in China and Argentina, where the use of Bt  cotton resulted in a 60-70% reduction in pesticide use.)
 Lower input costs often  contribute to a higher net return compared to conventional crops. Btcotton farmers in the US  earned an incremental $99 million as a result of decreased pesticide costs  and/or increased yields. Similarly, Btcotton farmers in Argentina  reported that Btcotton  generated an average incremental benefit of $65.05/ha
Improved conditions for non-target organisms.
 are  able to defend themselves against pests, the use of chemical insecticides is  significantly reduced, thereby encouraging the proliferation of beneficial  organisms. These beneficial organisms can help control other secondary pests,  which can often become a problem when predator and parasite populations are  reduced by conventional broad-spectrum insecticides.
Aside from  being effective against insect pests, Btcrops have lower incidences of opportunistic microbial pathogens,  such as the fungus 
This fungus produces mycotoxins that can be  deadly to livestock and also cause cancer in humans.
Insect Resistance Management (IRM)
Since Bt  crops are capable of season long expression of the Bt protein, precautionary steps have to be taken in order to  avoid the development of insect resistance. In the US, for example, the EPA usually  requires a buffer zone, or a structured refuge of non-Bt crops that is planted in close proximity to the Bt crops. 
IRM is said to be the key to sustainable use of the  insecticide in both genetically modified crops and Btmicrobial spray formulations.
Current Status of Bt Technology 
At the end of 2010, an estimated 26.3 million hectares of  land were planted with crops containing the Bt gene. The table below shows countries  that have commercialized Bt cotton and/or Bt corn, from 1996 to 2010.
Table 1. Countries that have commercialized Bt cotton    and/or Bt corn, 1996-2004
.  http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/.
Bt crops are an addition to our arsenal against plant  pests. With an increasing population and  decreasing arable land, it is necessary to exploit all options with as little  compromise to produce more crops. When  used side by side with proper agricultural practices, Bt insect resistance  technology can bring many benefits to crops, farmers, and consumers alike.
Global Status of  Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34. Ithaca, NY.
 Donegan, K.K., C.J. Palm, V.J. Fieland, L.A.  Porteous, L.M. Ganio, D.L. Schaller, L.Q. Bucao, and R.J. Seidler.
Changes  in levels, species and DNA fingerprints of soil microorganisms associated with  cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki endotoxin.
 Applied Soil Ecology 2:111-124.
 Donegan, K.K., D.L. Schaller, J.K. Stone,  L.M. Ganio, G. Reed, P.B. Hamm, and R.J. Seidler.
Microbial  populations, fungal species diversity and plant pathogen levels in field plots  of potato plants expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis  endotoxin.
 The Council for Biotechnology Information.
 http://www.whybiotech.com/pdf/Bt_Protein_in_Soil.pdf
 Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA and USDA position paper on insect  resistance management in Bt crops. 
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/otherdocs/bt_position_paper_618.htm 
Pesticide  Information Profile, Bacillus thuringiensis.
http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.shtml











Document Number: 8841 
Pocket K No. 7: Labeling GM Foods
The debate over foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops often touches  on the subject of labeling. Many consumers argue and insist on their right to  know what they are eating and their right to choose. We hear it all the time:  Why not label these foods if you are so sure of their safety? or that  Consumers should have a choice about what they are eating. As a result, many  governments have begun to heed these suggestions and have either implemented  labeling regulations or are working on them.
Unfortunately, while the questions seem simple, the issue is not, especially  if the starting point of labeling includes the process rather than the final  product. Issues such as safety, cost, truth in advertising, choice, fairness,  science, trade-barriers, regulatory responsibility, accountability, legal  liability, among others are involved.
Requirements for implementing labeling policies
Standards, testing, certification, and enforcement
Before any labeling rules can be implemented, governments would have to set  up standards and services to conduct testing of the presence of GM ingredients;  certification; and ensure that the quality standards are clear and achievable.
While it is easy to detect GM ingredients in products where the GM  ingredient is the main ingredient (like tofu or popcorn), it would not be so  easy to detect them in processed products like oils, sugars and starches, which  no longer contain any novel DNA or proteins.
On another note, much of the food that is bought and consumed in developing  countries is not packaged and consequently not labeled. Examples are soybean  milk from a street vendor or fresh fruits and vegetables from the market.
Another issue that regulators have to grapple with is the wording: ideally a  label should not prejudice the consumer for or against the product.
There is also the issue of whether the label would be useful or educational.  To a homemaker who has heard little about the debate on GM food, a label that  reads, Made from genetically modified soybean or Grown from seed obtained  through modern plant biotechnology may create more confusion.
Current regulations are based on the chemical characteristics of the food  product and not on the way the product was made. For example, labeling  regulations only require labels for foods (whether GM or not) if there is a  change in nutritional composition or if an added component is toxic or  allergenic. How different would this be if we started to label GM food?
Examples of international approaches to labeling
In Canada,  special labeling is required for all foods where safety concerns such as  allergenicity and compositional or nutritional changes are identified. Labeling  must indicate the nature of the change and must be understandable, truthful,  and not misleading. Manufacturers can choose to label products to provide  information regarding the presence or absence of GM ingredients, so long as the  information is factual and neither misleading nor deceptive.
In the US,  all foods must be labeled when there are health concerns, differences in use or  nutritional value or where the common name no longer adequately describes the  food derived from the GM plant. In January 2001, the Food and Drug  Administration released a Draft Guidance for the Industry: Voluntary Labeling.  The document provides guidance to manufacturers in the appropriate, truthful  and non-misleading labeling of foods and provides examples of acceptable and  unacceptable labeling language.
The new EU labeling regulation requires that any food containing GM  ingredient or derivative in the amount more than 0.9% will have to be labeled.  GM animal feed will also have to be labeled but products of animals fed GM  feed, like milk, meat, and eggs, are not required to be labeled.
Since 1997, EC regulation on labeling requires that products intentionally  containing GM ingredients must always be labeled, whatever the level of content.  The new regulation extend the range of products requiring traceability and  labeling by including derived products - those with ingredients derived from a  GM source that are not identifiable by analysis - as well as products  consisting of or containing GMOs. Labeling is required to vegetable oils and  other highly refined products where the genetically modified DNA or resulting  protein is no longer present or detectable in the final product. Adventitious  presence of GM ingredient no higher than 0.9% requires no labeling.
Mandatory labeling requirements took effect in December 2001. Labeling is  now required in cases where foods have altered characteristics, such as changed  nutritional values, or when foods contain novel DNA or protein as a result of  genetic modification. Up to 1% unintended contamination is permitted.
Foods obtained from GM crops, but which do not  contain novel DNA or proteins (oils, sugars, starches etc. from GM soy, corn,  and canola)
Food additives and processing aids (unless novel  DNA or protein is present in the final food product)
Flavors (when present at less than 0.1% in the  final food product)
Food prepared at point of sale (restaurants)
Foods obtained from crops that have been  genetically modified through techniques other than recombinant DNA
Japans  Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) is responsible for  environmental safety approvals, feed safety approvals and biotech labeling for  foods. On April 1, 2001, MAFF established a labeling scheme which requires  labeling for biotech food products if the biotech DNA or protein can be  scientifically detected in the finished foods.
MAFF regulations require labels for recombinant DNA only if an ingredient is  at least 5% of the total weight of the product.
The Korea Food & Drug Administration (KFDA) requires labeling on  processed foods that use GM corn, soybean or soybean sprout or when these three  goods are among the top five ingredients of a processed food product. Minor  ingredients are exempt from labeling requirements. The threshold level of  unintentional contamination of GMO to those three ingredients is 3%.
Koreas  Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) also requires labeling for commodity  shipments of the three goods if the shipment is destined for direct consumption  and if it contains a biotech-enhanced component of 3% or higher.
Identity Preservation (IP) handling certificate is required for no labeling.
How will it affect world and regional trade?
As the production and trade of GM crops increase, labeling programs will  allow countries to tailor policies to their own needs. For example, a country  can take its time to allow GM crops to be grown within its boundaries, but allow  the import of such crops and food products as long as they are labeled. Several  key trading partners of the US  have recently instituted mandatory labeling policies and as a result, will only  allow imports of GM products from the US if they are labeled. This is  most likely to create political tension with the US and other similar countries that  are exporting GM food products. Finally, the GM labeling issue will also be  looked at as a possible trade barrier.
It is not simply the cost of ink and stamps. Auditing must be done from the  very beginning of the food production stream, starting with the seed companies,  and following through to the farmers, the grain companies, the food processors,  the distributors, and marketers. The huge cost is associated not with putting a  label on but with keeping it off. The non-GM food producer must document every  step of the process, going back not to the farmer, but to the seed supplier.  Verification assays to test positive cost less than assays to test negative  because the positive needs only one positive score on one assay to complete the  verification but a non-GM label requires a series of negatives on every assay.
A study in Canada  showed that labeling costs could be equivalent to at least 9-10% of the retail  price of processed food products, and 35-41% of the producer prices. The study  also concluded that biotech and non-biotech foods (labeled as biotech free)  would be equally affected by this price increase, which amounts to $700-950  million per year in Canada.
Therefore, any form of labeling, whether for GM or non-GM products, will  entail additional cost. This will initially be borne by the producers but would  probably be passed on to the consumers. Will consumers be willing to pay higher  prices?
The issue of labeling GM foods is a complex issue that has yet to be  resolved. What is clear, however, is that some kind of labeling policy will be  adopted by most countries. Right now, the decision to label GM products is not  so much related to the actual safety of the product, but rather to the fear  alluded to such products. The presence of a GM label should not imply that the  product is less safe or is significantly different since all GM foods have to  meet safety standards before being approved for sale.
The only way to develop and maintain a labeling system that is truthful, not  misleading, and verifiable is to ensure it is based on objective criteria, such  as the actual composition of the food, and not on the method of manufacture.
Caswell, J.A. 2000. Labeling policy for GMOs: To each  his own? Agbioforum 3 (1): 51-57. 
KPMG Consulting, 2000. Project Report. Economic Impact  Study: Potential Costs of Mandatory Labeling of Food Products Derived from  Biotechnology in Canada.
Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: International  Approaches. AgCare Backgrounder. June 1, 2001. 
http://www.agcare.org.consum2.html#international
McHughen, A. 2001. Predicted failure of mandatory  labels for genetically modified foods. SCOPE GM Food Controversy Forum. 20  January.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report. August  29, 2001.
Cartagena Protocol on   Biosafety











Document Number: 2579 
Cartagena  Protocol on Biosafety
Pocket K No. 8: Cartagena  Protocol on Biosafety
In 1994, the first genetically modified food crop, Calgenes Flavr-SavrTM  tomato, was produced and consumed in an industrialized country. Since that  time, genetically modified (GM) crops have been rapidly adopted worldwide  reflecting the satisfaction of growers. While advances in biotechnology have  great potential to improve human well-being, the technology must be developed  with adequate safety measures. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally  binding global protocol that seeks to contribute to ensuring the safe transfer,  handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) created through modern  biotechnology.
What is the Protocols objective?
Article 1 of the Protocol states that it aims to contribute to ensuring an  adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling and  use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may  have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological  diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, and specifically  focusing on transboundary movements. In short, it seeks to protect  biodiversity from the potential risks of living modified organisms (LMOs)  resulting from modern biotechnology. 
The Protocol covers the transboundary movement, transit, handling and use  of all living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the  conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking into account  risks to human health.
Products derived from LMOs (e.g. paper from GM  trees)
LMOs, which are pharmaceuticals for humans that  are addressed by other relevant international agreements or organizations
What is the Biosafety Protocol?
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally binding protocol to the  Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It was named in honor of Cartagena, Colombia,  where negotiations were expected to conclude in February 1999. One year later,  on January 29, 2000, the Protocol was finalized and adopted in Montreal, Canada  by unanimous consent with 135 countries present. 
What does the Biosafety Protocol do?
It assists developing countries in building their capacity for managing  modern biotechnology
It creates an advanced informed agreement (AIA)  procedure that requires exporters to seek consent from importing countries  before the first shipment of LMOs meant to be introduced into the environment  (e.g. seeds for planting, fish for release, and microorganisms for  bioremediation)
It establishes an internet-based Biosafety  Clearing-House to help countries exchange scientific, technical, environmental  and legal information about LMOs.
It requires bulk shipments of LMO commodities,  such as corn or soybeans that are intended to be used as food, feed or for  processing, to be accompanied by documentation stating that such shipments may  contain LMOs and are not intended for intentional introduction into the  environment.
The Protocol includes a clause that makes clear  the Parties intent that the agreement does not alter the rights and  obligations of governments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) or other  existing international agreements.
What does the Biosafety Protocol Not do?
The Protocol does not address food safety  issues. This is addressed by experts in other international fora.
The Protocol does not require segregation of  bulk shipments of commodities that may contain living modified organisms.
It does not require consumer product labeling.
It does not subject shipments of bulk  commodities to the Protocols AIA procedure.
The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after it is ratified by the 50th  state or regional economic integration unit.
As of June 2002, 103 countries have signed but only 21 have ratified. When a  country signs the Protocol, it signifies its general support for the principles  in the Protocol and commits to take the steps necessary to consider and pursue  its ratification. The Protocol only becomes legally binding when a country  deposits an instrument of ratification with the United Nations.
Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA)
The Protocols main mechanism is its Advanced Informed Agreement (AIA)  requirement. It is a procedure that must be followed before the first  intentional transboundary movement of an LMO into the environment of the  importing country. The exporter must provide a notification to the importing  country containing detailed information about the LMO, previous risk  assessments of the LMO and its regulatory status in the exporting country. The  importing country must acknowledge receiving the information within 90 days and  whether the notifier should proceed under a domestic regulatory system or under  the Protocol procedure. In either case, the importing country must decide  whether to allow the import, with or without conditions or deny it within 270  days.
What is not subject to the AIA requirement?
Consecutive shipments. The Protocols AIA only covers  first time shipments.
LMOs not intended for release into the  environment such as commodities, LMOs in transit, and LMOs destined for  contained use.
The BCH is a website administered by the Secretariat to the Convention (
facilitate  the exchange of scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on,  and experience with LMOs; and
assist  Parties to implement the Protocol.
Examples of information contained in the BCH include: any existing laws,  regulations, or guidelines for implementation of the Protocol, summaries of  risk assessments or environmental reviews of LMOs, and final decisions  regarding the importation or release of LMOs.
The Protocol requires that decisions on proposed imports be based on risk  assessments.
Risk assessments must be undertaken in a scientific manner based on  recognized risk assessment techniques, taking into account advice and  guidelines developed by relevant international organizations.
Lack of scientific knowledge or scientific consensus must not necessarily be  interpreted as indicating a particular level or risk, an absence or risk, or an  acceptable risk.
Risks associated with LMOs or products thereof should be considered in the  context of risks posed by the non-modified recipients or parental organisms in  the likely potential receiving environment.
Risk assessment should be carried out on a case by case basis.
The Protocol promotes international cooperation to help developing countries  acquire resources and capacity to use biotechnology safely and regulate it  efficiently. It does this by encouraging member governments to assist with  scientific and technical training to promote the transfer of technology,  knowledge and financial resources. Governments are also expected to facilitate  greater involvement of the private sector.
Member governments must commit themselves to promoting public awareness,  insuring public access to information, and public consultation. The Protocol recognizes  that national measures are important to make its procedures effective. Nations  must also take measures to prevent illegal shipments or accidental releases of  LMOs.
Any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material  obtained through the use of modern biotechnology
In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including  recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid  into cells or organelles or
Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family,  that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and  that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. (
http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/protocol.asp
http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety
Intellectual Property   Rights and Agricultural Biotechnology











Document Number: 3835 
Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Biotechnology 
Pocket K No. 9: Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Biotechnology
One of the main features of modern 
 (agri-biotech)  is its increasing proprietary nature. Unlike the agricultural sciences of the  past, which came out of publicly funded labs, new biotechnologies are protected  by patents and other intellectual property rights (IPRs). Will these IPRs,  which are predominantly owned by the private sector, lead to the monopolization  of seeds, research tools, and even knowledge? Will they promote research and  development by providing incentive for investment and encourage access to  inventions produced elsewhere?
The ownership of IPRs in agri-biotech is now an issue in the development of  products and the transfer of the technology to developing countries. Scientists  now need to consider IPRs as an important factor in their research, especially  where the aim is product development. Since the early 1990s, most major  research organizations, whether public or private, are actively considering  and/or implementing IPR policies.
Intellectual property represents products of the mind or intellect. They are  ideas that, when converted to tangible forms, can be protected. Examples of  intellectual properties include inventions, computer software, publications,  videotapes, music, and plant varieties.
Developing such products usually requires a great deal of time and financial  investment. Therefore, the inventor usually seeks a return on his effort by  acquiring IPRs. They allow the inventor to restrict the use of the intellectual  property, i.e., no one is allowed to use, manufacture, grow, sell or offer to  sell the invention without permission. Several forms of this protection exist  and they include copyright, trade secret, trademarks, plant breeder's rights,  and patents.
IPRs are intended to promote research and development by providing  incentives for investment in the creative process and encourage access to  inventions produced elsewhere.
Patents, plant breeder's rights and trademarks are awarded by national  governments, and the protection is valid only in countries in which they are  issued. Thus, to obtain protection in several countries, rights must be applied  for and awarded in each. On the other hand, copyright and trade secrets are not  country specific.
At present, many key technologies used in the development of agri-biotech  products appear to be unprotected in developing countries. For example, patents  for the most widely used promoter, the CaMV 35S promoter, have been granted  only in the United States  and Europe (and the only pending application is in Japan) (Binenbaum et al., 2000).  Thus, there are no IP restrictions in developing countries on the use of this  tool in research and development at present.
Furthermore, anyone is free to use technologies in crops that are developed,  produced, and consumed in countries where the technology is not subject to  local IP protection. IP problems, however, may arise when these crops are  subsequently exported to countries in which the technologies are protected by  IPRs. The development time should also be taken into consideration since  patents might be issued in the country by the time the product is developed. It  is therefore necessary for scientists in developing countries to be aware of  the IP issues and develop strategic plans in handling these IP concerns.
Promoting transfer of agri-biotech to developing countries
Crops grown for subsistence use in developing countries and the technologies  that are used to develop such crops are clearly of little commercial interest  to the private sector. Thus, donating proprietary technologies to develop such  crops is a realistic possibility, and in fact is already happening. However,  developing country scientists must remember that technology transfer involves a  lot more than simply signing a license or a material transfer agreement for a  product. Both technology donor and recipient must be aware of the IPR issues  involved in the technology and there will often be a need for partnerships in  which there is mutual trust among all parties (Kratigger, 2002).
Developing countries frequently lack the required IP management capacity and  resources to perform product clearance analyses and evaluations that facilitate  the legitimate import, use and/or export of technologically advanced products  (Kowalski, et al., 2002). Thus, to help transfer of appropriate agri-biotech to  developing countries, capacity building in IPR management is of vital  importance from both the donor and the recipient side. This can involve the  following:
Educate research staff and research  administrators on the basic principles of IPR management.
Use different patent databases as well as  scientific databases as information sources.
Remain aware of the complexity of germplasm  issues.
Stress the importance of good laboratory  records.
Document what comes in and goes out of the lab.
Establish clear lines of responsibility for  negotiating, reviewing and signing Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) and  licenses.
Manage and organize licenses and MTAs and the  various documents and correspondence associated with them.
How do you protect your rights?
The main ways to protect your intellectual property rights include  copyrights, trade secret, trademarks, plant breeders' rights, and patents  (Binenbaum et al., 2000). Of the five, the last two are the most relevant forms  of IP protection in plant breeding.
Plant breeder's rights (PBRs) are used to protect new varieties of plants by  giving exclusive commercial rights for about 20 -25 years to market a new  variety or its reproductive material. The variety must be novel, distinct,  uniform, and stable. This protection prevents anyone from growing or selling  the variety without the owner's permission. Exceptions may be made, however,  for both research and use of seed saved by a farmer for replanting.
A patent is an exclusive right given to an inventor to exclude all others  from making, using, selling or offering to sell the invention in the country  that granted the patent right, and importing it into that country. In  
, patents may cover, for example, plant  transformation methods, vectors, genes, etc. and in countries that allow  patenting of higher life forms, transgenic plants or animals.
Patents are the most critical form of protection for agricultural  biotechnology and considered to be the most powerful in the IP system. Patents  are temporary, generally about 20 years, and are country specific (Binenbaum et  al., 2000).
Publicly funded research institutions should build up their capacity to  manage intellectual properties that they procure and those that they generate.  Knowledge of IPRs will help developing country scientists determine if information  about a particular technology is already part of the public domain and  therefore freely available. Moreover, IPs generated by the public sector can be  considered assets that can be exchanged for private sector-owned IPs or used as  bargaining chips in technology transfer negotiations. Partnership between the  private and public sectors in technology development through sharing of knowhow  and IP can hasten technology transfer and acquisition on both sides.
ADB 2001. Agricultural biotechnology, poverty  reduction, and food security. A working paper. 
Binenbaum, E., Nottenburg, C., Pardey, P.G., Wright,  B.D., and Zambrano, P. 2000. South-North Trade, Intellectual Property  Jurisdictions, and Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Research on Staple Crops.  International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.
Cohen, JI and Paarlberg, R. 2002. Explaining restricted  approval and availability of GM crops in developing countries. Agbiotechnet  2002. Vol 4 October. 
Kowalski, S.P., Ebora, R.V., Kryder, R.D, and Potter,  R.H. 2002. "Transgenic crops, biotechnology and ownership rights: What  scientists need to know." The Plant Journal 31(4): 407-421
Krattiger, A.F. 2002. "Public-private partnerships  for efficient proprietary biotech management and transfer, and increased  private sector investments. A briefings paper with six proposals commissioned  by UNIDO." IP Strategy Today No. 4-2002
Pardey, PG, Wright, BD, and Nottenburg, C. 2001.  International Food Policy Research Institute 2000-2001 Annual Report. 
United States Patent and Trademark Office 
World Intellectual Property Organization 
Herbicide Tolerance   Technology Glyphosate and Glufosinate











Document Number: 62
Agricultural Biotechnology
(A Lot More than Just GM Crops)
All living organisms have the ability to improve themselves through natural 
means in order to adapt to changing environmental conditions. However, it 
takes hundreds of years before any detectable improvement is obtained. Man 
then learned how to domesticate and breed plants in order to develop crops to 
his own liking and needs using various means including biotechnology. 
Biotechnology is dened as a set of tools that uses living organisms (or parts 
of organisms) to make or modify a product, improve plants, trees or animals, 
or develop microorganisms for specic uses. Agricultural biotechnology is the 
term used in crop and livestock improvement through biotechnology tools. This 
monograph will focus only on agricultural crop biotechnology. Biotechnology 
encompasses a number of tools and elements of conventional breeding 
techniques, bioinformatics, microbiology, molecular genetics, biochemistry, 
plant physiology, and molecular biology. 
The biotechnology tools that are important for agricultural biotechnology 
include: 
- Conventional plant breeding 
- Tissue culture and micropropagation 
- Molecular breeding or marker assisted selection
- Genetic engineering and GM crops
- Molecular Diagnostic Tools 
1











Document Number: 5222
Conventional Plant Breeding
Since the beginning of agriculture eight to ten thousand years ago, 
farmers have been altering the genetic makeup of the crops they grow. 
Early farmers selected the best looking plants and seeds and saved 
them to plant for the next year. The selection for features such as 
faster growth, higher yields, pest and disease resistance, larger seeds, 
or sweeter fruits has dramatically changed domesticated plant species 
compared to their wild relatives. Plant breeding came into being when 
man learned that crop plants could be articially mated or cross-
pollinated to be able to improve the characters of the plant. Desirable 
characteristics from different parent plants could be combined in the 
offspring. When the science of plant breeding was further developed 
in the 20th century, plant breeders understood better how to select 
superior plants and breed them to create new and improved varieties 
of different crops. This has dramatically increased the productivity and 
quality of the plants we grow for food, feed and ber.


Conventional plant breeding (Figure 1) has been the method used to develop 
new varieties of crops for hundreds of years. However, conventional plant 
breeding can no longer sustain the global demand with the increasing 
population, decline in agricultural resources such as land and water, and the 
apparent plateauing of the yield curve of the staple crops. Thus, new crop 
improvement technologies should be developed and utilized.
Figure 1. Conventional breeding entails sexual hybridization followed by 
careful selection
    Source: Alfonso, A. 2007
Mutation breeding
The art of recognizing desirable traits and incorporating them into future 
generations is very important in plant breeding. Breeders inspect their elds 
and travel long distances in search of individual plants that exhibit desirable 
traits. A few of these traits occasionally arise spontaneously through a process 
called mutation, but the natural rate of mutation is very slow and unreliable to 
produce plants that breeders would like to see.
In the late 1920s, researchers discovered that they could greatly increase the 
number of these variations or mutations by exposing plants to X-rays and 
mutation-inducing chemicals. Mutation breeding accelerated after World 
War II, when the techniques of the nuclear age became widely available. Plants 
were exposed to gamma rays, protons, neutrons, alpha particles, and beta 
particles to see if these would induce useful mutations. Chemicals such as 
sodium azide and ethyl methanesulphonate, were also used to cause mutations. 
Mutation breeding efforts continue around the world today. Of the 2,252 
ofcially released mutation-derived varieties, 1,019 or almost half have been 
released during the last 15 years. Some varieties of wheat, barley, rice, potatoes, 
soybeans, onions and others were produced via mutation breeding with 
agronomically-desirable characteristics.
Pure line and hybrid seed technology
The end result of plant breeding is either an open-pollinated (OP for corn) or 
inbred (for rice) varieties or an F1 (rst lial generation) hybrid variety. OP and 
inbred varieties, when maintained and properly selected and produced, retain 
the same characteristics when multiplied.  
Hybrid seeds are an improvement over OP and inbred seeds in terms of yield, 
resistance to pests and diseases, and time to maturity.
Hybrid seeds are developed by the hybridization or crossing of diversely-
related parent lines. Pure lines are offsprings of several cycles of repeated self-
pollination that breed true or produce sexual offspring that closely resemble 
their parents. 
Pure line development involves rstly, the selection of lines in the existing 
germplasm which express the desired characteristics such as resistance to pest 
and diseases, early maturity, yield, and others.  These traits may not be present 
in only one line, thus selected lines are bred together by hand. In self-pollinated 
plants, owers are emasculated by removing the anthers or the male part of 
the ower by hand, and are pollinated by pollen from another line. The female 
parent is usually the line that possesses the desired agronomic trait while the 
male parent is the donor of the new trait. F1 (rst lial generation) offsprings 
are planted and selfed, as well as the F2 generation.  Breeders then select 
in the F3 and F4 generation the lines which exhibit their desired agronomic 
characteristics and the added trait. Testing for resistances to pests and abiotic 
stresses are conducted also at this time. Lines with desired traits and are rated 
intermediate to resistant/tolerant to the pests and abiotic stresses are selected 
and selfed in two to three more generations. Lines which do not lose the new 
traits and are stable are termed pure lines and are stable.   
In hybrid seed technology, two pure lines with complementing traits and are 
derived from diversely related parents are bred together by hand. F1 hybrids 
are tested for hybrid vigor in all agronomic and yield parameters and compared 
to both parents. The resulting offsprings will usually perform more vigorously 
than either parents.
Since the technology has been developed, it has brought tremendous impact 
in major crops including rice, corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops including 
many vegetables. In the USA, the widespread use of corn hybrids, coupled with 
improved cultural practices by farmers, has more than tripled corn grain yields 
over the past 50 years from an average of 35 bushels per acre in the 1930s to 
115 bushels per acre in the 1990s. No other major crop anywhere in the world 
even comes close to equaling that sort of success story.

Hybrid rice technology helped China to increase its rice production from 140 
million tons in 1978 to 188 million tons in 1990. Research at the International 
Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and in other countries indicates that hybrid rice 
technology offers opportunities for increasing rice yields by 15-20% beyond 
those achievable with improved, semi-dwarf, inbred varieties. 
With the proven impact of hybrid seed technology, new tools for hybrid 
breeding were discovered and utilized for self-pollinating crops including 
cytoplasmic male sterility (cms). Cytoplasmic male sterility is a condition where 
the plant is unable to produce functional pollen and would rely on other 
pollen source to produce seeds. This greatly facilitates large scale hybrid seed 
production, by-passing hand pollination. 
Current hybrid seed technology uses three lines in order to produce the hybrid 
seed: a) the A line which contains a defective mitochondrial genome in the 
cytoplasm and a suppressed restorer gene, b) the B line which is genetically 
similar to the A line but contains a normal cytoplasm and a suppressed restorer 
gene, and c) the restorer line, a distinctly unrelated line which contains normal 
cytoplasm and an active restorer gene (dominant). 
The two line hybrid system, another hybrid seed technology relies on 
temperature and geographic location affecting the nuclear genome of the 
plant, manifested as male sterile. Hybrid seed technology assures hybrid vigor 
in the progenies but discovery and development of cms lines requires a lot of 
work and time. 
Figure 2. Pure line (inbred line) development
Hybridization
Parent A          XParent B
F1HYBRID
F2
Repeated self-
pollination and 
F3
selection
F4
Pure Stable 
F5Lines 
(Inbreds)
F6
                Source: Alfonso, A. 2007

Conventional plant breeding resulting in open pollinated varieties or hybrid 
varieties has had a tremendous impact on agricultural productivity over the last 
decades. While an extremely important tool, conventional plant breeding also 
has its limitations. First, breeding can only be done between two plants that 
can sexually mate with each other. This limits the new traits that can be added 
to those that already exist in that species. Second, when plants are crossed, 
many traits are transferred along with the trait of interest including traits with 
undesirable effects on yield potential. Agricultural biotechnology is an option 
for breeders to overcome these problems.
Sources:
Alfonso, A. 2007. Rice Biotechnology. Presentation during PhilRice R&D. March 13-15, 
2007.
Eckart N. A. 2006. Cytoplasmic male sterility and fertility restoration, The Plant Cell 18 
(515-517)
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2002. Crop Biotechnology: A working paper for 
administrators and policy makers in sub-Saharan Africa. 
History of Plant Breeding- http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/
TransgenicCrops/history.html
Hybrid varieties and saving seed (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/plantanswers/
vegetables/seed.html)
International Atomic Energy Agency http://www-infocris.iaea.org/MVD/ and click rst on 
introduction and then on FAO/IAEA Mutant Variety Database.
International Rice Research Institute. http://www.irri.org
Kunz, K. (ed). 2002. East-West Seeds 1982-2002. Vegetable Breeding for Market 
Development.   Bangkok, Thailand. October 2002.
Schnable P.S. and R. P. Wise. 1998. The molecular basis of cytoplasmic male sterility and 
fertility restoration. Trends in Plant Science. 3:175-180
Yuan L. P. 2002. The second generation of hybrid rice in China. Proceedings of the 20th 
Session of the International Rice Commission. Bangkok, Thailand, 23-26 July 20http://
www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4751e/y4751e0f.htm
77












Document Number: 7406



Tissue Culture and Micropropagation
Plants usually reproduce through sexual means  they have owers 
and seeds to create the next generation. Egg cells in the owers are 
fertilized by pollen from the stamens (male part) of the ower of the 
same plant (self-pollination) or another plant (cross). Each of these 
sexual cells contains genetic material in the form of DNA. During 
sexual reproduction, DNA from both parents is combined creating 
offsprings similar to the parents (in self-pollinated crops), or in new 
and unpredictable ways, creating unique organisms (in cross-pollinated 
crops). Some plants and trees on the other hand need several years 
before they ower and set seeds, making plant improvement difcult. 
Plant scientists have developed the science and art of tissue culture to 
assist breeders in this task.  
Tissue culture is the cultivation of plant cells, tissues, or organs on 
specially formulated nutrient media. Under the right conditions, an 
entire plant can be regenerated from a single cell. Plant tissue culture 
is a technique that has been around for more than 30 years. There 
are several types of tissue culture depending on the part of the plant 
(explant) used. 



Anther culture (Figure 3) is a tissue culture method used to develop improved 
varieties in a short time. Pollen within an anther contains half dose of the 
genome (haploid) which spontaneously double (diploid) during culture. In 
some species however, colchicine treatment is necessary to induce doubling. 
Doubling of the genome will allow the expression of recessive traits which were 
suppressed, masked or undetected in routine plant breeding. 
Anthers are placed in a special medium, and immature pollen within the anther 
divide and produce a mass of dividing cells termed as callus. Healthy calli (plural 
of callus) are picked and placed in another medium to produce shoots and 
roots (regeneration). Stable plantlets are allowed to grow and mature in the 
greenhouse. Plant breeders can then select the desired plants from among the 
regenerated plants.
 
Anther culture of F1 plants which are progenies in a specic breeding objective 
would allow many more different types of regenerants. This is because the 
genetic constitution of the pollen will be more varied than those from the 
inbreds, thus breeders will have a wider range of traits to choose from. This 
technology has been employed in the successful development of doubled 
haploid lines of rice, wheat, sorghum, barley, and other eld crops.
Figure 3. Anther Culture of Rice
            Source: Desamero, NV. 2007
Micropopagation is a tissue culture method developed for the production 
of disease-free, high quality planting material and for rapid production of 

many uniform plants. Actively-dividing young cells (meristem) are placed 
in a special medium and treated with plant hormones to produce many 
similar sister plantlets. Since the meristem divides faster than disease-causing 
virus, clean materials are propagated and hundreds of uniform plantlets are 
produced in a short time.   
Through micropropagation, it is now possible to provide clean and uniform 
planting materials in plantations  oil palm, plantain, pine, banana, abaca, 
date, rubber tree; eld crops  eggplant, jojoba, pineapple, tomato; root 
crops  cassava, yam, sweet potato; and many ornamental plants such as 
orchids and anthuriums. Micropropagated plants were found to establish 
more quickly, grow more vigorously and taller, have a shorter and more 
uniform production cycle, and produce higher yields than conventional 
propagules.  
Figure 4. Embryo Rescue
A. EmasculationB. PollinationC. Excision of the embryo
D. Embryo culture in 1/4-MS mediumE. GerminationF. Hardening
    Source: Alfonso, A. 2007
Embryo rescue involves the culture of immature embryos of plants in a 
special medium to prevent abortion of the young embryo and to support 
its germination (Figure 4). This is used routinely in breeding parental lines 
having different or incompatible genome such as in introducing important 
traits of wild relatives into cultivated crops. 

The development of a new rice plant type for West Africa (NERICA  New 
Rice for Africa) was a result of wide crosses between the Asian Oryza sativa 
and the African rice Oryza glaberrima. It employs embryo rescue in the initial 
breeding and in the successive back crossing work followed by anther culture 
to stabilize the breeding lines. The new plants had combined yield traits of 
the sativa parent with local adaptation traits from glaberrima.
Wild rices are a rich source of traits for resistance to pests and abiotic 
stresses. At the International Rice Research Institute, embryo rescue is utilized 
and facilitated the transfer of bacterial blight resistance genes from wild rice 
Oryza longistaminata to variety IR24 resulting to a bacterial blight resistant 
line (IRBB21). Oryza rupogon is a source of tungro resistance to a number of 
rice varieties.
Plant tissue culture belongs to the lower end of the agricultural 
biotechnology ladder. But the plants ability to regenerate a new plant is 
an important requisite in the development of improved crops through 
agricultural biotechnology.
Plant tissue culture is a straightforward technique and many developing 
countries have already mastered it. Its application only requires a sterile 
workplace, nursery, and green house, and trained manpower. Unfortunately, 
tissue culture is labor intensive, time consuming, and can be costly.   
Sources:
Alfonso, A. 2007. Rice Biotechnology. Presentation during PhilRice R&D. March 13-15, 
2007.
Desamero, NV. 2007. Genetic enhancement of in vitro culture-derived tungro resistant 
rice breeding lines. Paper presented during the 19th Federation of Crop Science 
Societies of the Philippines, Development Academy of the Philippines, Tagaytay City. 
June 13-15, 2007.
DeVries, J. and Toenniessen, G. 2001. Securing the harvest: Biotechnology, breeding and 
seed systems for African crops. The Rockefeller Foundation, New York. USA
FAO 2002 Crop Biotechnology: A working paper for administrators and policy makers 
in sub-Saharan Africa. Kitch, L., Koch, M., and Sithole-Nang, I. 
George, E. F., M. A. Hall, and Geert-Jan De Klerk (eds). 2007. Plant Progapagation by 
Tissue Culture 3rd Edition. Volume 1. Background. Springer. See book overview at:
 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=55X_Wjct7f0C&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq
=%22George%22+%22Plant+propagation+by+tissue+culture.%22+&ots=s2fHIiLldR
&sig=bK1ndo1lzUIj5eX9Axu24idjR_k#v=onepage&q=&f=false
West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) http://www.warda.cgiar.org









Document Number: 8857

Molecular Breeding and Marker-Assisted Selection
The process of developing new crop varieties requires many steps and 
can take almost 25 years. Now, however, applications of agricultural 
biotechnology have considerably shortened the time it takes to bring 
them to market. It currently takes 7-10 years for new crop varieties to be 
developed. One of the tools, which make it easier and faster for scientists 
to select plant traits is called marker-assisted selection (MAS).
The different traits and physical features of plants are encoded in 
the plants genetic material, the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The 
DNA occurs in pairs of chromosomes (strands of genetic material), 
one coming from each parent. The genes, which control the plants 
characteristics, are specic segments of each chromosome. All of the 
plants genes together make up its genome.
Some traits, like ower color, may be controlled by only one gene. 
Other more complex characteristics, however, like crop yield or starch 
content, maybe inuenced by many genes. Traditionally, plant breeders 
have selected plants based on their visible or measurable traits, called 
the phenotype. But, this process can be difcult, slow, inuenced by the 
environment, and costly  not only in the development itself, but also for 
the economy, as farmers suffer crop losses.



As a shortcut, plant breeders now use molecular marker-assisted selection. 
To help identify specic genes, scientists use what are called molecular 
markers which are short strings or sequence of nucleic acid which makes up 
a segment of DNA. The markers are located near the DNA sequence of the 
desired gene. Since the markers and the genes are close together on the 
same chromosome, they tend to stay together as each generation of plants 
is produced. This is called genetic linkage. This linkage helps scientists to 
predict whether a plant will have the desired gene. If researchers can nd the 
marker for the gene, it means the gene itself is present.
As scientists learn where each of the markers occurs on a chromosome, and 
how close it is to a specic gene, they can create a map of the markers and 
genes on specic chromosomes. This genetic linkage map shows the location 
of markers and genes, and their distance from other known genes. Scientists 
can produce detailed maps in only one generation of plant breeding. 
Previously, scientists produced very simple genetic maps using conventional 
techniques. It was observed long ago that as generations of plants were 
crossed, some traits consistently appeared together in the new generations 
(genetic linkage). However, since researchers could concentrate on only a 
few traits in each attempt at cross-breeding, it took many crosses to obtain 
even a very simple genetic map. Using very detailed genetic maps and 
better knowledge of the molecular structure of a plants DNA, researchers 
can analyze a tiny bit of tissue from a newly germinated seedling. They dont 
have to wait for the seedling to grow into a mature plant to test for the 
presence of the specic trait. Once the tissue is analyzed through molecular 
techniques, scientists know whether that seedling contains the appropriate 
gene. If it doesnt, they can quickly move on and concentrate analysis on 
another seedling, eventually working only with the plants which contain the 
specic trait.
Currently, molecular marker-assisted breeding, an agricultural biotechnology 
tool  is already a routine step in breeding of most crops where the gene and 
the markers for a specic trait are known. This technique is being used in the 
efcient introgression of important genes into rice such as bacterial blight 
resistance, increased beta carotene content, and submergence tolerance to 
name a few.
Molecular markers are also used to determine the genetic prole of a line 
or variety. Random primers are used to scan the genomic constitution 
of the plant through molecular methods. The information is fed to a 
computer program that will analyze the relatedness of one line to another. 
The information on genetic diversity of the lines is utilized in selecting 
for extremely unrelated parents useful for hybrid seed technology. The 
information will also provide details on the parentage of the line, the possible 
traits, and the unique identity of the plant useful for germplasm collection 
database.
 


Figure 5. Molecular marker-assisted breeding
Source: Alfonso, A. 2007
Increasing selection efciency by selecting for markers associated/
linked with the trait of interest
It should be noted, however, that molecular breeding through marker 
assisted selection is somewhat limited in scope compared to genetic 
engineering or modication because: 1) it only works for traits already 
present in a crop; 2) it cannot be used effectively to breed crops which 
have long generation time (e.g. citrus); and 3) it cannot be used effectively 
with crops which are clonally propagated because they are sterile or their 
offsprings does not resemble the parents. This includes many staples such as 
yams, bananas, plantain, sweet potato, and cassava.
Sources and Further Reading:
Alfonso, A. 2007. Rice Biotechnology. Presentation during PhilRice R&D. March 13-15, 
2007.
FAO 2002 Crop Biotechnology: A working paper for administrators and policy makers 
in sub-Saharan Africa. Kitch, L., Koch, M., and Sithole-Nang, I.
Odland, W., A. Baumgarten, and R. Phillips. 2006. Ancestral rice blocks dene multiple 
related regions in the maize genome. The Plant Genome 1: 541-548 (Supplement to 
Crop Sci. 46).
Phillips, R.L. 2006. Genetic tools from nature and the nature of genetic tools. In: CSSA 
Golden Anniversary Symposium. Ed. C. Stuber. Crop Sci. 46: 2245-2252.
Rines, H.W., S.J. Molnar, N.A. Tinker, and R.L. Phillips. 2006. Oat. In: Kole, C. (ed.). 
Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants: Cereals and Millets Vol. 1. 
Springer, Inc., NY, USA. pp. 211-242.
Phillips, R.L., W.E. Odland, and A.L. Kahler. 2006. Rice as a reference genome and more. 
In: 5th Intl. Rice Genetics Symp., Eds. D.S. Brar, D. Mackill, and B. Hardy. In press.

Genetic Engineering and GM Crops
Over the last 30 years, the eld of agricultural biotechnology has 
developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of DNA as the 
chemical double-helix code from which genes are made. Genetic 
engineering is one of the modern agricultural biotechnology tools 
that is based on recombinant DNA technology. The term genetic 
engineering, often interchanged with terms such as gene technology, 
genetic modication, or gene manipulation, is used to describe the 
process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered 
using recombinant DNA technology. This involves using laboratory 
tools and specic enzymes to cut out, insert, and alter pieces of DNA 
that contain one or more genes of interest. The ability to manipulate 
individual genes and to transfer genes between species that would 
not readily interbreed is what distinguishes genetic engineering from 
traditional plant breeding. 
With conventional plant breeding, there is little or no guarantee 
of obtaining any particular gene combination from the millions of 
crosses generated. Undesirable genes can be transferred along with 
desirable genes or while one desirable gene is gained, another is lost 
because the genes of both parents are mixed together and re-assorted 
more or less randomly in the offspring. These problems limit the 
improvements that plant breeders can achieve, eating time and funds 
along the way (Figure 6). 



Figure 6. Conventional vs. genetic engineering
Conventional Breedingvs. Genetic Engineering
    Source: Biotech Mentors Kit, 2003
In contrast, genetic engineering allows the direct transfer of one or just a few 
genes, between either closely or distantly related organisms. Not all genetic 
engineering techniques involve inserting DNA from other organisms. Plants 
may also be modied by removing or switching off particular genes and 
genetic controls (promoters).
Application of genetic engineering in crop production
Genetic engineering techniques are only used when all other techniques have 
been exhausted and when: 1) the trait to be introduced is not present in the 
germplasm of the crop; 2) the trait is very difcult to improve by conventional 
breeding methods; and 3) it will take a very long time to introduce and/or 
improve such trait in the crop by conventional breeding methods (see Figure 7).
Modern plant breeding is a multi-disciplinary and coordinated process where 
a large number of tools and elements of conventional breeding techniques, 
bioinformatics, biochemistry, molecular genetics, molecular biology and genetic 
engineering are utilized and integrated.
Development of transgenic crops
Although there are many diverse and complex techniques involved in genetic 
engineering, its basic principles are reasonably simple.  It is however, very 
important to know the biochemical and physiological mechanisms of action, 
regulation of gene expression and safety of gene and gene product to be 
utilized.
The process of genetic engineering requires the successful completion of a 
series of six steps.

Figure 7. Integration of conventional and modern biotechnology 
methods in crop breeding
Is the trait of interest present in close relatives?
YESno
Conventional Insertion of genesGenetic engineering
breeding and from other for trait identification
mutagenesisorganisms
Mapping of genesDevelopment of markers 
involvedfor the gene(s)
Identification of DNA Screening of cultivars
markersGMO breedingand wild relatives
DNA marker
assisted breeding
Source: DANIDA, 2002
Step 1.  Nucleic acid (DNA/RNA) Extraction
Nucleic acid extraction, either DNA or ribonucleic acid (RNA) is the rst step 
in the genetic engineering process.  It is therefore important that reliable 
methods are available for isolating these components from the cell.  In any 
isolation procedure, the initial step is the disruption of the cell of the desired 
organism, which may be viral, bacterial or plant cells, in order to extract the 
nucleic acid.  After a series of chemical and biochemical steps, the extracted 
nucleic acid can be precipitated to form thread-like pellets of DNA/RNA.
Step 2.  Gene cloning
The second step is gene cloning.  There are basically four stages in any 
cloning experiment: generation of DNA fragments, joining to a vector, 
propagation in a host cell, and selection of the required sequence. In DNA 
extraction, all DNA from the desired organism is extracted. This genomic 
DNA is treated with specic enzymes called restriction enzymes cutting it into 
smaller fragments with dened ends to allow it to be cloned into bacterial 
vectors. Copies of the vector will then harbor many different inserts of the 
genome. These vectors are transformed into bacterial cells and thousands of 
copies are produced (Figure 8).  

Figure 8. Gene cloning
DNA cloning of specific fragments 
into a self-replicating genetic 
element so that the DNA molecule 
can be reproduced
gene isolation
plasmid DNA
transformation
bacteria
        Source: Tabien, R. 2000
      
Using information relating to specic molecular marker sequences and the 
desired phenotype, the vector harboring the desired sequence is detected, 
selected, isolated and clones are produced. Restriction enzymes are again 
utilized to determine if the desired gene insert was cloned completely and 
correctly. 
Step 3.  Gene Design and Packaging
Once the gene of interest has been cloned, it has to be linked to pieces of DNA 
that will control its expression inside the plant cell (Figure 9).  These pieces of 
DNA will switch on (promoter) and off (terminator) the expression of the gene 
inserted.  Gene designing/packaging can be done by replacing an existing 
promoter with a new one, incorporating a selectable marker gene and reporter 
gene, adding gene enhancer fragments, introns, and organelle-localizing 
sequences, among others.
Promoters 
Promoters allow differential expression of genes.  For instance some promoters 
cause the inserted genes to be expressed all the time, in all parts of the plant 
(constitutive) whereas others allow expression only at certain stages of plant 
growth, in certain plant tissues, or in response to external environmental 
signals.  The amount of the gene product to be expressed is also controlled 
by the promoter.  Some promoters are weak, whereas others are strong.  
Controlling the gene expression is an advantage in developing GM plants.

Figure 9.  Parts of a gene
    Source: Alfonso, A. 2007
    
Selectable Marker Genes
Selectable marker genes are usually linked to the gene of interest to facilitate 
its detection once inside the plant tissues.  This enables the selection of cells 
that have been successfully incorporated with the gene of interest, thus saving 
considerable expense and effort.  Genetic engineers used antibiotic resistance 
and herbicide resistance marker genes to detect cells that contain the inserted 
gene. Cells that survive the addition of marker agents to the growth medium 
indicate the presence of the inserted gene.  Although increase in antibiotic 
resistance in humans and animals is unlikely to occur using antibiotic resistance 
marker, genes coding for resistance to non-medically important antibiotics are 
preferred.  In addition, alternative types of marker genes have been developed 
which are related to plant metabolism such as phosphomannose isomerase, 
xylose isomerase and others.
Reporter Genes
Reporter genes are cloned into the vector in close proximity to the gene 
of interest, to facilitate the identication of transformed cells as well as to 
determine the correct expression of the inserted gene. Reporter genes that 
have been used include: the beta glucuronidase gene (gusA gene) which 
acts on a particular substrate producing a blue product, hence making the 
transformed cells blue; the green uorescent prgfp) which allows otein (
transformed cells to glow under a green light; and luciferase gene that allows 
cells to glow in the dark, among others.
Enhancers
Several genetic sequences can also be cloned in front of the promoter 
sequences (enhancers) or within the genetic sequence itself (introns, or non-

coding sequences) to promote gene expression. An example is the cloning of 
the cauliower mosaic virus promoter enhancers in front of the plant promoter.
Figure 10. Components of a gene construct used in developing Golden 
Rice
Source: Ye et al, 2000
Once the gene of interest is packaged together (with the promoter, reporter 
and the marker gene (Figure 10)), it is then introduced into a bacterium to 
allow for the creation of many copies of the gene package. The DNA isolated 
from the bacterial clones can then be used for plant cell transformation 
using  particle bombardment. If however the use of bacteria Agrobacterium 
tumefaciens is preferred in the plant transformation, the whole gene package 
should be cloned in between two border sequences (left and right border) of a 
binary vector. This will allow processing of the Agrobacterium so that only the 
transfer DNA (T-DNA) will be incorporated into the plant genome. 
Step 4.  Transformation
The most common methods used to introduce the gene package into the 
plant cells in a process called transformation or gene insertion, include 
biolistic transformation using the gene gun and Agrobacterium-mediated 
transformation (Figure 11). 
Particle Bombardment
Particle bombardment is a mechanical method of introducing the desired gene. 
The desired genetic sequence is cloned into a plant DNA vector and introduced 
into the plant using the gene gun or particle gun. As in the common gun, 
the gene gun uses minute particles of tungsten or gold as the bullet. These 

particles are coated with the DNA solution and red to the plant cells 
through the force of the Helium gas inside a vacuum-lled chamber. The 
DNA and the tungsten/ gold particles get inside the cell, and within 12 hours, 
the inserted DNA gets inside the nucleus and integrated with the plant DNA. 
The tungsten/ gold particles are sequestered to the vacuole and eliminated 
later. 
Figure 11. Genetic transformation methods (Biolistics or Gene Gun 
and Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation 
methods)
        Source: Alfonso, A. 2007
Transformed cells are cultured in vitro and induced to form small plants 
(regeneration) that express the inserted gene. 


Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation 
The sharing of DNA among living forms is well documented as a natural 
phenomenon. For thousands of years, genes have moved from one organism to 
another.  For example, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a soil bacterium known as 
natures own genetic engineer, has the natural ability to genetically engineer 
plants. It causes crown gall disease in a wide range of broad-leaved plants, such 
as apple, pear, peach, cherry, almond, raspberry and roses. The disease gains its 
name from the large tumor-like swellings (galls) that typically occur at the crown 
of the plant, just above soil level. Basically, the bacterium transfers part of its 
DNA to the plant, and this DNA integrates into the plants genome, causing the 
production of tumors and associated changes in plant metabolism.
Molecular biologists have utilized this biological mechanism to improve crops. 
The genes that cause the galls are removed and replaced with genes coding 
for desirable traits. Plant cells infected with the bacterium will not form galls 
but produce cells containing the desired gene, which when cultured in a special 
medium will regenerate into plants and manifest the desired trait.  
The main goal in any transformation procedure is to introduce the gene of 
interest into the nucleus of the cell without affecting the cells ability to survive. If 
the introduced gene is functional, and the gene product is synthesized, then the 
plant is said to be transformed. Once the inserted gene is stable, inherited and 
expressed in subsequent generations, then the plant is considered a transgenic. 
Step 5.  Detection of Inserted Genes 
Molecular detection methods have been developed to determine the integrity of 
the transgene (introduced gene) into the plant cell.
Polymerase chain reaction or 
PCR is a quick test to determine 
if the regenerated transgenic 
cells or plants contain the 
gene. It uses a set of primers 
(DNA fragments)  forward 
and backward primers, whose 
nucleotide sequences are based 
on the sequence of the inserted 
gene. The primers and single 
nucleotides are incubated with 
the single stranded genomic 
DNA and several cycles of DNA 
amplication is conducted in a PCR machine. Analysis of the PCR products in 
agarose gel will show if the plants are really transformed when DNA fragments 
equivalent in size with the inserted gene is present and amplied. 
Southern blot analysis determines the integrity of the inserted gene: whether 
the gene is complete and not fragmented, at the correct orientation, and with 
one copy number. The DNA coding sequence is the probe binding to the single 
stranded genomic DNA of the transgenic plant which is implanted on a 
nitrocellulose paper. Autoradiography will reveal the transgenic status of the 
plant.  
Northern blot analysis determines whether the transcript or the messenger RNA 
(mRNA) of the introduced DNA is present and is correctly transcribed in the 
transgenic plant. The messenger RNA of the transgenic plants are isolated and 
processed to bind to the nitrocellulose membrane. Labeled DNA is used to bind 
to the mRNA and can be visualized through autoradiography.
Western blot analysis or protein immuno blotting is an analytical technique 
used to detect whether the transgenic plants produce the specic protein 
product of the introduced gene. Protein samples are extracted from the 
transgenic plants, processed into denatured proteins and transferred to a 
nitrocellulose membrane. The protein is then probed or detected using the 
antibodies specic to the target protein. 
Step 6.  Backcross Breeding (if needed)
Genetic transformation is usually conducted in elite or commercial varieties 
which already possess the desired agronomic traits but lacks the important trait 
of the transgene. Thus, once successfully conducted, the genetically modied 
plant will be easily recommended for commercialization if it shows stability 
in several generations and upon successfully passing and fullling varietal 
registration requirements. 
However, some plant transformations may have been performed in plant 
varieties which are amenable to genetic transformation but are not important 
in the target country, or in a variety adapted only in the country where the 
transformation was conducted. There may also be sterility problems in the 
transgenic plant.  In such cases, conventional plant breeding is performed 
where the transgenic plant becomes the pollen source in the breeding program 
and the elite lines or commercial varieties as the recurrent parent. Backcross 
breeding enables the combination of the desired traits of the recurrent parent 
and the transgenic line in the offsprings.
The length of time in developing transgenic plant depends upon the gene, 
crop species, available resources and regulatory approval.  It varies from 6 to 15 
years before a new transgenic plant or hybrid is ready for commercial release. 
Commercially available crops improved through genetic engineering
There has been a consistent increase in the global area planted to transgenic 
or GM crops or biotech crops from 1996 up to the present. ISAAAs Annual 
Global Status Report downloadable at the ISAAA website: http://www.isaaa.org 
presents an up to date record of the number of countries planting GM crops, 
the hectarage planted, the benets derived from the biotech crops, farmer 
accounts of planting biotech crops as well as future prospects and directions of 
the technology. Transgenic crops which are planted commercially are herbicide 
tolerant soybean, maize, canola, cotton; insect resistant maize and cotton; and 
virus resistant squash and papaya.  

With genetic engineering, more than one trait can be incorporated into a plant 
and are called stacked traits. These are currently corn and cotton crops with both 
herbicide and insect tolerance traits. Transgenic crops with combined traits are 
also available commercially such as the herbicide tolerant and insect resistant 
maize and cotton.
New and future initiatives in crop genetic engineering
To date, commercial GM crops have delivered benets in crop production, but 
there are also a number of products in the pipeline which will make more direct 
contributions to food quality, clean environment, pharmaceutical production, 
and livestock feeds. Examples of these products include: rice with higher levels of 
iron and beta carotene (an important micronutrient which is converted to vitamin 
A in the body); long life banana that ripens faster on the tree and can therefore 
be harvested earlier; maize with improved feed value; delayed ripening papaya; 
papaya ringspot virus resistant papaya; tomatoes with high levels of avonols, 
which are powerful antioxidants; drought tolerant maize and wheat; maize with 
improved phosphorus availability; arsenic-tolerant plants; insect resistant eggplant 
and rice; edible vaccines from fruit and vegetables; low lignin trees for paper 
making among others.
Sources:
Alfonso, A. 2007. Rice Biotechnology. Presentation during the PhilRice R&D. March 13-15, 
2007.
Biotech Mentors Kit. 2003. Produced by ISAAA, PCARRD and SEARCA-BIC.
DANIDA.2002. Assessment of potentials and constraints for development and use of plant 
biotechnology in relation to plant breeding and crop production in developing countries. 
Working paper. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark
Gelvin S. B. 2003. Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation: the Biology behind the 
Gene-Jockeying Tool. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. Vol. 67. No. 1 pp. 
16-37. http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/67/1/16
Goto, F., Yoshihara, R., Shigemoto, N., Toki., S., and Takaiwa, F. 1999. Iron fortication of rice 
seed by the soybean ferritin gene. Nature Biotechnology 17, 282-286.
Lemaux, Peggy G. 2008. Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientists Analysis of 
the Issues (Part 1). Annual Review of Plant Biology. Vol. 59: 771-812 http://arjournals.
annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.03280
6.103840?cookieSet=1
Lemaux, Peggy G. 2008. Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientists Analysis of 
the Issues (Part 11). Annual Review of Plant Biology. Vol. 60: 511-559. http://arjournals.
annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.043008.092013
Lopez-Bucio, J., Martinez de la Vega, O., Guevara-Garcia, A., And Herera-Estrella, L. 2000 
Enhanced phosphorous uptake in transgenic tobacco plants that overproduce citrate. 
Nature Biotechnology 18, 450-453.
Overview of Crops Genetic Engineering.  http://croptechnology.unl.edu/download.cgi
Robinson, C. 2001. Genetic modication technology and food: Consumer health and safety. 
ILSI Europe Concise Monograph Series. 
Tabien, R. 2000. Biotech for Agriculture. Presentation during the PhilRice Farmers Forum. 
July 17, 2000.
Ye, X, Al-babili S, Klti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I. 2000. Engineering the 
provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. 
Science. 287: 303-305.










Document Number: 3826

Answers to 
Frequently Asked 
Questions

Food Safety
1. Is the safety of genetically-engineered food assessed?
 Before GE foods and products made 
from GE crops are approved for use, they 
have undergone safety testing by the 
companies or institutions that developed 
them. Data were reviewed by government 
regulatory agencies and scientic 
reviewers based on internationally-
accepted protocols. Frequently, GE foods are also tested by outside 
groups and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. The process 
is comparable to safety assessments for pharmaceutical drugs and 
biomarkers; pharmaceutical companies provide safety data that are 
subsequently reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
scientists. To date all GE products in the marketplace have undergone 
full reviews by regulatory agencies regarding safety and content relative 
to unmodied forms. Submitting the safety data is in the developers 
best interests given the legal liabilities incurred should a problem with 
the food arise following market introductions. 
2. What happens to DNA when it is eaten?
 DNA is chemically identical regardless of its source and is mostly 
degraded during industrial processing and in the digestive tract. Small 
fragments can be detected in certain body tissues, such as leukocytes, 
liver, and spleen. The daily human intake of DNA in food is estimated 
at 0.1-1g. Estimates of the total daily transgene DNA intake can be 
calculated assuming 50% of the diet is from GE foods and transgenes 
represent an estimated 0.0005% of total DNA in food, as 0.5-5ug/day. 
 In July 2007, the European Food Safety Authority released statements 
on the fate of genes and proteins in food and feed: After ingestion, a 
rapid degradation into short DNA or peptide fragments is observed 
in the gastrointestinal tract of animals and humans and To date, a 
large number of experimental studies with livestock have shown that 
recombinant DNA fragments or proteins derived from GM plants have 
not been detected in tissues, uids or edible products of farm animals 
3. Are there changes in the nutritional content of genetically-
engineered food?
 GE foods are tested in 
comparison with conventional 
counterparts in terms of the 
nutritional composition: levels 
of protein, carbohydrate, fat, 
vitamin, mineral, ber, moisture, 
and phytochemicals, and 
analyzed if the composition 
is substantially equivalent. GE 

crops and conventional crops should have been grown in comparable 
conditions to eliminate the effect of the environment in the nutritional 
composition. 
 There are also GE crops which are developed to change the nutritional 
proles of the foods such as those with increased B-carotene, avonoids, 
calcium, folate, and iron availability. According to US-FDA policy, 
GE foods with altered nutritional traits must be labeled to indicate 
nutritional differences; one example is VistiveTM, a low-linoleic oil 
from GE soybeans that can be used instead of trans fat-containing oils. 
Such crops should be tested for substantial equivalence to compounds 
unrelated to the introduced trait. 
4. Does the Bt protein 
affect humans?
 Bt proteins are naturally 
occurring insecticides 
produced by the soil 
bacterium, Bacillus 
thuringiensis, used to 
control crop pests such 
as larvae of butteries 
and moths, beetles, and 
mosquitoes since the 
1920s. The crystalline, 
inactive insecticidal Bt 
proteins, form bodies 
inside the bacterium and become active when they are eaten by the 
target insect larva and cleaved.  The active peptides bind to specialized 
receptors in the midgut of the insect, creating holes in the gut 
membrane that cause contents to leak and kill the larvae. The precision 
of different Bt proteins for their targets resides in the specicity of their 
tight binding to companion receptors in the insect gut. In recent years, a 
variety of safety studies were conducted specically on native Bt proteins 
to show that they do not have characteristics of food allergens or toxins. 
Data on CryIAb in maize and cotton and Cry1Ac in tomato, maize and 
cotton have been carefully reviewed by regulatory agencies in numerous 
countries, including the U.S., Canada, Japan, UK, EU, Russia, and South 
Africa. 
 Mycotoxin are toxic and carcinogenic chemicals produced by fungi that 
gain entry into the holes produced by the larva in corn. The reduction 
of mycotoxin incidence in Bt corn results in a positive impact in the 
improvement of corn yield, human and animal health. 
5.  Do genetically engineered foods cause food allergies?
 No food  is 100% safe, be it conventional, GE, or organic. Allergies are 
present in the big eight which is composed of milk, eggs, sh, shellsh, 






tree nuts, soybeans, wheat, and peanuts. Since food 
safety testing conducted on GE foods focuses on 
the introduced gene and its protein product, it 
seems unlikely that allergenicity issues related to 
a commercialized GE food that has undergone 
strict government health regulatory scrutiny will 
be greater than that of conventional foods, created 
by classical breeding and mutation that have not 
undergone such scrutiny.  
6.  Can the viral genetic sequences inserted in the 
genetically engineered crops create a human risk?
 One of the important concerns is the use of the virus-derived promoter 
which are Introduced sequences in the transgenic plants that regulates 
how much, where, and when the encoded protein is expressed. This 
includes the cauliower mosaic virus 35S which was used in some 
commercial GE crops, eg. Bt 11, Bt 176, Mon 810 maize, and Roundup 
Ready soybean. Speculations that the 35S promoter could affect the 
stomach and colonic lining and cause a growth factor effect with the 
unproven possibility of hastening cancer formation in those organs 
were forwarded earlier without any scientic experimentation. These 
speculations have been extensively rebutted by the scientic community 
because the 35S promoter can be found everywhere in nature. For 
instance, an estinated 14-25% of oilseed rape in the eld is infected 
with CaMV; similar numbers have been estimated for cauliower and 
cabbage. Because of its prevalence in foods, humans have consumed 
CaMV and its promoters at high levels for decades with no observable 
effects. The presence of the CaMV promoter in GE plants does not 
in principle present a different situation. Additionally, DNA in food is 
rapidly broken down during digestion, giving it little time to interact 
with the stomach and colonic linings.
7. Can the antibiotic resistance genes in genetically engineered foods 
increase antibiotic resistance in humans and animal intestinal ora?
 To develop antibiotic resistance in microorganisms present in the human 
and animal digestive tract, there should be a functional transfer of the 
antibiotic resistance gene, its controlling elements, and its integration 
in the bacterial chromosome. This is next to impossible, since during 
chewing, cells in food are broken down. In raw food, as the cells are 
destroyed, DNA is released and highly active enzymes in the saliva and 
in the plant start degrading the DNA. This process continues in the 
digestive tract where other enzymes further breaks down DNA and 
proteins. In humans, food remains in the stomach for approximately 2 
hours, where the remaining DNA is fragmented into small pieces. The 
antibiotic resistance gene from GE maize was shown not to transfer to 
gut bacteria in chickens fed with GE maize. 






 To refrain from using the 
controversial antibiotic 
resistance or herbicide tolerance 
genes as selectable markers, 
new selection strategies 
for identifying engineered 
plants have been developed. 
These include genes such as 
phosphomannose and xylose 
isomerase that facilitate 
selection by giving transgenic cells a metabolic advantage over non 
transgenic cells, as well as other means to excise the marker genes in the 
commercial product. 
8. Can genetic engineering be used to make pharmaceuticals? Could 
genetically engineered crops contaminate the food supply?
 Plant-derived pharmaceuticals and vaccines for common 
diseases such as hepatitis B, pneumonic and 
bubonic plague, as well as against allergy 
sufferers, asthma, seasonal allergies and atopic 
dermatitis have been developed since the early 
1990s. Plant vaccines have the advantage of 
being readily consumed with limited or no 
processing without the need for cold storage. 
However, these GE crops may enter the food 
supply if not properly handled and monitored. 
In the USA, where such pharmaceutical crops are 
cultivated, government regulations are in place. APHIS 
which regulates the movement and eld testing of GE plants requires 
special steps to prevent plants that produce drugs or industrial enzymes 
from contaminating food crops: 1. labeling, packaging, and segregating 
regulated plant materials; 2. reproductive isolation to prevent GE pollen 
from fertilizing conventional plants; 3. postharvest monitoring to remove 
volunteer plants; and 4. proper disposal of the transgenic materials. This 
regulation was further strengthened in 2005 to include the following: 1. 
exclude eld growth without a permit; 2. include crop inspections seven 
times a year, twice after harvest; 3. increase eld isolation distances; and 
4. use dedicated farm equipment. 
 The National Corn Growers Association proposed safeguards such as 
1. Using plants that are male-sterile or that produce non GE pollen, 2. 
dedicated production systems that isolate pharma crops, 3. third party 
verication and 4. grower training programs. In Sept. 2002, the FDA 
released a guidance document that recommends multiple strategies to 
prevent pharma crops from contaminating human or animal feed. This 
documents suggests that those who are growing drug-producing plants 
that cross pollinate, such as corn and canola, strengthen containment 
procedures by growing plants in geographical regions where little or 
none of those crops are grown for food.  






9. Why labeling of genetically engineered foods is not required by the 
FDA?
 Government policy on labeling has been 
developed differently in many countries. In 
the USA, the FDAs labeling policy for GE 
foods is the same as for conventional foods 
and it assures that consumers are given 
information about nutritional, health safety 
or food quality changes in the end product. 
FDA mandated labels are not used to provide 
information about the process by which the 
food is made. If a GE food is signicantly 
different from its conventional counterpart, 
the food must be labeled to indicate the 
difference. Instances where the nutritional 
prole changes are included, for example 
if the GE food is created using genetic 
information from a previously recognized 
allergenic source, such as peanut, soy, or wheat, or if the new proteins 
has characteristics of known allergens. For example, oils made from GE 
soybeans and canola varieties with changes in fatty acid composition 
must be labeled; foods containing those oils must be labeled and 
companies producing that oil must use a new name. For example, 
Monsanto is using the name Vistive TM, to market its low-linoleic acid 
product from GE soybean oils. If a food contains a new potentially 
allergy-causing introduced protein, the label must state that the product 
contains the allergen and name its source. 
10. What are organic foods?
 Organic farming is a method of agricultural production that does not 
allow the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers or growth enhancers. 
Food grown under organic certication differ from conventionally-
produced food by the manner in which they are grown, handled, and 
processed, but an organic label does not guarantee the nature of 
the product, the food, or ingredient, only its production method. The 
important factors for many people who consume organic foods relate 
to the perceptions that they are healthier, taste better, are better for the 
environment, have lower pesticide levels and fewer food additives, and 
are better for animal welfare. However, organic certication does not 
imply that foods produced using organic methods are more nutritious or 
safer than those produced without organic methods.
 Differences reported in nutrient composition between organically and 
conventionally produced foods are interesting but it is very difcult to 
control all variables that might affect nutritional quality and ensure that 
the observed variations are signicant and reproducible. In addition, 
there are many important nutrients for which no signicant differences 
have been found. Much more research is needed to determine whether 






the nutritional differences observed between organic and conventional 
food products are reproducible and have a signicant impact on human 
health.
 Strictly from a nutritional perspective not enough data exist at present 
to show nutritional benets from conventionally or organically produced 
foods that favor consuming either for health benets. However, if the 
goal is to promote healthy eating, it is more important for consumers 
to focus on eating a healthy, balanced diet, rich in fruits and vegetables, 
than focusing on foods that are produced by particular methods. 
Convincing epidemiological evidence shows that diets rich in fresh 
fruits and vegetables, regardless of the methods used to produce them, 
improve health and are associated with reduced frequency and severity 
of a number of health conditions. 
 
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Foods consumed today are derived from plants and animals whose 
genetic make up has been modied by sexual crosses and mutations. 
Recombinant DNA provides a new tool to make genetic modications, 
and this technology is termed genetic engineering or biotechnology.
2. Technically, researchers are now able to transfer genes using 
recombinant DNA methods, not only within a species, but also from one 
kingdom to another, which can lead to signicant changes in various 
attributes of agricultural crops.
3. The safety of genetically-engineered crops and foods, just as those 
created by classical breeding and mutation and grown conventionally 
or organically, needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis so 
that informed decisions can be made about their utility, safety and 
appropriateness.
4. Data and information from peer-reviewed science on the safety of these 
products should be a part of the information considered when growing 
and consuming foods from these crops.
5. Factors beyond the technical, science-based facts should also be 
considered during the decision-making process. 
6. Although scientic testing and governmental regulation can reduce 
the safety risks of conventionally and organically produced and 
genetically engineered crops and food, 100% safety is not 
achievable.
7. To date, no scientically valid demonstrations have 
shown that food safety issues of foods containing 
genetically engineered (GE) ingredients are 
greater than those from conventionally or 
organically produced foods.
8. In commercial elds, only a few crops have 
been modied using rDNA technologies 
(canola, corn, cotton, papaya, squash, and soy), 
but many others are being developed.














Document Number: 4430

Environmental Issues
1. Will insect resistance to Bt be developed with the widespread use of 
Bt crops?
  Resistance of insects 
against synthetic 
insecticides and Bt 
toxins in sprays occur 
and this will be true 
for GE crops. To slow 
this development in GE 
crops, several strategies 
have been developed.  
First generation GE 
crops produced only 
one Bt toxin in each 
plant. Planting refuges 
of non-Bt crops near Bt crops in the eld is the primary strategy of 
delaying insect resistance. This is based on the idea that insects feeding 
on plants in the refuge are not selected for resistance. Insect resistance 
to Bt toxins is recessive. The heterozygous offsprings produced when 
homozygous resistant insects mate with susceptible insects are killed by 
the Bt crops. This high-dose/refuge strategy creates plants that produce 
Bt toxin concentrations high enough to kill heterozygous insects, making 
resistance functionally recessive. Insect resistance to Bt toxins can thus be 
postponed substantially.
 Another approach is called the pyramid or stacking strategy that 
combines two or more toxins in a single plant, each with different modes 
of action. An example is Bollgard II cotton producing Cry1Ac and Cry2b, 
which targets the same pest in two different ways.    
 Other approaches to delaying insect development are:
1. Mixing seeds of Bt and non-Bt varieties are under small scale 
experiments
2. The use of inducible promoter to drive Bt gene expression only 
during insect attack.
3. Use of modied toxins to kill resistant insects, as exemplied by the 
use of modied Bt toxin that will not be affected by the mutations 
in the midgut cadherins. Cadherins promote toxin oligomerization 
of Cry1A protein which has alpha helix in the binding site. Modied 
Cry1A which does not contain the alpha helix are independent 
of the cadherins and can thus be effective with insects which has 
developed resistance due to mutated or silenced cadherins
 To date, the elapsed time before the rst cases of eld resistance of 
insects to Bt crops  were reported has been longer than what was 
predicted under worst-case scenarios, suggesting that management 





strategies may have delayed resistance development. Despite 
documented cases of resistance, Bt crops remain useful against most 
target pests in most regions. As insect resistance to Cry toxins currently 
deployed in Bt crops increases, other strategies to create GE crops 
resistant to insects are being developed.
2. Can genetically engineered crops cause adverse effects on non 
target organisms? Have there been adverse effects on non-target 
organisms caused by GE crops?
 Effects on GE crops on non target organisms have been studied with 
focus on:
a. Monarch butteries and black swallow tails. USA Environmental 
Protection Agency have concluded based on two studies that 
Bt corn was not a signicant factor in eld deaths of monarch 
larvae, particularly relative to factors such as the widespread use of 
pesticides and destruction of the butterys winter habits.
b. Non target soil microorganisms. Studies on four maize varieties 
with two different Bt proteins (Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb1) versus near 
isogenic non-Bt varieties reveal that although numbers and types of 
microbes and enzyme activities differ from season to season among 
varieties, no statistically signicant differences were seen in number 
of different microbes, enzyme activities, or pH. Similar results were 
found comparing Bt and non-Bt cotton, and no Cry2Ab protein was 
detected in the rhizosphere in the eld grown with Bt cotton. 
c. Non-target arthropods. Studies on foliage-dwelling arthropods on 
Bt maize expressing Cry3Bb1 compared with those of conventional 
insecticide treated maize show that there is no adverse impacts 
on abundance of any non target arthropods. Insecticide treated 
arthropods however reduced the number of non target insects: 
ladybird beetles, lacewings, and damsel bugs.
d. Microbes and non target water insects. Water sediments and 
surface water after labeling genomic DNA of GE Bt corn revealed 
that sediments had more DNA than surface water. In addition, the 
Cry1Ab protein was not detectable in both samples. 
3. Could the use of genetically engineered crops result in the 
population decline of other organisms?
 Population decline of other organisms has been an ongoing 
phenomenon since man learned how to domesticate corps. The 
introduction of modern agricultural technologies including new 
varieties; competition between local and introduced varieties led to a 
displacement of local varieties; and displacing local varieties eroded 
genetic variability of regional crop populations. Extensive plant breeding 
in the early 1960s to feed the tremendous increase in the population 
produced high-yielding varieties of major food crops, resulting in yield 
increases but also signicant displacement of traditional varieties and 
a concomitant loss in genetic diversity, particularly landraces of cereals 
and legumes. Recognition of this fact led to establishment of genebanks 
across the globe with focus on specic crops.






  One issue on diversity is the gene ow from GE crops to wild and 
weedy relatives which could render selective advantage of recipients 
in certain environments. Gene ow can also happen naturally in 
conventionally bred and commercialized crops. This is addressed by 
the adoption of measures needed in cultivating GE crops near centers 
of origin depending on the nature of the trait and the frequency of its 
introduction into an ecosystem. Currently, studies on impact assessment 
of transgenes moving into wild relatives and the potential to change 
ecosystem dynamics are requested in environmental impact statements 
before any GE plant is released. It provides insights into the possible 
outcomes on the environment. Certain impact assessments of some GE 
crops are also monitored even after deregulation. 
4. Can herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops lead to superweeds?
 Development of herbicide-tolerant 
weeds has occurred with both 
traditionally-bred and GE crops. 
This phenomenon reduces the 
effectiveness of certain weed control 
strategies and decreases weed 
management options. Strategies have 
been developed to minimize the 
development of herbicide tolerant 
weeds, such as:
a. Use of HT cultivars with resistance 
genes for herbicides with 
alternative modes of action that 
can be used in rotation.
b. Use of restriction technologies to 
prevent gene passage to the next 
generation through the pollen, i.e. 
transgenes can be targeted to the cytoplasmic organelles, not in the 
pollen.
c. Rotate the use of HT crops with different modes of action or with 
non HT crops.
 A few points to consider in using HT crops are: Weeds can also escape 
herbicide treatment on the basis of application rate, weed age and size, 
spray volume adjuvants used, water quality and interactions with other 
herbicides that affect efcacy. Late germination of weeds can also escape 
herbicide application, thus a second pass of sprays can be done.
5. What is the effect of using GE crops in pesticide use?
 Having crops tolerant to herbicides and pest attack increases pest 
management options and can also reduce the number and strength 
of pesticide applications. Growth of GE HT crops also allows topical 
application of herbicide to crops and weeds, which replaces spraying 
between crop rows and mechanical removal of weeds, both of which 
can damage crops and result in environmental damage.  Reducing 






mechanical tillage lowers fuel consumption and helps conserve soils 
prone to erosion and compaction. HT crops can also lead to more 
exible herbicide treatment regimes. 
 The National Center for 
Food and Agricultural 
Policy published surveys 
on U.S. pesticide usage 
on GE crops. In 2004, 
HT canola, cotton, 
maize and soybean 
as well as Bt cotton 
and maize showed 
reductions in herbicide 
active ingredient (AI) 
of 25 to 30%. In a 
2006 publication, the 
USDA National Statistics Service found that from 1996 to 2002, AI use 
rates for HT cotton and corn, and Bt corn declined as adoption of Bt 
and HT cotton, corn, and soybeans increased and concurrent shifts 
occurred towards less environmentally persistent herbicides such as 
pendimethalin, triuralin, and metolachlor.  
 The Environmental Impact Quotient (IEQ) assessment which takes 
into account the pesticide AI and the environmental impact (EI) of GE 
crops resulted in signicant reductions in the global EI of production 
agriculture; such that since 1996, the overall EI associated with pesticide 
use on HT soybean, corn, cotton, canola, and Bt cotton decreased by 
15.3%.
 Cultivation of GE HT crops has also had other positive effects on 
the environment, i.e. increases in low-or no-till practices and use 
in combination with integrated pest management schemes, which 
were made possible because early season pesticide sprays could be 
eliminated, allowing benecial insects to establish. Most reports indicate 
pesticide use and cost decrease following adoption of Bt varieties. In 
Argentina, numbers of herbicide applications increased with HT soybean 
but use shifted to more environmentally friendly herbicides. Reduction in 
pesticide use can also be achieved by using the best methods and tools 
available, including integrated pest management, biocontrol, organic 
production methods, and GE organisms to reduce EI while achieving 
adequate production levels.
6. Would Bt crops need additional insecticide applications?
 Bt or Cry toxins are toxic to susceptible larvae when cleaved to generate 
their active form, which then binds to specic receptors in the midgut 
and creates holes that cause lepidopteran larvae to die. The rst BT 
GE crops introduced into corn and cotton were targeted to control 
European corn borer, corn rootworm and cotton armyworm. Some pests 






belong to groups insensitive to Bt have to be sprayed to prevent crop 
damage. With the commercial introduction of corn and cotton varieties 
with two stacked Bt genes, i.e. Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab in cotton, bollworms 
and secondary armyworm pests were controlled.
 New developments to target different insect pests are: corn with six 
insect resistant genes against lepidopteran (Cry1F, Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2) 
and rootworm (Cry34Ab1 + Cry 35Ab1, modied by Cry3Bb1) pests; 
the use of a hybrid Cry protein with two binding domains to target 
lepidopteran and coleopteran pests of potato; use of plant defense 
proteins such as alpha amylase inhibitors from legumes; use of 
insecticidal compounds from nematodes, bacterial cholesterol oxidase, 
avidin, volatile communication compounds, and RNAi approaches 
targeted to specic insect proteins. Even with GE approaches, other 
methods of insect control will be needed, e.g., chemical pesticides, 
biocontrol, integrated pest management, or organic approaches, 
because insects are plentiful and ever changing. 
7. Would the introduction of virus-resistant genetically engineered 
plants lead to novel viruses?
 Development of GE crops 
with resistance to viral 
diseases has been conducted 
in squash and papaya 
using a viral coat protein 
gene. The USDA APHIS has 
already deregulated the GE 
squash allowing commercial 
production after the virus 
was shown not to infect 
wild squash varieties; the 
resistance gene gave no 
advantage to wild squash 
varieties, and the presence of the coat protein gene did not increase viral 
competitiveness. For GE papaya with the viral coat protein, concerns on 
viral recombination became a concern since from analyses of viruses, 
homologous and non homologous recombination could occur between 
viruses and between viral genomes and plant genes. Experimental results 
indicate however that most recombinant viruses are not fully virulent 
because the new gene combinations are not fully compatible, leaving 
new hybrids at a competitive disadvantage. To compete effectively, 
recombinant viruses must have functional recombinatorial ability, 
capacity to establish systemic infection, and ability to compete with 
their progenitors during replication. These requirements place powerful 
negative selection pressure on newly evolved viruses. Reduced viral 
replication capacity could also negatively affect recombination frequency 
in transgenic plants.






 Large-scale eld releases of plants engineered with viral genes are 
necessary to obtain realistic assessments of the types and recombination 
frequencies that might occur. Currently, no novel viruses have been 
reported resulting from GE plants in the eld, but likely they would be 
detected only if their appearance had adverse effects. At present, the 
only commercially propagated plants engineered with viral coat protein 
genes, GE squash, and papaya are grown on small acreages. 
 To minimize the possibility for gene exchange among the viruses, 
strategies such as RNAi-mediated viral resistance is employed. There is 
no protein introduced, and the RNAi construct is used to silence a gene 
from bean golden mosaic virus in Phaseolus vulgaris leading to virus-
resistant plants. 
8. Can genes from genetically engineered plants move to bacteria in 
the eld?
 Horizontal gene transfer is the process of transferring genes among non-
sexually related organisms such as from plants to bacteria. Sequence 
analyses of genes and proteins show that some genes have transferred 
from plants to bacteria over a very long evolutionary time frame. 
This transfer can only be simulated in the laboratory using optimized 
conditions  situations which are difcult to replicate in natural settings. 
If, however it were to happen in the eld, it would be at very low 
frequencies and the gene would need to provide a selective advantage 
to survive. 
 
 An experiment to determine the persistence of kanamycin resistant 
bacteria in the soil by increasing the levels of kanamycin in the soil 
concludes that natural soil conditions rarely would have the selective 
pressure necessary to keep nptII in the bacterium. Data from this and 
other studies indicate that homologous recombination and integration 
of plant genes into competent soil bacteria could occur, but at very 
low frequencies, and the environmental signicance would depend on 
selective pressure for the trait. 
9. What happens when pollen moves from genetically engineered 
crops to wild relatives or non-genetically engineered varieties? In 
areas of genetic diversity?
 Gene ow or the movement 
of pollen from one plant to 
another is made possible 
when the parental plants (a) 
owers at the same time; 
(b) close enough to allow 
a vector (insect, wind, or 
animal) to transfer pollen 
to receptive females; and 
(c) produce pollen that 
can result in embryos 






developing into viable seeds and germinating. Successful pollination also 
depends on the longevity of pollen viability, pollen travel distance and 
the mode of pollination the plant has, whether self or cross-pollinated. 
 Gene ow may present signicant economic or environmental risks for 
either conventionally bred or GE crops on a case-by-case evaluation. 
Crop-to-wild relative gene ow could result if the plants grow in 
overlapping regions resulting in new combinations of genes that can 
improve, harm, or have no effect on the tness of recipient plants. 
Genes can also ow from wild relatives to cultivated crops, introducing 
new traits into the next generation seeds, but only affect the crop if it is 
replanted. 
 Planting of GE varieties in areas of genetic diversity of plants needs 
additional precautions to reduce possible impacts of introgression of 
GE traits and the potential signicant environmental consequences.  To 
minimize this occurrence, planting of GE crops near wild species should 
be avoided or other technologies could be used to prevent gene(s) from 
moving to wild varieties. 
 Gene ow could also occur when compatible plants are present within 
the vicinity. GE varieties like conventional plants can also persist in the 
environment. Organic farmers should be aware of these occurrences 
to be able to adopt the necessary precautions of spatial and temporal 
isolation. 
 
10. Can organic, conventional and genetically engineered cropping 
systems coexist?
 Farmers are used to planting different varieties and planting strategies 
in order to develop farm products that meet the requirements of the 
consumers. They are used to planting white and yellow maize, hot and 
sweet peppers, high and zero erucic acid rapeseed, and still achieve 
purity standards dictated by certied seed specication. Coexistence 
strategies must be devised to allow neighbor farmers to farm in an 
economically viable manner. This can involve alerting each other to 
their plans and modifying them to accommodate each others needs. 
When GE crops are grown next to organic farming operations, certain 
practices that minimize synthetic pesticide drift can also limit GE gene 
ow, such as spatial separation of elds, staggered planting dates, and 
planting varieties with different maturity dates and those that are not 
sexually compatible. Other crops-specic methods have been devised 
to aid coexistence strategies. Gene ow is not only the means for GE 
to commingle with conventional or organic crops; crops must also be 
segregated during harvest, shipping and processing. Methods limiting 
such commingling have in some cases been implemented.






 With the use of various production methods comes the mixing of 
permissible inputs and methods, whether with their own farms with 
products from neighboring farms, or during harvest and processing. The 
commingling or adventitious presence (AP) is the unintended occurrence 
of materials other than specic crops and can include weed seeds, seeds 
from other crops, dirt, insects, and other foreign materials such as stones 
or plastics. Different countries have set rules on the degree of AP. In 
the U.S., for seed crops, rules for AP are specied by the Association of 
Ofcial Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), where a level of 0.5% seed of 
other varieties and 2% AP of inert materials is permitted in pure seed 
of hybrid corn. 
11. Can use of genetically engineered crops or organic farming lead to 
more sustainable agricultural production systems?
 Sustainable agricultural systems should meet the basic needs of the 
population while preserving the resources for future generations. 
The United Nations Millennium Development Goals to Ensure 
environmental sustainability by integrating principles of sustainable 
development into a countrys policies, and programs to reverse the loss 
of environmental resources. This need has been widely accepted and 
the manner to fulll this may vary. 
 Conventional farming has led to impressive gains of between 70 
and 90% of increases in food production in the last few decades. 
Unfortunately, these were accompanying environmental impacts as well 
as sizeable consumption of fossil fuels, unsustainable rates of water use 
and topsoil loss, and contributions to environmental degradation, air 
pollution, soil erosion, reduced biodiversity, pest resistance, pollution of 
lakes and streams, and overuse of surface and ground water. 
 Achieving agricultural sustainability can be addressed through numerous 
agricultural practices such as: integrated pest management (IPM), 
biological control, organic methods, and use of GE plants, coupled with 
selected conventional agricultural methods, can play important roles in 
future sustainable agricultural practices. Biological control can be a part 
of an IPM strategy and neither biological control nor IPM specically 
excludes the use of GE organisms. Organic production relies on practices, 
such as cultural and biological pest management, that can include 
IPM and biological control but excludes the use of synthetic chemicals 
and GE organisms. The use of GE organisms can also contribute to 
sustainable practices by augmenting and replacing certain conventional 
practices. For example, plants can be created that increase water use, 
and fertilizer efciencies, that remediate soil contaminants, increase 
no-till or low-till practices to help reduce greenhouse gases and produce 
higher yields without increasing land usage, particularly in developing 
countries. To achieve true sustainability agriculture must use the best of 
all practices.





SUMMARY POINTS
1. The environmental safety of products of agricultural biotechnology, just 
as with those created by classical breeding and mutation and grown 
conventionally or organically, must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis 
to perform meaningful risk assessments. 
2. Information from the peer-reviewed literature on the safety of these 
products should be considered when growing and consuming foods 
from these crops. Factors beyond the technical, science-based facts 
should also be part of the decision-making process.
3. Although scientic testing and governmental regulation can reduce the 
safety risks of conventionally and organically produced and GE crops and 
food, 100% safety is not achievable.
4. Robust efforts should be made to conserve and enlarge global 
genebanks and collections created to preserve precious landraces and 
wild relatives, which are the foundation for future classical breeding, 
marker-assisted selection, and genetic engineering approaches.
5. On the basis of the bulk of data from eld tests and farm surveys, 
pesticide use for GE crop adopters is lower than for conventional variety 
users. More importantly, extensive data conrm that the environmental 
impact is substantially lower.
6. Generalizations about whether gene ow causes signicant 
environmental or economic risks for conventional, organic or GE crops 
require case-by-case evaluation.
7. Adequate methods for the coexistence of differing varieties and 
production methods in agriculture are available and being encouraged 
worldwide; however, minimum standards, not zero tolerance, for GE 
presence need to be established for this approach to be attainable.
8. Farmers worldwide have adopted GE crops because of the realized 
economic benets (which have been demonstrated in numerous 
studies), time savings, and ease of agricultural practices. Reluctance to 
adopt mainly relates to apprehensions about rejection in the export 
market.










Document Number: 5380


Foreword
he last three decades witnessed a cascade of scientic discoveries on 
plant molecular biology and biochemistry that served as foundation of 
Tcurrent biotechnologies used in improving agricultural crops. Genes 
coding for important agricultural traits useful to farmers and consumers 
were discovered, isolated and introduced into cultivated crops using modern 
tools of molecular biology. Plant biotechnology has emerged among the most 
innovative technologies in agriculture and has been increasingly used for 
improvement of crops which include fruits, vegetables, and plantation crops. 
 To date, more than 20 crops have been improved to resist important pests 
and diseases, tolerate drought, salinity, and extreme temperatures, and with 
improved nutritional and grain quality. Currently, the major biotech crops 
are planted in 125 million hectares in 25 countries, and directly consumed as 
human food or animal feed in 30 other countries. The wide and rapid adoption 
of biotech crops in world agriculture is compelling evidence of approval of 
million of farmers adopting the technology. 
 Tremendous benets derived from biotech crop adoption by small and 
resource-poor farmers in developing countries have been documented. Thus, 
biotechnology and biotech crops can contribute to achieving the Millenium 
Development Goals set for 2015: to reduce hunger and poverty by half.  Their 
contribution is expected to further expand in the future as more crops that are 
important in the developing world are given R&D attention and as more useful 
traits are bioengineered into the best adapted cultivars.
 In South East Asia, biotechnology development and biotech crop adoption 
has been relatively slow due in part to various policy, socio-political and 
cultural issues. Since 2003, the Philippines has been the only country in the 
region which commercially grows biotech crops. While Indonesia was the rst 
country in the region to commercially grow a biotech crop  Bt cotton in 2001, 
it has been discontinued for various other reasons that are unrelated to the 
performance of the technology. 

 Both countries  the only ones that have had biotech crop commercialization 
experience in the region, have also been the principal regional partners of 
Cornell University in implementing the Agricultural Biotechnology Support 
Project II (ABSPII).
 This book, Projected Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnologies for Fruits 
and Vegetables in the Philippines and Indonesia presents the results of a series 
of studies, under the auspices of ABSPII, that assessed the potential economic 
impacts of bioengineered eggplant, papaya, and tomato in the Philippines; and 
potato and tomato in Indonesia.
 I congratulate ISAAA and SEARCA for their initiative in publishing the 
results of these studies in the form of a book.  I also congratulate the editors 
for their dedicated efforts in bringing out this excellent publication.  It is 
hoped that the additional valuable information contained in the book would 
contribute to the stock of knowledge on biotech crops and would help serve as 
basis for the development, deployment and adoption of the featured biotech 
crops in the near future.
Emil Q. Javier
President
National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines
9 September 2009










Document Number: 7502


Preface
doption of crop varieties developed through modern biotechnology 
has grown rapidly around the world since the mid 1990s, especially 
Ain developed countries, but increasingly in developing countries as 
well. The Philippines for example, was one of the early adopters of genetically 
modied maize, Bt cotton is widespread in China and India among other 
countries, and herbicide tolerant soybeans are popular in Brazil and Argentina. 
The adoption of genetically modied food crops, however, is still relatively 
limited, including in Southeast Asia. In some cases, this limited adoption is 
due to lack of research, in others lack of adequate regulatory systems being in 
place, and in others a fear that commercial acceptance will be limited due to 
perceived risks exceeding benets. 
 Beginning in 2003, the Agricultural Biotechnology Project II (ABSPII) led 
by Cornell University and funded by the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID), undertook a project to address important constraints 
to agricultural production through biotechnology. The focus was on a set of 
crops and constraints that were identied by stakeholders as being important 
but that were largely ignored by the private sector. For Southeast Asia, the 
target countries were the Philippines and Indonesia, and target crops were 
papaya, eggplant, potato, and tomato. A multi-disciplinary and multi-
institutional program was developed that addressed all aspects of developing 
and commercializing genetically modied organisms to address the production 
constraints. One aspect of the program was to evaluate the potential economic 
benets of the GMOs, taking into account regulatory as well as research costs. 
This book provides the results of the various economic studies. The results are 
very encouraging in terms of the potential for signicant economic benets. 
They also highlight the importance of rapid deployment of the improved crop 
varieties.

 During these studies, conducted by economists from the Philippines, 
Indonesia, and Virginia Tech in the United States, information was obtained 
from a number of scientists and other experts and the authors gratefully 
acknowledge their assistance.  We especially would like to thank Dr. Liborio 
S. Cabanilla (College of Economics and Management, University of the 
Philippines Los Baos) and Dr. Albert P. Aquino (Socioeconomics Research 
Division, Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources 
Research and Development) for their extensive reviews of the early draft of the 
book. The tremendous editorial help from Roberta V. Gerpacio and Panlo G. 
de Guzman is very gratefully acknowledged and the support from Dr. Randy 
A. Hautea at ISAAA. We would also like to thank the assistance of Dr. Rhodora 
R. Aldemita and ISAAA staff in the nal stage of the preparation of the book.
Funding for the studies was provided by USAID through the ABSPII project 
and by ISAAA. 
George W. Norton










Document Number: 608
Message from ABsPII
ABSPII is a USAID-funded consortium of public and private sector institutions 
that work with national research organizations, agricultural universities 
and private biotechnology companies to conduct research and development 
activities focusing on crops that are important to resource-poor farmers and 
consumers in developing countries.  Our consortium, led by Cornell University, 
support projects designed to complement national and regional efforts to 
develop and commercialize bioengineered crops in Africa and Asia. ABSPII 
projects are implemented within the context of a product commercialization 
package (PCP) approach that integrates all elements of research, development 
and commercialization processes.
 In 2003, representatives from private and public sector stakeholder groups 
from Indonesia and the Philippines were consulted to identify priority products 
where investment in biotechnology R&D can be supported.  Under this priority 
setting exercise, prospective products selected in the Philippines were fruit and 
shoot borer resistant (Bt) eggplant, ring spot virus resistant (PRSV-R) papaya, 
and multiple virus resistant (MVR) tomato. Late blight resistant (LBR) potato 
and MVR tomato were selected in Indonesia. It is envisioned that investment 
in these products would help boost food security, agricultural productivity and 
environmental quality in both countries.
 One aspect of the PCP approach to biotech product development espoused 
by ABSPII is to evaluate the potential benets of the product to ensure that 
investments are focused only in products with the greatest potential to help 
resource-poor farmers and consumers in partner countries. This book provides 
encouraging information on the potential benets of the featured biotech 
products. Study results clearly indicate signicant benets can be derived from 
biotech products in terms of yield advantage, reduced pesticide use, increased 
income and improved environmental quality.
 It is hoped that valuable information contained in the book will form the 
basis for making informed decisions in moving the featured biotech products 
to commercialization stage as rapidly as possible.
Estrella F. Alabastro
Chairman, ABSPII Advisory Board
and Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Philippines
16 September 2009










Document Number: 5681 
Introduction and overview of ABsPII
supported Bioengineered crops
in the Philippines and Indonesia
D.M. Hautea and G.W. Norton
Introduction
Modern biotechnology is a relatively young eld and the public is sometimes 
wary of bioengineered [also known as transgenic or genetically modied 
(GM)] crops that may pose perceived yet unknown risks for what could be 
signicant but are still undocumented benets. Without adequate information 
on benets and costs to help inform the debate, potentially useful technologies 
are lumped together with potentially disadvantageous ones, and acceptance or 
approvals for important technologies may be delayed. Helping to inform that 
debate requires economic analysis of the level and distribution of benets and 
costs of transgenic crops, and a concerted effort to provide this information to 
the public. 
 Economic impact assessments of improved technologies are often 
conducted after the technologies have been released and the resulting 
products adopted. While such ex-post assessments are useful for documenting 
benets from the research investments, equally important are assessments of 
the potential benets of technologies before they are released and adopted. 
These ex-ante assessments can provide information to help guide investment 
decisions of various stakeholders and to justify continued funding for on-going 
research programs. In the case of biotechnologies, they can also indicate the 
economic impacts of delays in regulatory approval and commercial use of the 
products.

2D.M. Hautea and G.W. Norton
 This book presents the results of ex-antea series  impact of studies to 
assess potential economic impacts of bioengineered crops, namely: fruit and 
shoot borer-resistant (FSBR) eggplant (or Bt eggplant), papaya ring spot virus 
(PRSV) resistant papaya, and multiple-virus resistant tomato (MVR tomato) 
in the Philippines; and late blight-resistant potato (LBR potato), potato tuber 
moth-resistant potato (PTM Bt potato), or and multiple-virus resistant tomato 
(MVR tomato) in Indonesia. The studies, conducted from 2004 to 2006 with 
support from the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII), the 
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), 
and the International Potato Center (CIP, for Chapter 7), aimed in general to 
provide project leaders, funding agencies, policy makers, and other stakeholders 
with information to help them make rational resource allocation decisions 
and choices in supporting bioengineered crops development in Southeast 
Asia. ABSPII has completed the rst ve years conducting R&D activities in 
the Philippines and Indonesia to develop commercial bioengineered crop 
products that can help solve major pests and other problems in selected target 
commodities and countries. This book summarizes the projected level and 
distribution of costs and benets associated with those activities and products, 
including the anticipated value of potential environmental impacts. 
 This chapter presents a brief overview of the ABSPII strategy, the 
bioengineered product packages and regulatory structures of the Philippines 
and Indonesia, while the basic methods employed in the studies are described 
in Chapter 2. Chapters 3 to 8 present the projected direct economic impacts of 
biotechnologies for specic commodities and countries, while Chapters 9 and 
10 present detailed assessments of the regulatory costs involved in bringing the 
products to market, and the implications of regulatory delays in commercial 
approval and use of the products. Chapter 11 provides the projected value of 
the potential environmental effects and Chapter 12 presents the summary and 
conclusions.
overview of ABsPII supported Bioengineered crops in the 
Philippines and Indonesia
In many developing countries including the Philippines and Indonesia, 
concerns on food security, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability 
are putting more pressure on people and institutions to nd alternative ways to 
achieve higher agricultural productivity. Because conventional plant breeding 
techniques cannot always address production and productivity constraints, 
modern biotechnology has been identied as a viable technological supplement 


Introduction and overview of ABsPII supported Bioengineered
crops in the Philippines and Indonesia3
to produce commercially important crops that can contribute greatly to 
agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability. 
ABSPII Product Driven Strategy
 The R&D activities for the products described in Chapters 3 to 11 were 
carried out within the context of the ABSPII product-driven strategy. ABSPII 
is a cooperative agreement between USAID and the Cornell University-led 
consortium of public and private sector institutions designed to complement 
national and regional efforts to develop and commercialize bioengineered crops 
in developing countries in Asia and Africa (http://www.absp2.cornell.edu). 
The ABSPII strategy emphasizes the identication and delivery of products that 
are likely to have signicant positive socioeconomic impact, relevant to local 
needs, and which can be brought quickly to the stage of eld trials to catalyze 
the regulatory process and eventually for possible commercial approval. To 
assure relevance and to avoid investing in products that are unlikely to be 
adopted, priority setting consultations were conducted with local stakeholders 
as a rst step. These consultations were followed by a feasibility assessment 
which considered all of the key technical and non-technical components that 
in turn affect farm-level acceptability and productivity and balance country-
specic, regional, and even global needs. ABSPII emphasizes supporting on-
going R&D activities of local public sector institutions. Whenever possible, 
ABSPII created public-private partnerships to help leverage both public and 
private funding sources to help absorb development costs and provide broader 
distribution channels.
 The prospective product is implemented within the context of a product 
commercialization package (PCP) approach (Figure 1) that integrates all 
elements of the research, development and commercialization processes. The 
main elements of each PCP include: (i) technology development; (ii) policy-
related issues such as licensing the intellectual and technical properties 
associated with the product, as well as applying for and obtaining regulatory 
approval from the relevant national authorities; (iii) communicating public 
information to producers and consumers about the benets, risks and correct 
management of these new products; and (iv) establishing, or verifying, the 
existence of marketing and distribution mechanisms to provide farmers access 
to planting materials (Gregory et al., 2008).
 In 2003, ABSPII conducted priority setting workshops in the Philippines 
and Indonesia in consultation with local representatives of public and private 
sector stakeholder groups. More than 20 types of biotechnology research on-
going in 2003 were presented, majority of which were in very early research 





4D.M. Hautea and G.W. Norton
Figure 1. Main elements of an integrated product-driven approach for 
development and delivery of bioengineered crops (Source: ABSPII)
stage. The choices were narrowed down to two to three potential products to 
leverage opportunities and resources available between the two countries and 
in other countries supported by ABSPII and other institutions. The prospective 
products selected in the Philippines were Bt eggplant (together with India and 
Bangladesh), PRSV-resistant papaya and MVR tomato. LBR potato (together 
with India and Bangladesh) and MVR tomato were selected for Indonesia. Bt 
potato previously supported under ABSP was continued in South Africa with 
potential for spill-over in Indonesia.
Regulation of Bioengineered Crops in the Philippines and Indonesia
 While recognizing the enormous potential benets of modern biotechnology, 
research, product development and market release of bioengineered crops in 
many countries including the Philippines and Indonesia are strictly regulated. 
Regulatory systems for bioengineered crops were put in place in both countries 
to ensure safety to human health and the environment while providing economic 
benet to resource-poor farmers and consumers. In addition to agronomic 
performance, science-based environmental and food safety risk assessments 
are performed at various stages of research and product development, as 
legally required by the respective national governments. 





Introduction and overview of ABsPII supported Bioengineered
crops in the Philippines and Indonesia5
 In the Philippines, the regulatory system is well established and functional 
since 1990 and continues to evolve over time.The Philippines made history in 
2002 as the rst Asian country to approve a GM feed crop, corn, for commercial 
1
cultivation and continued on to become a biotech mega country  to this date 
(James, 2008). Regulation of bioengineered crops is jointly administered 
under a coordinated framework by the National Committee on Biosafety of 
the Philippines (NCBP) and the Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant 
Industry (DA-BPI) under the authority of Executive Order (EO) 430 of 1990 
(superceded by EO 514 of 2007) issued by the Ofce of the President of the 
Philippines and DA Administrative Order No. 8 Series of 2002 (DA-AO 8) 
based on the Plant Quarantine Act. 
 The NCBP, a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary body, acts as the nodal 
agency that sets policies and coordinates all conduct of activities and products 
of modern biotechnology in the country. Through the NCBP-Biotech Committee 
(NCBP-BC) it evaluates and approves all R&D activities in the laboratory, 
greenhouse, screenhouse and conned elds. DA-BPI meanwhile regulates 
the importation, multi-location eld trials and commercial (farm) cultivation 
of all plants and plant products derived from modern biotechnology. Risk 
assessments under DA-BPI is conducted by the BPI-Biotechnology Core Team 
(BPI-BCT) and the Science and Technology Review Panel (STRP) consisting of 
independent technical experts in various science disciplines. When necessary, 
risk assessments are conducted in cooperation with other statutory agencies 
like the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) and the Bureau of Animal 
Industry (BAI). An Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) established by the 
applicants institution in each trial site assists both the NCBP and DA-BPI in 
evaluating and monitoring activities during the conduct of the trials. Detailed 
procedures and application forms for importation, eld trials, propagation, 
and direct use for food and feed can be downloaded from http://www.biotech.
da.gov.ph.  
 The regulatory system in Indonesia was established as early as 1993 with 
the issuance of guidelines for genetic engineering research. Over time, it evolved 
to meet technological advances and regulatory needs. In 1997, the Ministry of 
Agriculture issued the biosafety regulation for release of GM crops, followed 
by the Joint Ministerial decree of 1999 to include the guidelines on food 
safety. The current legislative authority to regulate biotechnology in Indonesia 
is embodied in Government Regulation Number 21 of 2005 concerning the 
Biosafety of Living Modied Products.
1 A country is considered biotech mega country when commercial plantings of bio-
tech crops reach 50,000 ha., or more, in a particular year.





6D.M. Hautea and G.W. Norton
 Although the legislative authority in Indonesia is different from that in the 
Philippines, their biosafety framework, guidelines and requirements for the 
conduct of genetic engineering activities and assessing risks for environmental 
and market release of products of modern biotechnology are similar. Created 
and expanded under the 1999 Joint Ministerial decrees, the national Biosafety 
and Food Safety Committee (BFSC) of Indonesia, supported by the Biosafety 
and Food Safety Technical Team (BSFTT), continues to administer the conduct 
of biosafety regulation in the country including the approval for release of GM 
crops.
 Indonesia has approved the conduct of laboratory, greenhouse and eld 
trials of several crops (Karossi, 2005) including Bt the potato eld trial of 
in 1997 and  the commercial release of Bt cotton in 2001 in South Sulawesi. 
However, due to various reasons unrelated to the agronomic performance of 
the product, the technology developer withdrew Bt cotton from commercial 
cultivation in 2002. More information on biosafety regulation and mechanism 
for release of GM crops in Indonesia can be found in the Indonesia Biosafety 
Clearing House (http://www.indonesiabch.org).
Status of Development of ABSPII Supported Bioengineered Crops in the 
Philippines and Indonesia
 Figure 2 presents a slightly modied version of Gregory et al.s (2008) 
illustrated typical steps to follow in the development and delivery of 
bioengineered crops. Steps 1, 3, 5b, 8 and 9 are similar to breeding a new crop 
variety. After testing and evaluating agronomic performance, releasing new 
varieties in the Philippines and Indonesia are quite straightforward through 
their national seed certication and variety registration agencies. Because 
GM crop actvities and products are strictly regulated in both countries, other 
steps are required, adding costs and complexity to research activities, product 
development and commercial release. 
 ABSPII support to R&D work on bioengineered crops in the Philippines 
and Indonesia started in 2003 except for PRSV-resistant papaya, which was 
initiated by the Philippine Department of Science and Technology (DOST) in 
2000. Complying  with the prevailing regulatory system in their own countries, 
the University of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB) and the Indonesian 
Center for Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research 
and Development (ICABIOGARD) obtained permits to import transgenic 
events from Malaysia (PRSV-resistant papaya), India (Bt eggplant), the USA 
(LBR potato) and AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center (MVR tomato). The 
results of various experiments were submitted to the competent authorities 
at every stage of the research and development of the prospective products. 





Introduction and overview of ABsPII supported Bioengineered
crops in the Philippines and Indonesia7
 
Trait Further Breeding Seed Production and 
Discovery   and Development Commercialization 
1. Trait  identification 5. Event selection and 8. Seed bulk up  
/introduction generation advance 9. Variety 
2. Laboratory a. Confined trial registration 
experiments b. multi-location (optional) 
" Gene cloning trials 10. Product 
and vector 6. Development of  full stewardship or 
design regulatory file   post-release 
" Transformation 7. Regulatory approval monitoring 
and selection for environmental 
of primary and food safety 
transformants  
3. Greenhouse trial of 
trait efficacy 
4. Early safety 
assessment 
 
Figure 2.  Stages in research-development-delivery process of bioengineered 
crops. (Source: Adapted and modified from Gregory et al., 2008.)
The signicant steps made in the development and Btregulation  eggplant, of 
PRSV-resistant papaya, LBR potato and MVR tomato in the Philippines and 
Indonesia are summarized in Tables 1a and 1b. The information provided 
also indicates the time taken in completing different studies including the 
submission of application, importation, laboratory experiments, greenhouse 
and conned eld trials, biosafety studies and application for multi-location 
eld trials for agronomic evaluation, where applicable. 
 After the rst ve years of ABSPII implementation, R&D activities for the 
PRSV-resistant papaya and Bt eggplant have signicantly advanced (reached 
eld trial stage) and were continued in the Philippines. Additional support 
were provided which enabled the conduct of further studies presented in 
Chapters 9 to 11. A proposal was submitted to the Philippine government to 
continue the MVR tomato work. ABSPII nancial support to the Indonesian 
PCPs and the MVR tomato in the Philippines were discontinued after 2006 
due to budget constraints. At that time, LBR potato has reached the conned 
eld trial stage. Funding to continue the LBR potato product is currently 
being provided by the Indonesian government. ABSPII continues to provide 
technical and intellectual property/technology transfer (IP/TT) support to 
the LBR potato project in Indonesia.
 





8D.M. Hautea and G.W. Norton
table 1a. Significant steps in the development and regulation of ABSPII 
supported bioengineered crops in the Philippines
development time regulatory 
regulatory requirements/approval
stageperiodagency
PRSV-resistant papaya
Trait discovery2000-2003 	Importpermit	for	 transgenic	event	 	IBC, NCBP
issued by BPI and importation of 
transformed cultures from MARDI, 
Malaysia completed
	Laboratory	and	greenhouse	IBC, NCBP
contained trial proposals BPI
approved and completed
Further  2004-	Greenhouse	results	and	IBC, NCBP
breeding and 2009molecular data submitted
development	Proposals	for	confined	trials	1	and	
2  approved and completed
	Proposal	for	verification	trial	
of efficacy and additional 
molecular data  approved 
(activities on-going)
FSB-resistant or Bt eggplant
Trait discovery2003-2004 	Import	permit	for	transgenicIBC	, NCBP,
event issued by BPIBPI
	Laboratory	and	greenhouse	
contained trial proposals 
approved 
2006	 Importation	of	BC	seeds	IBC, NCBP, 
completedBPI
Further 2006-2007 	Backcrossing,	greenhouse	trialsIBC, NCBP	
breeding and and laboratory studies including 
developmentbiosafety studies  completed
2007-2009 	Contained	trial	results	andIBC	, NCBP
application for confined trial 
submitted
	Confined	trial	including	biosafety	
studies completed 
	Certificate	of	completion	of	
contained/confined trial issued
	Line	purification	and	hybrid	
development
2009	Application	for	multi-locationIBC, BPI	field	
trial submitted (pending approval)





Introduction and overview of ABsPII supported Bioengineered
crops in the Philippines and Indonesia9
development time regulatory 
regulatory requirements/approval
stageperiodagency
MVR tomato
Trait discovery2004-	Import	permit	for	transgenicIBC	, NCBP
event issued by BPI
	Laboratory	and	greenhouse	
contained trial proposals 
approved 
2005-2006 	Importation	of	BC	seeds	IBC, NCBP
completed
	Greenhouse	and	laboratory	
studies completed
table 1b. Significant steps in the development and regulation of ABSPII 
supported bioengineered crops in Indonesia
development time regulatory 
regulatory requirements/Approval
stageperiodagency
LBR potato
Trait discovery2004	Import	permit	for	transgenicBFSTT	
event issued and importation 
completed
2004-2005 	Agronomic	performance	test	BFSTT
of transgenic potato lines in the 
Biosafety Containment Facility
	Molecular	testing
Futher  2005-2006 	Application	for	biosafety	testingBSFTT	
breeding and 	Biosafety	evaluation	(questioner	
developmentand documents) by BFSTT
	Isolated	field	test	(IFT)	of		
transgenic potato selected lines 
for one season
	Evaluation	of	the	results	of	IFT	by	
BFSTT
MVR tomato
Trait discovery2004-2005 	Import	permit	for	transgenicBSFTT	
event issued and importation 
completed
2005-2006 	 Agronomic	performance	testBSFTT	of	
transgenic tomato lines in the 
Biosafety Containment Facility
	 Molecular	testing





10D.M. Hautea and G.W. Norton
references
Gregory, P, RH Potter, FA Shotkoski, DM Hautea, KV Raman, V Vijayaraghavan, 
WH Lesser, GW Norton and WR Coffman. 2008. Bioengineered crops as tools 
for international development: Opportunities and strategic considerations. 
Experimental Agriculture 44: 277-299.
James, C. 2008. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008. ISAAA 
Briefs No. 39. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Karossi, AT (ed.). 2005. Selected topics on biotechnology as Indonesian country 
reports 1998-2000. Jakarta, LIPI Press, 110 pp.














Document Number: 6837 
Methodology
G.W. Norton
Introduction
Economic assessments of improved technologies are often conducted after 
the technologies have been released and the resulting products adopted. 
Such assessments are useful for documenting benets from the research 
investments, but equally important are assessments of the potential benets 
of technologies before they are released and adopted. These assessments can 
provide information to help guide investment decisions and to justify continued 
funding for on-going research programs. In the case of biotechnologies, they 
can also indicate the economic impacts of delays in the regulatory program.
Methods
The basic economic impact analyses for each technology/crop in Chapters 3 to 
8 to project benets of the technology included a consistent framework with 
the following steps.
(a) Review of data on crop losses and cropping practices
 Existing published and other data on crop losses and cropping practices 
to manage the problems targeted by the transformation were reviewed for the 
crops and countries under study. Data were obtained for the key production 
areas in Indonesia and the Philippines where the crops are grown. 





12G.W. Norton
(b) Partial budgeting with and without the transgenic technologies
 Partial budget analysis is an evaluation technique for assessing the 
incremental effects of technological change at the eld level. It examines how 
adopting a new technology affects protability by comparing the existing 
situation with the alternative method. It explores the net effects of factors 
that increase returns and reduce costs versus those that reduce returns and 
increase costs. The net change between positive and negative economic effects 
is an estimate of the net effect of the technological innovation.
 For the studies in this book, eld trial or experimental data on yields and 
input costs were gathered for the transgenic and alternative technologies, 
and expert opinions of farmers, biological scientists, and other industry 
stakeholders were solicited (see Appendix 1 for sample survey instruments). 
Published data for the most recent four-year period on prices, production, and 
national trade of the target crops were collected, and expert decisions were 
made on the nature of their markets (e.g., closed, small-open, or large-open 
economy). Partial budgets with expected per-hectare cost and yield changes 
with and without the transgenic technologies were calculated for each target 
crop and technology for the selected regions in the countries studied.
(c) Gathering information on time and costs required to complete the 
research and meet regulatory hurdles
 The scientists conducting the research and others involved in the regulatory 
process were interviewed to help assess the time, cost, and regulatory hurdles. 
The steps in the regulatory process were determined from written documents, 
their history of being applied to Bt maize in the Philippines were considered, 
and information on the current research and regulatory status for each crop 
was obtained.
(d) Assessing the rate and timing of adoption of transgenic varieties
 The percentage and timing of farmer adoption of the transgenic varieties 
by region within the country were projected based on secondary information 
on agroecological, socioeconomic, variety considerations and other factors, 
including information on where the targeted problem is most severe. Farmer 
adoption of previous technologies and expert opinion on factors such as 
research lag, lag due to the regulatory process, and projections on how the 
transgenic seeds will be commercialized were considered in estimating the 
likely timing and rate of farmer adoption of transgenic varieties.
(e) Conducting an ex-ante economic surplus analysis
 The most common approach for analyzing the market level welfare 





Methodology13
implications of a given technological innovation in a partial equilibrium 
framework is economic surplus analysis. A cost-reducing or yield-enhancing 
effect of adopting new technologies is a shift in the supply curve, increasing 
the quantity produced and potentially reducing output price. If output price is 
reduced, consumers gain because they can consume more of the good at a lower 
price. Farmers may gain or lose depending on whether or not their lower cost 
per unit of production offsets the effect of the lower output price. Therefore, 
the net welfare effect on producers may be positive or negative depending on 
supply and demand elasticities.
 The analysis adopted in these studies follows ex-ante approaches previous 
already described in many studies (Qaim and von Braun, 1998; Qaim, 1999; 
Babu and Rhoe, 2003; Lemieux and Wohlgenant, 1989). Estimates of price 
elasticities of supply and demand were obtained for each target crop based on 
published estimates or on economic theory. Scientists were asked to assess 
the probability of achieving technical success with the research. The budget 
information, secondary data, and farmer adoption information were combined 
in an economic surplus model to assess the total economic benets and 
their regional distribution within each country, as well as to the seed sector, 
producers and consumers. The costs of the research and product development 
including meeting regulatory hurdles were included along with the benets in 
a benet-cost analysis of the public investment.
 This book addresses two major market situations: rst, a closed economy 
producer country (no trade), and second, an open economy in which the 
producing country cannot affect the products world price even though the 
country trades it (a small open economy).
economic surplus  closed economy (no trade)
As described in Norton et al. (2005), when widespread adoption of a new 
technology occurs across large areas, changes in crop prices, cropping 
patterns, producer prots, and societal welfare can occur. These changes arise 
because costs differ and because supplies may increase, affecting prices for 
producers and consumers. Figure 1 illustrates such changes. S represents the 
0
commodity/crop supply curve before the adoption of a new technology (in this 
case, GMO), and D represents the demand curve. The initial equilibrium price 
and quantity are P and Q, respectively. Suppose the new technology leads 
00
to a savings of R in the average and marginal cost of production, reected in 
a downward shift of the supply curve to S. This shift leads to an increase in 
1
production and consumption to Q (change in quantity, WQ = Q  Q) and 
110





14G.W. Norton
Price
s
0
as
1
P
0
b
r P
1
d
c
d
0
QQQuantity
01
Figure 1. GMO benefits measured as changes in economic surplus in a 
closed economy scenario
the market price falls to P (by change in price, WP = P  P). Consumers are 
101
better off because they can consume more of the commodity at a lower price. 
They benet from the lower price by an amount equal to their cost saving on 
the original quantity (Q x WP) plus their net benets from the increase in 
0
consumption. Total consumer benets are represented abPby  in the area P
01
Figure 1.
 Meanwhile, although they may receive a lower price per unit, producers are 
better off too, because their costs have fallen by R per unit, an amount greater 
than the fall in price. Producers gain the increase in prots on the original 
quantity (Q x (R - WP)) plus the prots earned on the additional output, for a 
0
total producer gain of Pbcd. Total benets of the new technology are obtained 
1
as the sum of producer benets and consumer benets, or the area represented 
by Pabcd in Figure 1.
0
 The distribution of benets between producers and consumers depends 
on the size of the fall in price (WP) relative to the fall in costs (R) and on 
the nature of the supply shift. For example, if a commodity is traded and 
production in the area producing the commodity has little effect on price, most 
of the benets would accrue to producers. If the supply curve shifts in more of 
a pivotal fashion as opposed to a parallel fashion as illustrated in Figure 1, the 





Methodology15
benets to producers would be reduced. Formulas for calculating consumer 
and producer gains for a variety of market situations are found in Alston et al. 
(1995). For example in Figure 1, which assumes no trade (i.e., closed economy), 
the total economic benets to producers and consumers is Q computed  as KP
0 0
(1 + 0.5Ze), where: K = the proportionate cost change, P = initial price, Q = 
00
initial quantity, Z = Ke/(e + n), e = the supply elasticity, and n = the demand 
elasticity. Other formulas would be appropriate for other market situations. 
economic surplus  small open economy (with trade)
Biotechnology benets can also be modeled using a small open economy 
framework wherein the producer country is small relative to the global trade 
and cannot signicantly inuence the international price. In equilibrium, 
domestic production is represented by Q and consumption by Q at the given 
21
world market price of P (Figure 2). The amount exported is represented by 
w
the difference between Q and Q. With a new technology to improve crop 
21
production (in this case, GMOs), the parallel downward shift of the supply 
curve from S to S increases production to Q thereby increasing exports by 
013
the amount Q  Q. The economic surplus gained is represented by the change 
32
in producer surplus given by the area abcd.
s
0
Price
s
1
b
c
P
W
a
dd
0
QQQQuantity
123
Figure 2. GMO benefits measured as changes in economic surplus in a small 
open economy scenario





16G.W. Norton
 The proportionate downward shift in the supply curve due to a (GM crop) 
technology is represented by K expressed as (Alston et al., 1995):
t
K  =  [ E(Y)/e  E(C)/(1 + E(Y)) ] A (1- L) 
ttt
where E(Y) is the expected proportionate yield change per hectare presuming 
research is successful and adopted; e is the crops supply elasticity; E(C) is the 
proportionate change in input costs per hectare;  is the probability of research 
success; A is the rate of adoption;  is the and rate Lof annual depreciation of 
tt
the technology.
 For the small open economy, the technology benet from a given K shift of 
the supply curve is given as:
WPS = WTES = PQK (1 + 0.5KM)
WO
where WPS is the change in producer surplus; WTES is the change in total 
economic surplus which is simply equal to the producer surplus.
 The key parameters in quantifying the impact of GM crops are supply and 
demand elasticities, decrease in per unit production cost, the crops world 
prices, and the increase in supply due to a reduction in production costs. 
The potential GM crop technology effects at the farm level on income and 
production costs are analyzed by comparing farm budgets using secondary 
data. A partial budget approach was employed to estimate changes in net 
income, and determine the economic advantage of the GM crop technology.
 Once changes in economic surplus are calculated or projected over time, 
benet-cost analysis of a new technology can be completed in which net 
present values, internal rates of return, or benet-cost ratios are calculated. 
The benets are the change in total economic surplus calculated for each 
year, and the costs are the public expenditures on the research and regulatory 
process relating to the new technology. The primary purpose of the benet-
cost analysis is to take into account the fact that benets and costs of a new 
technology need to be discounted, because the sooner they occur the more they 
are worth. In this book, the net present value (NPV) of discounted benets and 
costs of transgenic crops can be calculated as follows:
T
R -tCt
NPV =
t
t=1(1+i)





Methodology17
where: R = the returns or benets in year t, or the change in economic 
t
surplus;
  C = the cost in year t (e.g., that of the research and regulatory 
t
costs); and
  i = the discount rate (in most cases assumed to be 5% in this 
study)
Economic surplus estimates and net present values for this study were 
calculated using MSExcel spreadsheets.
 Chapters 3 to 8 used this standardized set of methods to evaluate the 
basic economic ex-ante impacts (benets and costs) of transgenic crops in 
Indonesia and the Philippineex-antes. These  assessments are then followed 
by specialized analyses of regulatory and environmental benets and costs in 
Chapters 9 to 11. Methods for those analyses are described in the respective 
chapters.
references
Alston, JM, GW Norton, and PG Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and 
Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University 
Press, Ithaca, New York.
Babu, S and V Rhoe. 2003.  Assessing agricultural biotechnology: Application of ex-
ante and ex-post methods to genetically modied crops. Asian Biotechnology and 
Development Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, July.
Lemieux, CM and M Wohlgenant. 1989.  Ex-ante evaluation of the economic impact of 
agricultural biotechnology: The case of porcine somatotropin.   American Journal of 
Agricultural Economics 71: 903-914.
Norton G, K Moore, D Quishpe, V Barrera, T Debass, S Moyo and D Taylor. 2005. 
Evaluating socioeconomic impacts of IPM. In Norton, GW, EA Heinrichs, GC Luther, 
and ME Irwin (eds), Globalizing IPM: A Participatory Research Process. Blackwell 
Publishing, Ames, Iowa, pp 225-244.
Qaim, M and J von Braun. 1998.  Crop biotechnology in developing countries: A 
conceptual framework for ex-ante economic analyses.  ZEF Discussion Paper on 
Development Policy No. 3. Center for Development Research, Bonn.
Qaim, M. 1999.  Assessing the impact of banana technology in Kenya.  ISAAA Briefs No. 
10. ISAAA: Ithaca, New York.





18G.W. Norton
Appendix 1. Sample Questionnaire
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
Individual/Group/Association  Facilitator 
Part I. Individual information: (to be asked from individual farmers in the group)
Name:  Location: 
Type of land tenure: 
Education: 
Years in farming: 
Farm area:  (ha)
1. What is your current pest management practice to control the (pest/disease)?
2. Pest management practices (Fill in table below)
Frequency 
Remarks
Control method(per cropping Quantity
(e.g., brand names)
season)
Chemicals
Insecticides
Fungicides
Others (specify)
Biological
Botanical
Others (specify)
3. Production cost structure
Cost componentQuantity Price per unit
Seeds/planting materials
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Labor
Other
Total production cost
Part 2. Group discussion (to be asked from the group) 
4. What was your yield per hectare (of crop) last year?   and your 
average over the last ve years?  





Methodology19
5. What was your average annual crop loss (%) due to (pest/disease) last year?  
 % and over the last ve years?   %
6. What are the preferred (crop) varieties in your area?  
7. What is/are your source/s of seeds/planting materials?  
8. What are your market outlets? (please check )
 a. traders 
 b. direct selling 
 c. contract growing 
 
Scientist Questionnaire 
Respondent Interviewer
Name:   Name:  
Position:   Date:  
Specialization: 
Education:  
Years of experience on the crop:  
1.  What will be the most likely (lowest, highest) expected yield change (%) per hectare 
if the (biotech crop) to address (pest/disease) is developed and adopted (for those 
farmers who adopt it in the region)? 
 Yield Gain (%)
LowestMost LikelyHighest
2. What percent of total variable costs is currently represented by each variable input 
(hired labor, pest control, fertilizer, etc.) What is your estimate of the percent 
change in cost (per hectare) (if any) for each of the inputs if the biotech crop is 
adopted?
Region:
Most likely cost change
Current 
InputDecrease, increase, 
cost share Percent change
or no change
Variable (USD/ha)
Hired labor
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Seeds
Marketing
Other





20G.W. Norton
3.  What is the probability (percent chance) of biotech research developing a solution 
with a commercially acceptable level of effectiveness against the (pest/disease) 
control?  %
 4.  How many years will it take to complete the technology development and to meet 
the various regulatory requirements?
Year12345678910...
Technology 
development
Regulatory
Contained
Limited eld trial
Multi-location eld 
trial
Food safety 
assessment
Apply for 
commercialization
5.  What are the expected costs involved in developing the technology and meeting 
the regulatory requirements?
Cost (USD)
Technology 
development
Regulatory
Contained
Limited eld trial
Multi-location eld 
trial
Food safety 
assessment
Apply for 
commercialization
Year12345678910...
6.  Which variety do you intend to put this technology? (encircle answer(s))
ParticularChoiceRemarks
Variety typehybridSaved seeds/OP
Variety sourcepublicprivate
Variety usefreshprocessed
Target marketdomesticexport





Methodology21
7.  What  are the expected unintended environmental effects? (check ()  if a 
concern)
 a. gene ow 
 b. reduced biodiversity 
 c. harms non-target organisms 
 d. others (specify) 
Industry Expert Questionnaire
Respondent Interviewer
Name:   Name:  
Occupation:   Date:  
Institutional afliation (if any): 
Years of experience on the crop:  
1.  What was the average annual crop loss (%) due to (pest/disease) last year?  
and in the last ve years? 
2. What are the preferred varieties in your area? 
3.   What are the main sources of seed? 
4.  How many years will it take to complete the technology development and to meet 
the various regulatory requirements?
Year12345678910...
Technology 
development
Regulatory
Contained
Limited eld trial
Multi-location eld 
trial
Food safety 
assessment
Apply for 
commercialization
5. What are the chances (%) that the product will pass the regulatory requirements 
and be commercialized?  %
6. What is the maximum percentage of crop area expected to be covered by the 
biotech crop?  % How many years will it take to reach that maximum once 
the crop is commercially released? 





22G.W. Norton
7. What are the expected costs involved in developing the technology and meeting 
the regulatory requirements? 
Cost (USD)
Technology 
development
Regulatory
Contained
Limited eld trial
Multi-location eld 
trial
Food safety 
assessment
Apply for 
commercialization
Year12345678910...
8. Do you expect an increase (decrease) in area devoted to the commodity over the 
next 10 years?  If so, by what percent per year?
Increase, no change or 
RegionPercent change per year
decrease














Document Number: 8807 
costs and Benefits of Bioengineered Papaya
with resistance to Papaya ring spot Virus
in the Philippines
J.M. Yorobe, Jr.
Introduction
Several transgenic technologies including the papaya ring spot virus (PRSV) 
resistant technology are currently under regulatory review in the Philippines. 
While all such technologies are required to undergo government regulatory 
protocols to ensure their health and environmental safety, the protocols do not 
require but may consider the potential economic effects of transgenic technologies 
prior to commercial release. To contribute to the   emerging literature, this study 
examines a priori the potential economic advantages of the proposed PRSV-
resistant papaya variety over PRSV-susceptible varieties in the Philippines.
 In terms of area planted in 2000, papaya ranks sixth in the Philippines 
among fruit crops. The country contributes a little over 1 percent of global 
papaya production, with Brazil and Mexico accounting for 30 percent. Average 
yield of papaya in the Philippines is about 14 m tons/ha on small farms and 
70-90 m tons/ha from plantations/commercial farms (Laude, 2002). Papaya 
grown under small scale farming has little input application, hence, yield levels 
are low and variable mainly due to pest and disease incidence. Yields of even the 
newly developed high-yielding papaya varieties have remained low due to the 
increasing incidence of PRSV. A large proportion (92 percent) of production is 
consumed domestically, but export production has been growing in the southern 
part of the country where PRSV is not a problem (BAS, 2006). 
 Papaya ring spot virus was rst detected in the Philippines in 1982 in the 
Southern Tagalog and Bicol regions, causing substantial damage to papaya 





Y.M. Yorobe, Jr.24
orchards (PCARRD, 2004). With an occurrence of 60-100 percent, PRSV 
almost wiped out the papaya industry in Southern Tagalog, a major papaya 
growing region in the country (Gonzales et al., 2003). The virus is widespread 
in Luzon, some parts of the Visayas and may spread in Mindanao where 
papayas are grown for export by multinational companies. 
 The PRSV affects all stages of plant growth from seedling to maturity. 
Green concentric ring spots appear on the fruit surface. Other symptoms 
include yellowing, mosaic and deformed leaves (PCARRD, 2004). Papaya 
plants infected with the virus exhibit a dramatic decline in yield. Only the Sinta 
variety developed in 1995 in the Philippines can provide moderate tolerance to 
the virus but it also must be combined with other disease management practices 
to effectively prevent and reduce the spread of the disease (Magdalita, 2000).
Papaya Biotechnology r&d in the Philippines1 
The absence of a variety totally resistant to PRSV motivated researchers at 
the Institute of Plant Breeding, University of the Philippines Los Baos (IPB-
UPLB), to develop PRSV-resistant papaya through genetic engineering. The 
Philippine government has supported the papaya genetic engineering project 
starting in 1998 through the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), 
Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research 
and Development (DOST-PCARRD). Additional funding support was provided 
by ISAAA and USAID through ABSPII. 
 Biotechnology research to develop a PRSV-resistant transgenic papaya 
involved the success in inducing somatic embryogenesis in papaya and 
availability of appropriate vector constructs containing the gene of interest. 
Transgenic papayas containing the coat protein (cp) gene of the Philippine 
isolate were produced through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation 
and screened against PRSV under greenhouse conditions. Three candidate 
transgenic lines were identied from the original 168  lines. transformation T
0
Resistant  lines Thave already been generated, advanced and evaluated under 
1
contained and conned trial conditions.  
 This economic evaluation aimed to: (i) assess the potential benets of the 
PRSV-resistant technology in quantitative terms, and (ii) estimate the value 
and distribution of the economic benets under varying economic conditions. 
Small-scale papaya producers are expected to be the primary beneciaries 
of this technology as the reduction in PRSV damage translates to higher 
productivity and income and lesser production costs.
1 Adapted in part from PCARRD (2004)





costs and Benefits of Bioengineered Papaya with resistance
to Papaya ring spot Virus in the Philippines25
Methodology
This study followed the analytical framework as outlined in Chapter 2. The 
required data were collected from primary and secondary sources. The primary 
data consisted of interview surveys undertaken at three levels. The rst survey 
involved focused group discussions (FGDs) with 56 papaya farmers in ve major 
papaya growing provinces in the Philippines (Cavite, Laguna, Misamis Oriental, 
Davao del Sur and South Cotabato), which were in turn selected to represent 
differences in scale of operation and varietal use. Farmers participating in the 
FGDs were key informants chosen by the barangay head. Small scale farming 
operations are common in Cavite and Laguna with native and Sinta varieties, 
while larger scale operations are common in Misamis Oriental, Davao del Sur 
and South Cotabato, with native and Solo varieties for the export market. The 
FGDs centered on cropping practices, particularly on variety and pesticide use, 
farm budget information, input-output relationships, marketing, and problems 
in papaya production. These FGDs were supplemented by a survey of ve 
papaya scientists and eight industry experts to elicit information on expected 
yield and cost changes from using the PRSV-resistant papaya technology, time 
and costs of product development and regulation, technology effectiveness, 
and unintended environmental effects. The scientists were papaya researchers 
from public research institutions while the industry experts were selected from 
papaya industry associations, regulators, and extension workers.
results and discussion
survey of Papaya Farmers, researchers and Industry experts
Before analyzing the economic impacts of PRSV-resistant papaya variety in 
the Philippines, it is important to establish the baseline economic information 
characterizing the countrys existing papaya production environment. This 
section presents data and information generated from the farmer FGDs and 
the interview surveys of scientists and industry experts.
 Table 1 shows a general description of papaya farmers characteristics 
obtained from the FGDs. Papaya farmers are mostly middle-aged with an 
average household size of ve members. Average family monthly income from 
sources other than papaya farming was about PhP15,000. The farm sizes 
were on average small at 3.8 ha, with only 1.8 ha planted to papaya. Farmers, 
however, indicated that they plan to increase the area planted to papaya by as 
much as 2.1 ha.





Y.M. Yorobe, Jr.26
table 1. Selected socioeconomic characteristics of papaya farmers 
(averages), Philippines, 2005
southern southern 
luzonnorthern Mindanao 
characteristicsAll
(cavite, Mindanao(south 
laguna)cotabato)
Farmers age (years)   49.8    43.6				51.2   47.8
Household size     5.0       5.2       5.4      5.2
Monthly income (PhP)8,61122,49214,50014,729
Total farm area (ha)     3.4        2.3       7.8       3.8
Area planted to papaya      0.4        2.4       4.0							1.8
(ha)
Years in farming			19.0						11.1 					17.4 					15.8
Years in papaya 			10.3       9.4							4.1       8.9
production
Proposed area for 						1.2       2.4       3.9							2.1
papaya expansion (ha)
Farm level effects of the PrsV-resistant Biotech Papaya
Effects on Production Cost
The adoption of the PRSV-resistant variety is projected to result in changes 
in papaya production costs. Pesticide applications to control the virus vectors 
will likely decrease, but costs for inputs such as seed and harvest labor may 
increase. With healthy papaya plants, farmers would likely intensify production 
activities to attain higher yields. Table 2 shows the estimated per-hectare cost of 
papaya production with and without the PRSV-resistant variety technology.
 Farmers commonly employ hired labor in major farming operations such 
as land preparation, planting, weeding, fertilizer and pesticide application, 
and harvesting. In papaya production without the PRSV-resistant technology, 
fertilizers and hired labor are the largest cost items, contributing 49 percent 
of total cost per hectare, which in turn is estimated at PhP64,529 with a per 
2
kilogram cost of PhP4.40. Meanwhile, the cost of papaya production can 
reach as high as PhP303,059 per hectare in commercial/plantation-scale 
farms (Laude, 2002).
2 This cost estimate is very conservative and represents samples from all types of 
papaya farms as reported by BAS from a 2003 nationwide survey (BAS, 2003)





costs and Benefits of Bioengineered Papaya with resistance
to Papaya ring spot Virus in the Philippines27
table 2. Papaya annual production costs, without and with the use of PRSV-
resistant technology (in 2003 PhP/ha)
a
cost ItemWithout With% change
Seed					105					131  25
Hired labor21,57728,050  30
Pesticides		6,132  4,844-	21
Fertilizers19,88619,886    0
Marketing costs     796		1,018  28
b
Other costs 16,03316,033    0
Total cost64,52969,962    8
Yield (kg/ha)14,67025,966  77
Cost per kg    4.40    2.69- 38
Source: BAS (2003) and authors survey
a Taken from BAS (2003)
b
 Include other variable and fixed costs
 Scientists and industry experts said that for with technology farms, the 
costs of seeds, hired labor, pesticides, and marketing costs will likely change. 
Higher plant survival and greater volume of output will require more (hired) 
labor particularly for crop care and harvesting, thereby increasing labor 
costs by an estimated 30 percent. Pesticide use is expected to decrease, and 
the estimated reduction in pesticide cost is about 21 percent or PhP1,288 per 
hectare. This cost reduction does not include the environmental costs saved 
due to fewer pesticide applications. Production will also increase, thereby 
increasing the costs of other inputs leading to higher total costs. Overall, the 
production cost per kilogram of papaya decreased by 38 percent with the 
expected 77 percent increase in yield, hence resulting in a downward shift of 
the supply curve with technology adoption.
Effects on Yield and Income
The potential yield and income effects of the PRSV-resistant variety are analyzed 
by comparing the enterprise budgets in papaya farming between those with 
and without the proposed technology. The without technology case used 
the BAS-reported 2003 enterprise budget, while the with technology case 
used an enterprise budget constructed based on the estimated yield and cost 
changes reported from the FGDs and scientist and industry experts surveys. As 





Y.M. Yorobe, Jr.28
discussed earlier, the use of PRSV-resistant varieties will substantially reduce 
yield losses, but will also change the farm cost structure through increased 
cost of seed, reduced pesticide use, and added output. With higher cropping 
intensity for the with technology farms and better growing conditions, 
absolute papaya yield levels will also increase, resulting in greater benets 
than costs. Table 3 shows the projected increase in yield and income when 
PRSV-resistant variety is adopted.
table 3. Papaya yield and per-hectare income without and with the use of 
PRSV-resistant variety, Philippines, 2005
ab
Without With % change
Total production cost (PhP)64,529  69,962    8
Yield (kg/ha)14,670  25,966  77
Output price per kg (PhP)6.006.00---
Gross returns (PhP)86,846153,719
Net income (PhP)22,317  83,757275
a
 BAS (2003)
b
 Authors survey
 The scientists conned eld trials indicated that the PRSV-resistant 
technology can increase yield by as much as 77 percent. Under controlled 
conditions, the potential yield increase was reported to be as much as 95 
percent. These results clearly manifest the increase in total productivity. At the 
same output price, the PRSV-resistant technology also increases per-hectare 
net income by 275 percent.
 As such, partial budget analysis shows that, although production costs 
increase, the additional benets of using PRSV-resistant technology outweigh 
the incremental costs (Table 4). First, less pesticide application reduces 
production costs by PhP1,288 per hectare. Likewise, with less damage from the 
virus, higher yields are attained with an incremental value of PhP66,873 per 
hectare, and the resulting incremental benets are PhP68,161 per hectare.
Market level effects of the PrsV-resistant Biotech Papaya
The per-hectare income gains from using the PRSV-resistant technology may be 
signicant, but they do not represent the expected benets from the economys 
viewpoint. An economic surplus analysis will quantify its benets and provide 
a more comprehensive assessment of the likely effects at the national level.





costs and Benefits of Bioengineered Papaya with resistance
to Papaya ring spot Virus in the Philippines29
table 4. Partial budget analysis on the effects of the PRSV-resistant technology, 
Philippines, 2005
PhP per PhP per 
Incremental benefitsIncremental costs
hectarehectare
Reduced costAdded cost
Pesticides1,288Seeds26
Hired labor6,473
Marketing costs222
Added returnsReduced returns---
Increased revenue66,873
Total68,161Total6,721
Net	benefit			=			61,440
Benefit-cost	ratio			=			9:1
Base Model Assumptions and Parameter Values
This section describes how key parameter estimates neededex- in the model for 
ante analysis were obtained from primary and secondary data. The projection 
period covered in this study is for 15 years from 2003 to 2017.
 Supply elasticity. No empirical study conducted in the Philippines provides 
estimates on the supply elasticity of papaya. Consultations with fruit experts 
revealed that the supply elasticity of mango is estimated at 0.4 - 0.6. Since 
there is less asset xity in papaya production, a more elastic supply elasticity of 
0.8 is assumed in this study. Relative to mango, papaya prices need to increase 
less to induce farmers to produce more papayas.
 Research and regulatory lag refers to the period required to make 
the technology available in the market. Table 5 shows the indicative 
research and regulatory period and costs from technology research stage to 
commercialization; commercialization takes an estimated 12 years from when 
the research began.
 Adoption rate. The scientists and industry experts indicated that the 
adoption path for the PRSV-resistant technology could follow that of Sinta 
papaya. After the commercialization of Sinta in 1995, its adoption rate was 
estimated at 30 percent in the rst year and reached a maximum of 90 percent 
after six years, an annual 10 percent increase. In this study, determining the 
maximum adoption rate considered the fact that the papaya plantations in 
Mindanao, which cater mainly to the export market, do not necessarily favor 
the PRSV-resistant technology as these markets strongly discriminate against 
transgenic commodities. These plantations cover about 10 percent of the total 
area devoted to papaya in the Philippines.





Y.M. Yorobe, Jr.30
table 5. Research development and regulatory time and costs of the PRSV-
resistant technology, Philippines, 2005
Activityno. of yearscost (PhP million)
Technology development21.6
Regulatory process
Containment32.6
Limited field trial23.6
Multi-location field trial24.5
Food safety assessment22.5
Commercialization11.7
Source: Authors survey of scientists and industry experts.
 Expected yield increase. The scientists interviewed in this study 
estimated that, based on their eld trials, the PRSV-resistant technology may 
give 65-95 percent yield increase, with a most likely increase of 77 percent.
 Change in cost per hectare. This parameter value represents the 
combined input cost changes that result from the adoption of the PRSV-
resistant technology. It includes changes in the cost of seeds, hired labor, 
pesticides, and output marketing. The value of 8 percent increase in cost was 
used (see Table 3).
 Probability of research success. The scientists interviewed estimated 
the probability of the technologys success at 83 percent, with a range of 80-90 
percent. They reported that this estimate is reasonable considering that some 
tests still need to be conducted before the technologys complete success can 
be conrmed.
 Technology depreciation. Scientists and other experts noted that, for 
transgenic crops already commercialized for 10 years, depreciation is yet to 
be observed. In this study, a conservative estimate of a linear depreciation was 
adopted 10 years after the PRSV-resistant technology is commercialized.
 Exogenous output growth rate is the anticipated proportionate change 
in output not due to research in each year. This was estimated at 0.81 percent, 
considering only the area growth rates in Luzon and Visayas; the area growth 
rates in Mindanao were exceptionally high (more than 10 percent) due to the 
rapid expansion of Solo papayas for export. Since commercial plantations in 
Mindanao discriminate against transgenic papayas, its effect on output growth 
was not considered.





costs and Benefits of Bioengineered Papaya with resistance
to Papaya ring spot Virus in the Philippines31
3
 Prices and discount rate. The price of papaya was assumed to be 
constant at 2003 levels because, although it trades papaya, the Philippines 
is small relative to the world export market and hence cannot inuence the 
world price. This study used a price level of PhP19,640 per metric ton, given 
that there are no existing distortions in the papaya market. This study also 
assumed a discount rate of 5 and 10 percent to estimate the stream of benets 
and costs for 15 years.
Base Model Results
The ex-ante economic surplus analysis revealed that the PRSV-resistant 
technology is likely to bring about substantial aggregate welfare benets to 
papaya producers. In 2003, the value of papaya production in the Philippines 
amounted to PhP2.56 billion. The estimated value after commercialization of 
the PRSV-resistant technology was PhP2.6 billion, resulting in a change (an 
increase) in producer surplus of PhP650 million. Given the small open economy 
assumptions made, the benet accruing to all papaya producers or the total 
economic surplus for the 15-year period of 2003-2017 was estimated to be 
PhP19.82 billion (Table 6). Even with the research cost of PhP6.4 million, the 
stream of net benet amounted to PhP11.68 billion (discounted at 5 percent). 
These results demonstrate the importance of the PRSV-resistant technology to 
the growth of the papaya industry.
table 6. Base model simulation results on the effects of the PRSV-resistant 
technology, Philippines
Incremental benefitsValue (PhP billion)
Total economic surplus (producers surplus only)19.82
Research cost  0.64
Net benefit:
NPV at 5%11.68
NPV	at	10%		7.19
3 In 2003, the ofcial foreign exchange rate was 1 USD = PhP54.00.





Y.M. Yorobe, Jr.32
Sensitivity Analysis
This section presents the sensitivity of the protability and welfare base model 
results to changes in the values of some parameters (Table 7). Producer benets 
increased by as much as 64 percent when supply was assumed to be less 
elastic than 0.8. Similarly, increasing the expected yield change to 95 percent 
produced a 31 percent higher welfare benets. Needless to say, the converse 
was true with a lower expected yield. (An expansion in output benets the 
economy through higher foreign exchange earnings.)
table 7. Sensitivity analysis of the PRSV-resistant technology with different 
scenarios, Philippines
total net benefits (PhP billion)
economic 
scenarionPV at 5%nPV at 
surplus
10%
(PhP billion)
Base model19.8211.68		7.19
a
Increase in input cost18.6811.01 6.77
(- 6)(-6)(-6)
Change in technology adoption 22.9013.84 8.73
b
path(16)(18)		(21)
Yield increase
65% increase15.99 9.435.80
(-19)(-19)(-19)
95% increase25.9515.28 9.39
(31)(31)(31)
c
Decrease in supply elasticity32.4219.1111.76
(64)(64)(64)
Five-year delay in    8.04 4.26 2.33
commercializationd(-59)(-63)  (-67)
Simultaneous change in technology 30.0618.1511.44
e
adoption path and yield increase(52)(55)(59)
Figures in parentheses are percentage changes from the base values
a
 Input cost per hectare is doubled 
b	Theinitial	technology	adoption	rate	is	 50%,		increasingby		10%	until2007,		and	by	90%	
thereafter
c
 Supply elasticity was set at 0.5
d	Commercialization	was	moved	to	2012
e Using the change in adoption path and a yield increase at 95%





costs and Benefits of Bioengineered Papaya with resistance
to Papaya ring spot Virus in the Philippines33
 Given a higher rate of PRSV-resistant technology adoption (an increase of 
50 percent at the initial year), the net present value of net benets increased by 
18 percent at a discount rate of 5 percent. Assuming a higher discount rate of 
course reduced the value of net benets. Compared to yield changes, the model 
was less sensitive to changes in costs, with increased input costs reducing 
benets by only about 6 percent.
 The sensitivity analysis showed that a delay in the commercialization of 
the PRSV-resistant technology and a reduction in supply elasticity each had 
very strong impacts on producers welfare. A ve-year delay in technology 
commercialization can reduce producers welfare by as much as 63 percent. 
This indicates the urgency of having a technology that can effectively control 
PRSV in the country today. Papaya producers will greatly benet if measures 
to mitigate the disease are made available as soon as possible. Combining the 
effects of higher adoption rates and a 95 percent yield improvement due to 
the PRSV-resistant technology resulted to a more than 50 percent increase in 
producers welfare.
summary and conclusions
The papaya ring spot virus (PRSV) is a major disease in the Philippines that 
can reduce yields by as much as 80 percent in some regions. Unfortunately, 
all the available Philippine papaya varieties are PRSV-susceptible except for 
the PRSV-tolerant Sinta hybrid variety. To address the worsening damage 
attributed to the disease, a transgenic papaya variety totally resistant to PRSV 
was produced at IPB and is currently undergoing regulatory testing prior to 
commercialization. This study quantitatively assessed the potential farm-level 
economic benets of the new PRSV-resistant papaya variety and evaluated the 
market-level distribution of those benets under varying economic scenarios.
This study was conducted in the ve major papaya-growing provinces of 
Cavite, Laguna, Misamis Oriental, Davao del Sur, and South Cotabato. Focus 
group discussions (FGDs) with papaya farmers were conducted to generate the 
required primary information, which was in turn supplemented by interviews 
with scientists and industry experts. The analysis involved partial budgeting 
with and without the technology framework. The market effects were then 
estimated using economic surplus analysis, assuming a small open economy 
for papaya.
 The adoption of PRSV-resistant technology will expectedly effect changes 
in papaya production costs, more specically those relating to seed, hired 
labor, pesticide, and marketing. With the technology, seed and marketing 





Y.M. Yorobe, Jr.34
costs are likely to increase, but this increase is likely to be matched by a 
decrease in pesticide expenditures by 21 percent. Total cost will likely increase 
by 8 percent, but there will likely be a 38 percent reduction in per-kilogram 
cost due to higher outputs. With reduced losses from PRSV, there may be a 77 
percent yield advantage in using the PRSV-resistant variety, translating to a 
275 percent increase in net farm income.
 At the market level, the PRSV-resistant technology will result in signicant 
welfare gains to papaya producers, with total net benets amounting to more 
than PhP11.68 billion discounted at 5 percent for the period 2003-2017. The 
advantage of adopting the PRSV-resistant technology will depend to a large 
extent on market supply elasticity, time of commercialization, and expected 
farm-level yield increase of the PRSV-resistant variety. A decrease in the supply 
elasticity and a delay in commercialization by ve years appear to provide the 
largest relative welfare loss. The most notable effects of adopting the PRSV-
resistant technology were observed due to changes in supply elasticity and 
yield. Increasing the expected yield effect of the technology substantially 
increases the producers welfare benets. Similarly, as supply becomes more 
inelastic, producers respond less readily to changes in prices. The combined 
effects of increasing the expected yield and adoption rate produce a more than 
50 percent gain on producers welfare.
 In conclusion, the PRSV-resistant technology will likely produce substantial 
welfare gains to papaya producers. The application of fewer pesticides is 
signicant as well as health and environmental risks are minimized.
references
BAS - Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2006. CountrySTAT http://www.Philippines. 
countrystat.bas.gov.ph 
BAS. 2003. Papaya: Updated production cost and returns. BAS, Quezon City, 
Philippines.
Gonzales, L, RA Hautea and TP Laude. 2003. Ex-ante socioeconomic analysis of the 
papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). Paper presented at the Socioeconomic Planning 
Workshop of the Papaya Biotechnology Network of Southeast Asia. Bangkok, 
Thailand, 11 July.
Laude, TP. 2002. Potential impact of biotechnology adoption on the productivity, 
protability, and global competitiveness of the Philippine papaya industry. 
Unpublished B.S. thesis. University of the Philippines Los Banos, College, Los 
Banos, Laguna, Philippines, March.
Magdalita, PM 2000. Papaya ringspot virus and its control. Paper presented at the 
Fruit Techno Forum. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines.
PCARRD - Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research 
and Development. 2004. R&D status and directions (2000 and beyond): Papaya. 
PCARRD, Los Banos, Laguna, Philipines.














Document Number: 9559 
costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines
S.R. Francisco
Introduction
Eggplant, Solanum melongena L., is one of the most economically important 
vegetable crops in the Philippines currently valued at PhP3.44 billion (BAS, 
2008). Production generally increased from 1990 to 2007, same with area 
except in 1998 (Figure 1). Yield followed a pattern similar to production until 
1999 when it barely moved. Nevertheless, eggplant accounted for an average 
of 29 percent of the total quantity of vegetables produced, equivalent to an 
average of  185,153 metric tons from 2000-2007 (BAS, 2008).
 As with other vegetables, eggplant prices are highly seasonal in the 
Philippines  low during the summer months of March to May and high 
during the colder months of November to January. This price pattern reects 
the volume of product available in the market. At constant prices, the value 
of eggplant production remained to be the highest among vegetables in the 
Philippines from 2000-2007. Within the same period, the top eggplant 
producing provinces were Pangasinan, Quezon, and Isabela which gave 
an average combined production of 93,095 metric tons. Pangasinan and 
Quezon accounted for nearly 50 percent of total eggplant production in the 
Philippines.
 Recently however, eggplant production in the Philippines has been seriously 
affected by a host of problems, the most damaging of which is the eggplant 
fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee). Farmers have 
reported nding it difcult and expensive to control, hence affecting yields 





36S.R. Francisco
Figure 1. Eggplantarea		harvestedproduction,	and	 	yieldPhilippines,	1990-,	
2007 (Source of basic data: BAS, 2008.)
and making production risky and costly. With increased costs of production 
brought about by high expenditures for fertilizers, pesticides and labor, the 
protability of eggplant production has been declining since 1997 (Table 1 and 
Figure 2). Although income increased from 2004, there is a wide variability in 
prot.
research to Address eFsB
The realization that conventional pesticides can cause problems has stimulated 
the search for alternative strategies to control EFSB. One project undertaken 
to control EFSB has been the Integrated Pest ManagementCollaborative 
Research Support Program (IPM-CRSP). The project has researched various 
combinations of techniques such as cultural control, host plant resistance, 
and judicious chemical control to reduce pest infestations to economically 
acceptable levels. However, only a few recommended practices have been 
widely adopted.
 Another project, the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Program II 
(ABSPII), has sought to develop and commercialize transgenic EFSB-resistant 
(or Bt) eggplant for resource-limited farmers in India, Bangladesh and the 
Philippines through public-private sector partnerships. ABSPII is collaborating 
with India-based Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), which has 





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines37
developed a Bt eggplant donor event, EE-1. The transformation involved 
genetic modication using Bt technology to confer resistance against the 
targeted insects. A gene encoding insecticidal protein cry1Ac from Bacillus 
thuringiensis (Bt) have been introduced into Mahyco eggplant line to develop 
resistance against EFSB. Transgenic Bt eggplant Mahyco hybrids derived from 
Mahyco event EE-1 have completed several multi-location and large scale eld 
trials in India (Choudhary and Gaur, 2008). This chapter ex- summarizes an 
ante assessment of the economic impact of this transgenic crop if it were to be 
introduced as a component of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program 
in the Philippines.
table 1.  Costsand	 	returns(PhP/ha)	of	eggplant	production	Philippines,	1998-,	
2003
Year
Item
199819992000200120022003
Costs (PhP)
Seeds1,0321,2711,3111,5071,3351,344
Fertilizer8,2546,9447,4708,8938,77510,963
Pesticides14,164 12,708 13,670 16,274 16,058 20,063
Labor22,73327,313 27,57227,58328,48330,158
Other costs*18,664 19,992 20,92823,177 22,60724,218
Total production 64,84768,22870,951 77,43477,25886,746
cost (PhP)
Yield (kg)10,1828,2448,3298,3158,6308,430
Price per kg8.3310.2610.5812.1610.7710.84
Gross revenue 84,816 84,58388,121 101,110 92,94591,381
(PhP)
Net income (PhP)19,969 16,356 17,169 23,67715,6874,635
Source: BAS (2004)
* Other costs include rents, fuel & oil, transport, irrigation fees, interest on capital, landlord shares





38S.R. Francisco
Figure 2.  Profitabilityof	eggplant	production	1996-200,	7(Source	of	 	basic	
data: BAS, 2008)
objectives
Any program that attempts to introduce a new technology is often confronted 
with questions such as: How protable is the technology? What are its impacts 
or benets? What is its return on investment? Answers to these questions are 
needed by farmers (technology users) who desire information on eld level 
results, by funding agencies who are interested in macro-level impacts, and 
by policy makers to have basis for wider scale of program implementation. 
To help answer these questions, this study aims to ex-ante undertake an 
economic impact assessment of developing and commercializing Bt eggplant 
in the Philippines. More specically, this assessment was undertaken to:
1. examine the impacts of Bt eggplant adoption on farm income, costs, 
and pesticide and labor usage, and 
2. project the size and distribution of economic benets to society from 
developing and commercializing Bt eggplant.
 The results of this study can serve as a basis for recommending to farmers 
an effective strategy to manage fruit and shoot borer in eggplant as well as for 
evaluating the market level benets of the technology.





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines39
Methodology
data and sources
Following the general analytical framework discussed in Chapter 2, this study 
collected primary data from focus group discussions (FGDs) with a total of 77 
farmers in ve FGDs , interviews of four eggplant scientists and two industry 
experts, including seed company representatives, 10 extension workers, 
and two product regulators. Secondary data were gathered mainly from the 
Philippine Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (DA-
BAS) and the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice).
 The FGDs were conducted in the ve eggplant producing provinces 
of Batangas, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Pangasinan and Quezon. The 
municipalities covered include, Tanauan in Batangas, Talavera in Nueva Ecija, 
Aritao in Nueva Viscaya, Asingan in Pangasinan, and Candelaria in Quezon. 
Farmers from these FGDs came from different barangays of the identied 
towns. In 2003, Pangasinan and Quezon together produced about 85,300 mt 
of eggplant, or more than 50 percent of total production in the Philippines. In 
the same year, Pangasinan and Nueva Ecija accounted for almost 30 percent 
of total area planted.
 The farmer FGDs elicited information on yield losses caused by EFSB, 
variety use and sources, pest management practices, input costs, and means 
of product disposal, among others. Information obtained from the scientists, 
included expected yield gains from solving the problem of EFSB, changes in 
input costs associated with controlling EFSB and with use of Bt eggplant, the 
probability of success in developing Bt eggplant, R&D and regulatory costs of 
developing and commercializing Bt eggplant, and the variety to incorporate 
the Bt and the unintended effects of Bt eggplant. The industry experts 
interviewed included seed industry players, extension agents, and government 
regulators. Information obtained from these industry experts included annual 
crop loss due to EFSB damage, preferred varieties, source of seeds, technology 
development and regulatory lags, maximum adoption rate (area planted) once 
Bt eggplant is released, years before reaching the maximum adoption rate, and 
the cost of research and meeting regulatory requirements before Bt eggplant is 
released.
 Meanwhile, secondary data collected from the Bureau of Agricultural 
Statistics (BAS) included eggplant production, area, yield, prices, and 
production costs and returns, both at the national and at the provincial levels. 
Experimental data on yields were also gathered from PhilRice and its IPM-
CRSP studies.





40S.R. Francisco
data Analysis
To assess the potential impacts Bt eggplant of adoption, a partial budget was 
constructed to reect changes in seed use, pesticide and application labor, 
yield changes, and farmers income using the data and information gathered 
from the different stakeholder interviews and secondary data on eggplant 
cost and return. The economic surplus model was then applied to evaluate 
and quantify the potential benets and Bt eggpcosts lant technology of to 
producers and consumers, and to project the size of aggregate impacts and 
their corresponding distribution. A closed economy model for the eggplant 
market was assumed because few eggplants are traded internationally.
 The eggplant supply and demand functions were assumed to be linear. 
The model was run for a 15-year time horizon starting from 2008, after which 
the technology is assumed obsolete. A high adoption rate was assumed for the 
Bt eggplant technology because it is not a signicant departure from existing 
farmer practice, and its protability would be substantial.  
 Although eggplant is an important crop in the Philippines, information on 
its elasticities of supply and demand are very limited. Orogo (1976) estimated 
the elasticities of selected vegetables, except eggplant; the estimated demand 
elasticity of fruit vegetables was at -0.75 and of all vegetables at -0.85. This 
study assumed the demand elasticity of eggplant to be within this range (at 
-0.8) considering that eggplant is a fruit vegetable. A supply elasticity of 0.5 was 
assumed considering the nature and high seasonality of eggplant production. 
Sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the assumptions used in the 
analysis. 
results and discussions
survey of eggplant Farmers, researchers and Industry experts
Tables 2 and 3 present the summary ndings across the ve FGD provinces. 
Eggplant farmers reported that yield losses due to EFSB ranged from 28 to 64 
percent (Table 2). In some cases, farmers reported yield losses of 90 percent. 
Majority of the farmers interviewed planted hybrid eggplant seeds (Casino, 
Jackpot and Domino varieties), although some farmers reported that they use 
home-saved seeds for home consumption. The East-West Seed Company, the 
leader in vegetable seed sales in Luzon, is the major source of hybrid seeds. 
Farmers reported using 50 to 100 grams per hectare and spending PhP400 
to PhP1,400 per hectare for the hybrid seeds. In marketing, farmers dispose 
of their output either by direct marketing, selling to traders/local assemblers, 
or by bringing them to a nearby trading post or to Metro Manila where major 
consumption takes place. 





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines41
table 2. Summary of information processed from eggplant farmer FGDs, 
Philippines, 2005
Itemresponse
Yield loss  28-64%
Variety used  Casino, Jackpot, Domino, home-saved seeds
Seed sources  Agricultural  supplier, East-West Seed Company, co-farmers
Seed usage		50-100	grams	per	ha
Seed cost		PhP	400-1,400	per	ha
Market outlets  Direct marketing, traders, trading posts, Metro Manila
table 3. Input usage and cost per ha from farmer FGDs, Philippines, 2005
Insecticidesseeds
Application Frequency Fertilizer 
costQtycost
statisticsQtylaborof sprayingcost
(PhP/(gm/(PhP/
(li/ha)(PhP/ha)(no./ha)(PhP/ha)
ha)ha)ha)
Min    5		1,250  2,00010  2,480  50  400
Max11557,50016,0008026,4001001,400
Average		3114,581  7,3983710,512  77   963
Mode  2016,000  8,0004010,0001001,200
 The eggplant farmers interviewed sprayed a minimum of 5 li and a 
maximum of 115 li for the 5-6 month duration of eggplant production (Table 
3). The mean volume of insecticides used was 31 li/ha, although most farmers 
applied only 20 li/ha. On average, eggplant farmers spent PhP10,512/ha 
on fertilizers, PhP14,581/ha on insecticides and PhP7,398/ha for pesticide 
application hired labor. The IPM CRSP baseline surveys in 1994 and 1999 
found that eggplant farmers in Nueva Ecija sprayed twice per week on average. 
Except for removal of damaged fruits and shoots, no other method has been 
reported to be effective against EFSB (Alpuerto, 1994). This control method, 
however, is rarely adopted by farmers because it is labor intensive and labor is 
limited. As such, farmers mainly rely on insecticides.  
 Most farmers are willing to adopt Bt eggplant even if its seed is more 
expensive than the current varieties. According to them, EFSB had caused the 
protability of eggplant production to decline substantially; in many instances, 





42S.R. Francisco
the farmers reported barely breaking even because the marketable yield had 
been reduced to less than half the total yield  much lower than the marketable 
yields obtained ve years earlier. The declining prot and marketability 
prompted the farmers to change to other crops such as yellow corn and green 
corn. Even if corn production did not give them high prots, the farmers felt 
that the risk of loss was much smaller than with eggplant.
 Meanwhile, scientists perceive that farmers adoption of Bt eggplant would 
increase eggplant yield anywhere from 23 percent to 60 percent, though most 
likely by 47 percent (Table 4). These estimates were larger than those given by 
the farmers during the FGDs. In terms of changes in variable input costs, the 
scientists felt that hired labor cost for pesticide application would decrease 
by 10 to 25 percent, pesticide cost would be reduced by about 47 percent, 
but increase seed cost by 50 percent. Scientists felt that there is a 73 percent 
probability of success in developing and commercializing Bt eggplant.
table 4. Summary of eggplant scientist interviews, Philippines, 2005
responseresponse
Yield change (%)Lags (years)
Min23Technology development5
Max60Contained trial2
Most likely47Limited eld trial2
Cost change (%)Multi-location field trial2
Hired labor(10	-	25) Food safety assessment1
Fertilizer-Apply for commercialization1
Pesticides(42 - 53)Cost involved (USD000)150	-	250
Seeds50	-	100
Probability of success 73Externality
(%)
Gene owN
BiodiversityN
Non-target organismN
 The development and commercialization of a biotech crop involves several 
steps. The rst is technology development that begins in laboratories or 
greenhouses, where scientists make transformations and conduct contained 
trials. Once the laboratory and greenhouse results are successful, the plant 





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines43
may advance to conned eld trials, where breeding and testing continue. 
The third step is securing regulatory approval for multi-location eld trial to 
generate information on crop performance in different environments where 
the plant will be grown and/or consumed, followed by the fourth and nal step 
of approval for propagation, market acceptance and widespread dissemination. 
Scientists felt that all these steps would take about nine years to complete for 
a rough total cost gure ranging at USD150-250,000. They were unanimous 
in saying that there would be no serious unintended effects associated with Bt 
eggplant, basing their views on the experience with Bt corn in the Philippines 
and with other Bt crops being cultivated in other countries such as the United 
States.
 Meanwhile, seed industry representatives and extension agents opined 
that the yield loss due to EFSB can range from 35 percent to 50 percent, a 
range narrower than the farmer estimates (Table 5). The most popular varieties 
are Casino and Jackpot, which are produced and distributed by the East-West 
Seed Company. They also gave a probability of 70 to 90 percent chances of 
success in developing and commercializing Bt eggplant.
table 5.  Summary of industry expert interviews, Philippines, 2005
response
Yield loss (%)35 - 50
VarietiesCasino, Jackpot
SourcesEast-West Seed Co, agricultural suppliers
Probability of success (%)70 - 90
Lags (yrs)
Development4
Contained trial1
Limited field trial2
Multi-location field trial2
Food safety assessment3
Application for commercialization1
Cost involved (USD000)120		200	(from	R&D	to	commercialization)
Maximum crop area planted40 - 60% in 3 - 5 years
Change in area 5	-	10%	decline	per	year	if	trends	in	EFSB	
infestation continue





44S.R. Francisco
 Industry experts forecasted the time lag required to develop and 
commercialize Bt eggplant at about 10 years with a total expenditure of 
USD120-200,000 and a maximum adoption of 40 to 60 percent. If no effective 
solution will be available to manage or control EFSB, there would be a decline 
of 5 to 10 percent per annum in area planted to eggplant.
Potential Farm-level effects of Bt eggplant
Potential technology effects on the cost and income of eggplant production 
at the farm level were estimated based on FGDs results and interviews with 
scientists and industry experts. The estimation included only variable costs 
because it assumed that xed costs (e.g., land/land rental, machinery, tools, 
irrigation) would be the same with and without Bt eggplant variety. Table 6 
summarizes the results of this estimation.
table 6. Estimated changes in Bt eggplant farm budget based on farmer 
FGDs and experts interviews, Philippines, 2005
response
Variable cost 
Seed50	-	100%	increase
Fertilizer No change
Pesticides 50 - 60% decrease
Labor10	-	25%	decrease
   Pesticide labor Pesticide application to decrease by 60%
   Other labor No change
OtherNo change
Yield and returns
Yield (kg/ha)28 - 64% increase
Price per kgNo change
Gross return28 - 64% increase
Seed Cost
Determining how much seed companies will charge for Bt eggplant varieties 
is difcult for several reasons. First, while seed company representatives said 
that they would charge a price higher than the price of their current premium 
variety, they could not estimate the new price until they saw the performance 
of the nished variety. In addition, the price they would charge would depend 
upon whether or not other companies are able to develop and release varieties 





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines45
with similar traits. The interviews with scientists, however, indicated that 
farmers who adopt a Bt eggplant variety would likely face a 50-100 percent 
increase in seed costs. 
Pesticide Cost
Based on the FGDs and interviews with experts, Bt eggplant could reduce 
farmers spraying for EFSB by 50 to 60 percent, thereby reducing expenditures 
on insecticides by that amount.
Labor Cost
Scientists and industry experts estimated that, if Bt eggplant were planted, 
labor cost in eggplant production would be reduced by 10 to 25 percent, which 
in turn would come from reduced pesticide applications. Farmers felt that they 
would cut down their application by at least 60 percent with Bt eggplant. 
Yields and Returns
Farmers and industry experts indicated yield losses of 28 to 64 percent to 
EFSB. Assuming that EFSB could be fully controlled by planting Bt eggplant, 
this would mean that marketable yield would increase by that same amount, 
resulting in an equal increase in gross revenue (assuming no product price 
increase).
Other Costs
Marketable yields were expected to increase with the use of Bt eggplant. 
However, harvesting and post harvest labor costs would not be expected to 
change since labors would be handling the same volume of output (they just 
would not have to sort out the damaged fruits).
Income and cost effects of Bt eggplant
Enterprise and partial budgets for 2002 and 2003 eggplant production were 
constructed, with and without the new technology (Table 7). In both years, seed 
cost comprised only a small portion (less than 2 percent) of total production 
cost. This analysis shows that the Btadoption  eggplant would of decrease 
production costs due to a reduction in pesticide and pesticide application 
labor. The use of pesticides would potentially decrease by 55 percent while 
pesticide labor cost would decline by 60 percent. With the prevented yield loss, 
marketable output would increase by 40 percent. Bt eggplant The use hence of 
would increase net income substantially.





46S.R. Francisco
table 7. Partial budgets projected for Bt eggplant production compared to 
actual 2002 and 2003 crop budgets (PhP/ha)
crop budgetscrop budgets
2002200320022003
Incremental benefitsIncremental costs
Reduced costsAdded costs
Pesticide cost8,83211,035Seed cost1,335 1,344
Hired labor5,127  5,428
Added returnsReduced returns
Increased revenue37,178 45,691
Total incremental 51,137 62,154 Total incremental 1,335 1,344
benefitscosts
Net incremental 49,802 60,810
benefits
USD1.00	=	PhP55.00
Source of basic data: BAS (2004)
 Using the 2002 crop budget from BAS, the adoption of Bt eggplant would 
reduce the cost of using insecticides by a total of PhP13,959 per ha. This 
decreased cost was brought about by the reduction in pesticide applications and 
concomitant labor costs. The adoption Bt eggplant of would prevent damage 
to the crop from EFSB and hence increase marketable yield and revenue. 
Farmers, however, would incur an increased cost of seed of PhP1,335 per ha, 
assuming that Bt eggplant seed are more expensive. The resultant increase in 
prots for Bt eggplant would be PhP49,802 per ha.
Welfare effects
Changes in economic surplus were computed based on technical coefcients 
derived from the partial budgets, assumed adoption rates, and elasticities 
of demand and supply (Appendix 1 presents the basic spreadsheet used in 
this study). The expected yield difference Bt eggplant between and current 
non-transgenic eggplant varieties was 40 percent, and the expected net cost 
reduction due to Bt eggplant variety was 16 percent. A discount rate of 5 
percent was used in the model. Table 8 summarizes the projected net benets 
and their distribution.





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines47
table 8. Projected changes in economic surpluses, research costs, net 
benefits and the net present value of benefits minus costs with adoption of  
Bt eggplant
Value in PhP million
Change in consumer surplus1,279	(38)
Change in producer surplus2,047 (62)
Change in total surplus3,326	(100)
Research costs     29
Net benefits3,297
Net present value (NPV)1,864
Internal rate of return (%, IRR)86.85
USD1.00	=	PhP55.00
Values in parentheses are percentages
 The net present value of adopting Bt eggplant the technology was estimated 
at PhP1,864 million, with an internal rate of return (IRR) of 86.8 percent for the 
PhP29 million investment in developing and commercializing the technology. 
Consumers would also be safer because of reduced insecticide residues on the 
product. Total surplus would increase by about PhP3,326 million of which 
PhP1,279 million (38 percent) would go to consumers and PhP2,047 million 
(62 percent) would go to producers.
sensitivity Analysis
Several parameters in the analysis can be considered as carrying some 
uncertainty. Expected changes in input costs, yields, supply/demand elasticities 
and adoption patterns were varied to determine how the benets and their 
distribution would be affected. When the supply elasticity was reduced by 50 
percent (supply was made more inelastic), the NPV of the benets increased to 
PhP3,536 million, almost double the benets in the base case scenario (Table 
9). The change in producers surplus more than doubled while the change in 
consumers surplus increased slightly. Meanwhile, an increase of 50 percent 
in the supply elasticity (supply was made more elastic) reduced the NPV to 
PhP1,308 million. Relative to the base scenario, changes in economic surplus 
and NPV due to changes in demand elasticity were small compared to those 
for changes in the supply elasticity. However, changes in the magnitude of the 
demand elasticity had a large effect on the distribution of benets between 
consumers and producers, with consumers beneting from a reduction in the 
supply elasticity.





48S.R. Francisco
table 9. Changes in NPV and economic surplus (in PhP million) under varying 
elasticities of supply and demand
change in
scenarioconsumer Producer total nPVIrr (%)
surplussurplussurplus
Base case1,279.09 2,046.543,325.62 1,864.42	  86.85
(0.38)(0.62)(1.00)
Change in supply elasticity
50% decrease in base 1,492.78 4,776.906,269.69 3,536.44105.45
case
(0.24)(0.76)(1.00)
50% increase in base 1,135.60 1,211.31 2,346.91 1,308.56  77.65
case
(0.48)(0.52)(1.00)
Change in demand elasticity
50% decrease in base 1,830.08 1,464.06 3,294.15 1,846.71  86.68
case
(0.56)(0.44)(1.00)
50% increase in base    983.032,359.263,342.29 1,873.79	  86.94
case
(0.29)(0.71)(1.00)
USD1.00	=	PhP55.00
Values in parentheses are shares of the total surplus change
 Table 10 summarizes the effects of changes in yield and cost on changes 
in economic surplus, NPV and IRR for Bt eggplant production. A 50 percent 
increase in expected yield change caused increased total economic surplus 
by 44 percent, NPV by 45 percent, and IRR by 10 percent. Conversely, a 50 
percent reduction in expected yield change reduced total economic surplus, 
NPV and IRR by 42, 43 and 14 percent, respectively. A 50 percent increase 
in input costs caused a 6 percent decrease in total economic surplus and an 
almost equal percent change in NPV.
Varying the Adoption Pattern
Another parameter that is critical to benets of a technological change is the 
pattern of adoption by farmers. Adoption often follows an S-shaped pattern 
approaching its maximum level asymptotically (Alston et al., 1995). In this 
study, four distinct S-shaped adoption rate patterns were assumed. The base 
case scenario A1 had a four-year lag period and a maximum adoption rate of 





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines49
50 percent; A2 had a four-year lag period, but a rate of adoption higher than 
A1; A3 had early adoption (only a three-year lag) but with a slower adoption 
rate than in A1; and A4 had the same pattern as A1 but with only half the 
adoption rate. Figure 3 shows these different adoption patterns and Table 11 
presents the results of the sensitivity analysis.
table 10. Changes in NPV and economic surplus with changes in expected 
yield and production cost
change in total change in nPV
surplus
scenarioValue%Value%Irr (%)
(PhP (PhP 
million) million)
Base case3,326-1,864-86.85
Change in expected yield change
50% increase4,79744.232,700 44.7997.15
50% decrease1,912-42.491,062-43.0572.59
Change in expected cost
50% increase3,111-6.451,743-  6.5385.05
50% decrease3,5416.481,987   6.5688.57
USD1.00	=	PhP55.00
0.60
0.50
A1
0.40A2
0.30A3
A4
0.20
Adoption rate (%)
0.10
0.00123456789101112131415
A1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.12 0.25 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 
A2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 
A3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 
A4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 
Year
Figure 3.  Adoption patterns assumed in the computation of economic 
surplus.





50S.R. Francisco
table 11. Changes in economic surplus (PhP million), NPV (PhP million), and 
IRR under different adoption patterns
technology adoption scenarios
ParametersA1
(base A2A3A4
case)
Change in consumer surplus1,2791,3691,228   629
Change in producer surplus2,0472,1901,9661,006
Change in total surplus3,3263,5593,1941,634
0.07-0.04-0.75
Net benefits3,2973,5303,1651,605
Net present value (NPV)1,8642,0271,711904
0.09-0.08-0.52
IRR (%)86.85103.4689.2668.81
0.190.03-0.37
USD1.00	=	PhP55.00
Figures	in	italics	are	the	percent	changes	compared	to	the	base	case	scenario,	A1
Total research cost is PhP29 million
 Relative to the base case scenario, the NPV under A2 increased by more 
than 10 percent, and IRR increased by about 20 percent. The total economic 
surplus increased by more than PhP200 million (7 percent). A comparison 
of the base case scenario and A3 meanwhile reveals that even if the adoption 
rate is low, the economic surplus and NPV would not decrease dramatically as 
long as adoption is early. This is evidenced by only 4 percent reduction in total 
economic surplus and 8 percent reduction in NPV.  Under adoption rate A4, 
economic surplus, NPV and IRR were all smaller compared to those under the 
base case scenario, respectively declining by 75, 52 and 37 percent. 
simultaneous changes in Yield and Adoption
Table 12 illustrates the effects of assuming simultaneous changes in yield, cost, 
and adoption, while elasticities are assumed to be the same as those of the base 
case scenario. The results show that even if the yield gain, cost reduction, and 
adoption rate were at only 50 percent of the baseline assumptions, investment 
in the development of Bt eggplant technology would still be protable. 





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines51
table 12. Effects of simultaneous changes in model parameters on economic 
surplus (PhP million), NPV (PhP million) and IRR
change in
net 
scenarioconsumer Producer total BenefitnPVIrr (%)
surplussurplussurplus
Base case1,2792,0473,3263,2971,09286.85
50% base 243.61584.66828.27799.27446.0553.65
case
USD1.00	=	PhP55.00
environmental effects
While Chapter 10 presents a more detailed analysis of the environmental 
benets and risks Bt eggplant of technology adoption, a few conclusions from 
the stakeholder interviews and from estimated changes in pesticide use were 
opted to be presented here. The FGDs found that farmers were spraying as many 
as 80 times per season to control EFSB. The Bt eggplant, adoption therefore, of 
would greatly reduce, if not eliminate, these pesticide applications because of 
the built-in insecticidal protein. This would in turn mean reduced pesticide 
loading in the environment that can pollute the waterways and groundwater, 
and cause harm to non-target organisms and species biodiversity. 
 Some concerns raised against genetically modied crops include unknown 
potential effects on gene ow, non-target species, and biodiversity. Gene ow 
is an ecological concern wherein genetically engineered pollen or seed might 
escape, spread throughout the community, and establish itself where it falls, 
thus becoming weeds of agriculture or invasive to the natural environment. 
Similarly, plants engineered to produce proteins with insecticidal properties 
are feared to also possibly affect the populations of non-target species. A 
concern is expressed that the insecticidal protein expressed in Bt eggplant, by 
secretion or upon cell death, might be toxic to the broad range of non-target 
organisms such as the benecial natural predators/parasitoids, those present 
in soil and water ecosystems, and the fauna that may consume the transgenic 
crop parts. Loss in eggplant species biodiversity might occur if Bt eggplant 
could withstand the EFSB and hence, in the long run, be the only variety that 
could survive. These concerns, however, were unanimously rejected by the 
scientists interviewed for Bt eggplant.   
 





52S.R. Francisco
summary and conclusion
Eggplant, Solanum melongena, L. is one of the most economically important 
vegetable crops in the Philippines. Eggplant yields and protability, however, 
have been seriously threatened and affected by fruit and shoot borer (EFSB), 
making production risky and costly. 
 This study projected that the adoption Bt eggplant of would increase 
marketable yield, reduce insecticide use, and increase farmers income in the 
Philippines. Using both primary and secondary data, the study also projected 
the size and distribution of benets to producers, consumers, and society as 
a whole. Focus group discussions with farmers elicited information on yield 
losses and variable costs. Interviews with scientists and industry experts elicited 
information on time lags, probability of development and commercialization 
success, technology adoption and depreciation, seed pricing, and market 
adoption rates.  Prices, area, production, and cost and return data were 
obtained from BAS and PhilRice-IPM CRSP project. 
 Farm level partial budgets were constructed to assess the incremental 
benets and costs of adopting Bt eggplant. The size and distribution of benets 
were projected using economic surplus analysis, and sensitivity analyses 
determined the effects of varying key assumptions.
  Results indicated that at the farm level, Bt eggplant adoption has high 
potential to increase marketable yield, reduce costs, and increase prots. 
Partial budgeting showed that, compared to current varieties, Bt eggplant 
could provide incremental benets of around PhP50,000 per ha. In general, 
the adoption of Bt eggplant would be economically superior to current 
technologies from a consumer and producer standpoint, as well as for society as 
a whole. However, the larger share of the change in economic surplus would go 
to producers as a result of the research-induced shift in the supply curve given 
the base elasticity assumptions (-0.8 and 0.5). Sensitivity analyses showed 
that the effect of supply elasticity on total economic surplus is greater than that 
of demand elasticity, but the latter has a greater effect on the distribution of 
benets. Even if yield gain, cost reduction, and adoption pattern were only half 
of the baseline assumptions, investment in the development of Bt eggplant 
technology would still be protable.
 The adoption Btof  eggplant is projected to greatly reduce, if not eliminate, 
pesticide use on eggplant thereby reducing both pesticide loading in the 
environment and hazards to farm labor and consumers.
 Since it has few (if any) unintended environmental effects, adopting the 
technology is a win-win situation.  It may improve input use efciency and 
help address poverty issues and food security concerns.  Once commercialized, 





costs and Benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance 
to Fruit and shoot Borer in the Philippines53
farmers would gain prots because the technology would increase the 
marketable yield and lower production costs; consumers would have an 
adequate supply of low-insecticide residue eggplant at a lower price; money 
used to buy insecticides, which have not been effective in the control of EFSB, 
could be used to purchase other yield-enhancing inputs.  Even if yield gain, 
cost reduction and technology adoption rate were only half of the baseline 
assumptions, investment in the development of Bt eggplant technology would 
still be highly protable.
references
Alpuerto, EB. 1994. Ecological studies and management of eggplant fruit and shoot 
borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of 
the Philippines Los Baos, College, Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
Alston, JM, GW Norton, and PG Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and 
Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University 
Press, Ithaca, New York.
BAS - Bureau of Agricultural Statistics 2008. CountrySTAT Philippines. http://
countrystat.bas.gov.ph 
BAS. 2004. Cost and return of selected vegetables in the Philippines. Quezon City, 
Philippines.
Choudhary, B and K Gaur. 2008. The development and Btregulation brinjal in India  of 
(Eggplant/Aubergine).  ISAAA Briefs No. 38. ISAAA: Ithaca, New York.
Orogo, VP. 1976. Analysis of household demand for selected agricultural products in 
major Philippine areas.  Papers and proceedings of the seminar workshop on MAGAP 
(model analysis of agricultural adjustments in the Philippines). Bureau of Agricultural 
Economics (now Bureau of Agricultural Statistics), Quezon City, Philippines.





54S.R. Francisco
rate
(IRR)86.9%
Internal of return
value (NPV
Net present1,091,965,741
--------
Cost
Research5,000,0005,000,0005,000,0005,000,0004,000,0003,000,0002,000,000
----
dTS
surplus
Change in total econ11,707,51611,707,51658,767,902134,831,027284,275,778549,640,025517,880,886486,265,698454,794,462423,467,175392,283,840
(base qty) Qo
182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750182,750
Quantity
P
Price10,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,00010,000
--
tion1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.950.900.850.800.750.700.65
Depreciation rate of adop
-
of
Rateadoption0.000.000.000.000.010.050.120.250.400.500.500.500.500.500.50
--
cess0.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.700.70
Probability of suc
in
input -0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16-0.16
Change cost per ha E(C)
Ex-yield 0.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.400.40
pected change E(dY)
4 yrs50%5 yrs from start of adoption40%-16%0, 0, 0, 0, 0,.01, 0.05, 0.12, 0.25, 0.40, 0.50, 0.50, 0.50, 0.50, 0.50-0.80.55 and 10%
n: : : : : : : : : 
Elas- ticity of de- mand 0.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.800.80 
max
e
0.500.500.500.50
ity of 0.500.500.500.500.500.500.500.500.500.500.50
Elastic-supply
T 
Year200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018max
Appendix 1. Economic surplus spreadsheet models and base case assumptionsBase case assumptions Research lag APeriod d to reach AE(dY) E(C) Adoption pattern Supply elasticity, e Demand elasticity, n Discount rate 














Document Number: 1834 
costs and Benefits of Multiple Virus resistant
tomato in the Philippines
C.B.C. Mamaril
Introduction
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) is widely produced and consumed in 
the Philippines. In 2004, the country produced an estimated total volume 
of 172,344 metric tons (mt), or one-tenth of all vegetable production and 10 
percent more than the 1995 level. In the same year, the total area planted to  
tomato was 17,687 hectares and the national average tomato yield was about 
10 t/ha, which was 12 percent more and 1.2 percent less than the 1995 levels, 
respectively. The top two tomato producing regions in the Philippines are 
Region I (Ilocos Region) and Region X (Northern Mindanao), while the top 
two producing provinces are Bukidnon and Pangasinan.
Production constraints
Like most solanaceous crops, tomatoes are prone to several insects and 
diseases. Some of its more common perennial pests include ants, army worms, 
nematodes, bacterial wilt, and viruses. Over the past few years, a collaborative 
effort among Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII), the 
World Vegetable Center (AVRDC), the International Service for the Acquisition 
of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), and the Institute for Plant Breeding at 
the University of the Philippines Los Baos (IPB-UPLB) has been ongoing 
to address two viral constraints: tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) and 
cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Plant infections from these two viruses were 
limited in the past, but there is mounting evidence from extension agents, 





56C.B.C. Mamaril
scientists, and seed company representatives who reported that a rapidly 
growing proportion of tomato production is being infected by TYLCV in 
farmers elds. Yield losses of up to 100 percent from TYLCV infection are 
being reported. As for CMV, there are currently no conventionally-developed 
sources of resistance available. Thus, a transgenic approach was adopted by 
ABSPII and its collaborators to address the virus constraint.
current research status
By 2004, the World Vegetable Center had developed eight parental lines 
considered to be possible sources of natural resistance to Philippine strains of 
TYLCV. The rst batch of seeds was acquired by IPB-UPLB on January 2005, 
and a second batch in May 2005. These parental lines were subjected to multi-
location testing to determine their efcacy of resistance against local TYLCV 
strains. Two out of the eight lines were used for introgression into three local 
varieties. As for hybrid multiple virus resistant (MVR) tomato, the initial 
F1 crosses were done at the World Vegetable Center, and the rst batch of 
seeds was acquired in April 2005. These were also subjected to multi-location 
efcacy trials.
 The trials were conducted in four sites, namely: (1) IPB-UPLB, (2) San 
Ildefonso, Bulacan, (3) Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, and (4) Manolo Fortich, 
Bukidnon. Preliminary results indicated that at least one among the nine 
TYLCV-resistant parental lines shows promise in terms of being resistant to 
Philippine strains of TYLCV. Additional trials are assessing fruit quality and 
other horticultural traits of promising MVR tomato lines.
 The efcacy testing of the World Vegetable Center developed transgenic 
CMV-resistant tomato to local CMV strains has not yet been conducted. 
Scientists are awaiting approval from the National Committee on Biosafety of 
the Philippines (NCBP) to import transgenic CMV-resistant tomato material 
into the Philippines.
objective and Methodology
This study aimed to evaluateex-ante the  welfare impact of adopting MVR 
tomato in the Philippines. A simple partial equilibrium closed economy 
economic surplus model was used to evaluate the magnitude and distribution 
of economic benets from adopting MVR tomato in the Philippines. MVR 
tomato R&D in the Philippines is at an early stage. As such, there is uncertainty 
in many of the variables that will affect the outcome of successfully releasing 
an MVR tomato variety. As cited in Hareau et al. (2003), ex-ante agricultural 
technology evaluations often utilize deterministic values for uncertain 





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in the Philippines57us 
variables, followed by sensitivity analysis to determine the robustness of results 
to changes in key parameter values. This study employed stochastic simulation 
methods to estimate the potential impact of adopting an MVR tomato variety 
in the Philippines. Probability distributions were assigned to expected yield 
increases, changes in marginal costs, price elasticities, area, production and 
consumption levels, and the probability of research success.
data sources
Both primary and secondary data were collected for this study. Secondary data 
on domestic annual consumption and production of tomato were obtained 
from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Primary data used in the simulation 
model were obtained from interviews with scientists, industry/market experts 
and selected tomato farmer focus discussion groups. These interviews and 
surveys were conducted from April to June 2005. The scientists interviewed 
were from the IPB-UPLB and were involved in the Philippine MVR tomato 
program. Interviews with four industry experts and four farmer focus group 
discussions were held in four major tomato production provinces, namely: (1) 
Ilocos Norte, (2) Bukidnon, (3) Pangasinan, and (4) Nueva Ecija.
Base Model Assumptions and Parameter Values
Information gathered from both primary and secondary sources were used to 
develop base model assumptions of a likely research and adoption prole for 
an MVR tomato variety in the Philippines. The base model assumptions were 
adopted for the parameters used in the economic surplus model: (1) research 
lag, (2) expected yield gain, (3) expected change in variable costs, (4) own price 
elasticities, (5) adoption rate and ceiling, (6) probability of research success, 
(7) technology depreciation, (8) projected consumption and production levels, 
(9) prices, and (10) research costs. Finally, the most important assumption 
considered for MVR tomato is that the multiple virus resistance will be 
incorporated into a variety that already possesses the desired horticultural 
traits demanded by the market.
Research lag and expected yield gain
Scientists were asked by what year MVR tomato will most likely be released in 
the Philippines, and also about expected yield changes. One way to estimate 
the potential yield gain from introducing a resistant trait into a crop is to 
equate it with the crop loss avoided from the constraint that is being targeted. 
Unfortunately, there are no published yield loss studies on TYLCV and CMV. 
Virology studies on local strains of TYLCV and CMV are also still at the initial 
stages of research. As such, scientists were asked to provide their best yield 





58C.B.C. Mamaril
change estimates based on their knowledge and experience. From the interview 
results, yield gain expectations were modeled using a triangle distribution, 
where the minimum yield gain used was 58 percent; maximum yield gain, 95 
percent; and most likely yield gain was 67 percent.
Expected change in variable input costs
A national survey by the Foundation for Resource Linkage and Development 
(FRLD, 1995) found that over 90 percent of tomato farmers in the Philippines 
spray chemicals to control pests at least once or twice during seed sowing and 
after seedling emergence. Transplanted seedlings are subjected to even more 
frequent spraying schedules. These would include spraying at least once during 
the growth and fruit development stages and twice a week at the owering and 
fruit setting periods when the pest population seems to increase signicantly. 
Based on interviews with farmers and observations by scientists and industry 
experts, the whitey vector of TYLCV is extremely difcult to control once its 
population has increased in farmers elds.
 The scientist-respondents stressed that MVR tomato would not eliminate 
the need for pesticides, and that MVR variety release and adoption should be 
coupled with integrated pest management (IPM) to ensure judicious use of 
chemicals by farmers. The scientists expect that MVR tomato adoption would 
reduce pesticide application by 20 to 75 percent, which will in turn relate to the 
national average cost and returns for tomato production (Table 1) as a change 
in marginal cost, with a range of 4 to 11 percent, and a mean of 10 percent.
 No assumption was made on the premium that private seed companies 
would charge for releasing and distributing an MVR tomato variety. However, 
industry experts felt that the price of an MVR tomato variety would cost about 
the same as their tomato hybrid seeds.
Elasticities of supply and demand
Price elasticities measure the responsiveness of quantity demanded or supplied 
to changes in price (percent change in quantity for a percent change in price). 
Price elasticities of demand for agricultural food crop commodities are relatively 
price inelastic (unresponsive). Burleigh and Black (1999) estimated the own 
price elasticity of demand for tomatoes to be around -0.412 and the aggregate 
for vegetables in the Philippines to be around -0.553; Aure (1982) estimated 
the own price of elasticity of demand for tomatoes to be around -0.28 to -0.32. 
For this study, a triangle distribution is assumed for the own price demand 
elasticity with -0.3 being the minimum, -0.6 being the maximum, and -0.45 
being the mean value.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in the Philippines59us 
table 1. Average cost and returns for tomato production in the Philippines, 
2003
Value (PhP)
CASH COST 46,088
Seeds/planting materials    637
Fertilizer12,614
Pesticides 11,193
Hired labor 14,112
Land tax 			156
Rentals: Land    867
Machine,	tools,	equipment	   282
Fuel and oil    748
Transport of inputs    365
Irrigation fee     20
Interest on crop loan 			172
Food expenses 		1,450
Repairs 		3,102
Other production costs     370
NON-CASH COST* 			1,875
IMPUTED COST** 		13,910
ALL COSTS 		61,873
GROSS RETURNS 	104,633
NET RETURNS   42,760
Cost per kilogram (PhP)     6.92
Yield per hectare (kg)    8,943
Farm-gate price (PhP/kg) 			11.70
Source: BAS (2004)
* Includes seeds/planting materials, labor paid in kind, landlord and harvesters share, and lease 
rental
** Includes operator and family labor, exchange labor, depreciation, interest on operating 
capital, rental value of owned land
 There are no published data on the price elasticity of supply for tomatoes in 
the Philippines. Literature surveyed from other countries included Howitt and 
Msangi (2002) who reported supply elasticities for tomato in California to be 
from 0.56 to 0.71, a relatively inelastic supply response due to the prevalence 
of contract farming. The closest approximation of supply elasticity values for 





60C.B.C. Mamaril
this study was taken from Coxhead et al. (1999), who estimated a crop acreage 
response of 0.98 for vegetables in the Southern Philippines. Actual supply 
elasticities may be closer to, if not higher than 1, given that many tomato 
farmers grow other vegetable crops that utilize similar cultural practices, thus 
making it easy to shift out of tomato to other crops, depending on price and 
season. For the purpose of this study, a range of possible price elasticities from 
0.5 to 1, with 0.75 as the mean, was assigned.
Adoption rate and ceiling
Industry expert-respondents reported that from their experience, virtually all 
the farmers within their service areas would adopt an improved tomato variety 
within two years. They cite the short production cycle of tomato as the major 
factor for the ease in rapidly growing and multiplying seed for dissemination. 
The experts expect that virtually all tomato farmers within their area will adopt 
an MVR tomato variety if and when it is released, especially given the current 
and increasing widespread damage brought about by TYLCV infections.
 In deciding the adoption ceiling, the fact that the MVR tomato program is 
targeting tomato varieties of the salad/table type, rather than the processing type 
(those used to make ketchup and tomato paste), was taken note. Unfortunately, 
there are no statistics available to accurately determine how much area is 
planted to each type of tomato. Thus, for the base model, we assumed an 
adoption ceiling of 70 percent, achieved by the beginning of the third year 
after MVR tomato release. This estimate was based on an approximation of the 
area grown to salad type tomatoes in the Ilocos region and in Bukidnon, which 
together account for about 30 percent of the national tomato growing area. In 
these two areas are the major domestic tomato ketchup and paste processors 
that require processing type tomatoes.
Probability of research success
The scientist-respondents dened probability of research success as the 
probability that research would successfully generate the technology, and 
release a seed variety that produce the expected yield gain. All the scientists 
agreed that the technology needed to develop MVR tomato has been 
established with complete certainty. The uncertainty lies in whether or not 
the MVR tomato variety, developed by both the World Vegetable Center and 
IPB-UPLB, would be sufciently resistant to local strains of TYLCV and CMV. 
Based on the information elicited from the scientists, the range of research 
success expectations was modeled using a triangle distribution where the 
conservative expectation for research success was estimated at 0.58, an 
optimistic expectation was set at 0.87, and the most likely level of success set 
at 0.74.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in the Philippines61us 
Technology depreciation
Given the dynamic variation and mutations that occur in virus strains, the 
scientists were asked to project the durability of resistance of an MVR tomato 
variety after release. All of those interviewed expected that the resistance would 
begin to break down by the third year after the initial release. The scientists 
based their assessment on past experience and observations given the lack of 
published studies. They assumed that a 10 percent annual depreciation rate in 
the host plant resistance, after the third year of release, would be a reasonable 
approximation. The expected depreciation rate was also used to determine the 
economic time horizon to be used in evaluating MVR tomato adoption. The 
estimated depreciation rate would suggest that the effective lifespan for MVR 
tomato would be until its resistance was completely degraded. In the case of 
the base model, the effective life span of the technology would be from 2011 to 
2022. In view of the anticipated breakdown of resistance, the scientists further 
added that it is plausible to consider that MVR tomato research will continue 
after the rst year of release, in order to develop a replacement for the initial 
variety within ve years.
Projected production and consumption
Consumption, production, and tomato area in the Philippines uctuate from 
year to year. Thus, assuming a trend in the base model for each of these variables 
may not result in estimating a realistic outcome. Instead, this study used BestFit 
4.5 to t the statistical data for each variable from the last 10 years to a normal 
distribution. As a result, a normal distribution for tomato area was assumed 
with a mean of 16,855 ha and standard deviation of 788 ha. For production, 
a normal distribution was assumed with 152,690 mt mean and 11,010 mt 
standard deviation. Finally, for consumption levels, a normal distribution is 
assumed with a mean of 120,971 mt and a standard deviation of 11,187 mt.
Prices, exchange rate and discount rate
This study discounted at 5 percent the future streams of benets and costs 
to 2003 USD values. The average farm-gate price in the Philippines for fresh 
tomatoes in 2003 was computed at PhP11,700/mt or USD215.43/mt (using 
the 2003 average USD1.00 = PhP54.31).
Research costs
The ABSPII provides a signicant share of the funding for the MVR tomato 
project in the Philippines, whose implementation began in 2005. IPB-UPLB 
provides an annual counterpart funding. The scientist-respondents were 
asked to provide an estimate of research costs until the expected rst year of 





62C.B.C. Mamaril
commercial release. The estimates were based on actual and projected annual 
budget requirements. In 2005, the amount budgeted for the MVR tomato 
project was roughly USD62,000, of which USD32,000 came from IPB-UPLB 
and USD30,000 from ABSPII. For 2006, an estimated total of USD82,000 
was requested, but will revert back to USD62,000 for the remaining years 
until the MVR tomato variety is released.
 For the scenario where maintenance research is simulated to take place, 
an annual budget of USD32,000 is assigned over a period of ve years, from 
the time maintenance research rst takes place, until the fth year when the 
replacement variety is released.
results and discussion
Base Model results
Table 2 presents the expected net present value (NPV) of economic benets 
from adopting MVR tomato in the Philippines. The average net economic 
benets expected from adopting MVR tomato in the Philippines is USD62 
million. The expected benets range from USD49 million to USD77 million. 
The lower estimate is still signicant relative to the estimated discounted total 
research costs of USD375,082.
table 2. Net present value of change in producer surplus, consumer surplus 
and total surplus from adopting MVR tomato (in USD, discounted at 5%), 
Philippines
Meanlower boundupper bound
Producer surplus43,430,13136,618,05952,119,858
Consumer surplus18,777,91313,031,70925,707,062
Total surplus62,208,04449,649,76877,826,920
Net economic 
61,867,83349,309,56077,486,712
benefits 
Producer share (%)69.873.867.0
Consumer share (%)30.226.233.0
 If research costs are not taken into consideration, the expected mean 
present value of the total economic benet would have been USD62.2 million. 
Disaggregating this change in gross economic surplus, the mean present value 
of the changes in producer surplus and consumer surplus are USD43.4 million 
and USD18.8 million, respectively. Tomato producers would receive 70 percent 
of the benets while consumers the remaining 30 percent.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in the Philippines63us 
Other Scenarios
Six other scenarios were run using the economic surplus model. Tables 3 and 4 
present the mean NPV results and their difference from the base model for each 
of the six scenarios. The base model assumed that MVR tomato would most 
likely be released in 2011. In order to determine the impact of an early or delayed 
MVR tomato release, a simulation was run where MVR tomato is released one 
year early in 2010 and one year later in 2012. The benets of releasing the MVR 
tomato variety one year early is 5 percent more than the benets of releasing 
the MVR tomato in the base year of 2011 (Table 3). Releasing MVR tomato in 
2012 instead of in 2011 would meanwhile result in economic benets 5 percent 
lower than those in the base year.
table 3. Net present value (in USD) of changes in producer surplus, consumer 
surplus and total surplus (discounted at 5%) for different dates of MVR tomato 
variety release
Base model: MVr 
MVr tomato MVr tomato 
tomato release in 
release in 2010release in 2012
2011
Producer surplus43,430,13145,660,02441,361,738
Consumer surplus18,777,91319,753,52517,885,825
Total surplus62,208,04465,413,54959,247,563
Net economic 
61,867,83365,113,30558,869,290
benefits 
 The scientist-respondents reported that they have only just begun to study 
the variations of local TYLCV and CMV strains, and how they will mutate after 
the introduction of MVR tomato. They expect that maintenance research will 
continue after the rst MVR tomato variety is released, in order to address any 
eventual breakdown in the host plant resistance. This research would imply 
that funding would still be needed after the initial release, in contrast to the 
base model scenario where research funding ends as soon as the rst MVR 
tomato variety is released. A scenario was run with additional funding and 
the mean value of the net economic benets was estimated at USD88 million 
(Table 4). This value is 42 percent higher than the base model value, and would 
suggest a signicant incentive for MVR tomato research to be maintained after 
the initial varietal release.
 To provide an upper bound estimate of the potential benets that can be 
derived from adopting MVR tomato, two favorable or optimistic scenarios 





64C.B.C. Mamaril
were simulated. The rst scenario assumed that the average yield loss in 
farmers elds from combined TYLCV and CMV infections is 100 percent 
(therefore a 100 percent yield gain if MVR tomato was adopted). The second 
scenario assumed that MVR tomato would be completely adopted by all tomato 
farmers in the Philippines, therefore assuming a 100 percent adoption ceiling. 
The former scenario gave an estimated mean NPV of USD83.9 million or 36 
percent greater than the base model NPV. The latter scenario meanwhile gave 
an estimated mean NPV of USD80 million, a value 29 percent greater than the 
base model NPV (Table 4).
table 4. Net present value (in USD) of changes in producer surplus, consumer 
surplus and total surplus (discounted at 5%) for three scenarios
Base model: continued 100% yield 100% 
(2011)researchchangeadoption
Producer 43,430,13161,556,90158,801,27156,027,601
surplus
Consumer 18,777,91326,641,30825,427,64124,236,359
surplus
Total surplus62,208,04488,198,20984,228,91280,263,959
Total surplus - 
61,867,83387,768,69383,888,70279,923,749
research costs
table 5. Net present value of change in producer surplus, consumer surplus 
and total surplus when varying supply and demand elasticities (USD million)
Basees = 1es = 0.5ed = 0.3ed = 0.6
Producer surplus43.434.857.847.140.8
Consumer surplus18.811.334.514.222.7
Total surplus62.246.192.461.363.5
Net	benefits		61.945.792.061.063.2
research costs
Producer share (%)69.875.562.676.864.2
Consumer share (%)30.224.537.423.235.8
 We simulated one scenario with the price supply elasticity xed at 1 
throughout the evaluation period, and another scenario with the supply elasticity 
xed at 0.5. The results shown in Table 5 indicate that supply elasticity, or the 
responsiveness of supply to a change in price, has a large impact on the results. 





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in the Philippines65us 
When the elasticity of supply is set to 0.5, the estimated net present value is 
USD92 million. With it set at 1, the net present value is USD46.3 million. In 
contrast, the results are little affected by the demand elasticity assumption, or 
the responsiveness of demand to a price change.
limitations of the study and Areas for Further research
The adoption estimates in this study are highly uncertain. In addition, the 
premium that seed companies might charge for seed costs, if they decide to 
be heavily involved in the marketing of hybrid MVR tomato seed, should be 
explored. However, industry experts perceive that there might not be much of 
an incentive for seed companies to invest heavily in seed distribution because 
tomato farmers tend to buy seeds only once when a new variety is introduced, 
and then save seed for subsequent seasons. This is true even for farmers who 
buy hybrid seed and other farmers who source their seed from other farmers. 
As such, whatever is the farmers method of acquiring seeds, the tomatos short 
production cycle allows a variety to be quickly diffused in a given area.
 Others may argue that some assumptions in our model are too optimistic 
or pessimistic. As more information becomes available, especially in terms of 
the efcacy and durability of the MVR tomato to local strains of TYLCV and 
CMV, then it will be possible to gain a clearer picture of the potential impact 
of MVR tomato adoption in the Philippines. Nevertheless, the study clearly 
shows that resource-poor tomato farmers in the Philippines stand to gain 
signicantly if MVR tomato can be successfully released and is adopted.
references
ABSPII - Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (Southeast Asia). Multiple virus 
resistant (MVR) tomato for Indonesia and the Philippines. http://www.isaaa.org/
Regional_centers/SEAsiacenter/ABSPII/tomato/mvr.htm Accessed June 2005.
Aure, LM. 1982. Demand analysis for fruits and vegetables in the Philippines 1973-
1974. Unpublished B.S. thesis. University of the Philippines Los Baos, College, Los 
Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
BAS - Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2004. http://www.bas.gov.ph.
Burleigh, J and LL Black. 1999. Special project: Manila peri-urban vegetable project. 
In AVRDC Report 1999, Publication 00-503. AVDRC, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan, pp. 
75-87.
Coxhead, I, G Shively and X Shuai. 1999. Development policies, resource constraints, 
and agricultural expansion on the Philippine land frontier. Staff Paper No. 425. 
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, Wisconsin.





66C.B.C. Mamaril
FRLD - Foundation for Resource Linkage and Development, Inc. 1995. The Tomato 
Marketing System in Major Production and Demand Areas in the Philippines. FRLD, 
FTI Complex, Taguig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
Hareau, GG, B Mills and GW Norton. 2003. The potential benets of herbicide-resistant 
transgenic rice in Uruguay: Lessons for small developing countries. Department of 
Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Howitt, RE and S Msangi. 2002. Reconstructing disaggregate production functions. 
Paper presented at the 10th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural 
Economists, Zaragoza, Spain, 28-31 August 2002. Department of Agricultural and 
Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, California.














Document Number: 7344 
costs and Benefits of Multiple Virus resistant
tomato in Indonesia
M. Ameriana
Introduction
Background
 Tomato is a high priority vegetable in Indonesia, with continued high 
demand prompted by the growth of the food industry (Ditjen Tanaman Pangan 
dan Hortikultura, 1999). Tomato is grown in 31 provinces in Indonesia, with 
West Java being the most important production center contributing 6070 
percent of the national production. During 19992003, the average area under 
tomato was 46,178 hectares, producing 339,110 tons (Adiyoga et al., 2004). 
Tomato can be grown at various elevations from lowland (below 200 m above 
sea level) to highland (above 700 m above sea level), but it is mostly grown in 
the highlands.
 Tomato productivity in Indonesia is low at about 7.3 tons per hectare (t/
ha) due to insects and diseases, resulting in considerable yield loss. Farmer 
surveys indicate that the highest yield loss in the wet season is caused by late 
blight disease, and by a virus in the dry season.
 The viruses that most frequently attack tomato are tomato leaf curl virus 
(ToLCV) and cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). In most cases, both viruses attack 
at the same time. Crop loss caused by ToLCV ranges between 60 and 100 
percent (Mazyad et al., 1979; Gunaeni et al., 2001; Freitas et al., 2002; Hartono, 
2005), and losses due to CMV can reach up to 100 percent (Prabaningrum et 
al., 1999). Yield losses depend on plant age at the time of the onset.





68M. Ameriana
 ToLCV in Indonesia rst infested hot pepper in 1992, and affected tomato 
only in 1996 (Duriat et al., 2004). The spread of ToLCV both on hot pepper 
and tomato is rapidly growing. A 2002-2003 survey showed that many tomato 
production centers suffered from ToLCV incidence, covering between 30 and 
100 percent of the total area. In 2005, incidence rate was reported to have 
expanded to 60100 percent. These statistics indicate that virus-caused 
disease of tomato is a serious problem.
 ToLCV is a Gemini virus spread by whitey (Bemisia ), biotypes tabaciA 
and B. ToLCV is highly variable, evolving various strains that render ineffective  
to previously known resistance sources. CMV, a cucumo virus, is transmitted 
by aphids (Aphis sp.). Whitey can survive in all seasons, particularly in the 
dry season (Duriat et al., 2004). One single whitey is able to infect at the 
expansion rate of the vector population (Mansour and Al-Musa, 1992).
 A number of methods have been recommended to control both virus 
diseases, among others, cultural practices such as roguing, intercropping, 
avoidance, use of barriers and crop residue disposal, combined with the use of 
pesticides to control the vectors, which have been largely ineffective in the case 
of whiteies. The use of mulch, irrigation, sanitation, and resistant varieties are 
also recommended (Csizinky et a.l, 1995; Hartono, 2005). However, a farmer 
survey indicated that the use of a resistant variety would be the most effective 
and optimal control for viruses. 
 No commercial tomato variety has been found to be highly resistant to both 
ToLCV and CMV. If there was one, it is likely that farmers would positively 
respond to it, particularly if it were a high yielding variety. There are two ways 
to produce a variety resistant to viruses: conventional and biotechnological. 
The former is more time consuming (ISAAA, 2003) and also constrained by 
the difculty in obtaining the resistant gene, leaving little choice but to use 
biotechnology.
 Developed countries have long adopted transgenic crops and an increasing 
number of developing countries have recently begun adopting them (ISAAA, 
2008). In Indonesia, however, transgenic plants have not been well accepted. 
The planting Btof  cotton in Sulawesi was strongly protested, particularly by 
NGOs. Nevertheless, biotechnology research continues, including that on social 
impacts. In the case of multiple virus resistant (MVR) tomato, biotechnology-
assisted breeding research is currently being conducted along with a study of 
its potential socioeconomic impact. This study projects the extent to which 
a transgenic tomato variety would provide economic benets to growers 
(farmers) and consumers.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia69us 
Problem statement
 Indonesia is an agrarian country with almost 60 percent of the population 
dependent on agriculture. However, farmers still face problems such as low 
productivity and high pest incidence. Thus, technological breakthroughs 
through research are important. Research may be considered successful 
if it offers a solution to a problem faced by farmers as well as economically 
benecial to both farmers and consumers.
 As noted earlier, ToLCV and CMV on tomato are serious problems in 
Indonesia for which a transgenic MVR tomato variety is being sought. However, 
in a developing country such as Indonesia, biotechnology research is not as 
advanced as in a developed country, and requires a high level of nancial and 
human investment. There are also serious debates between proponents and 
opponents of transgenic products, mainly centered on their potential negative 
impacts on community health and environment, as well as socioeconomic 
impacts.
 One issue that is important to address is the extent to which a transgenic 
variety can give economic benets, and how these benets would be distributed. 
It is also essential to assure environmental safety and to examine the 
implications of biotechnology for agricultural research policy in Indonesia. 
objective
 The specic objective of this study is to assess the economic and 
environmental benets and costs of developing and commercializing transgenic 
MVR tomatoes in Indonesia.
Methodology
data sources
 Table 1 presents the data required for this study and their respective 
sources.
table 1. Data	required	in	the	study	and	their	sources
data requireddata sources*
Prices,	quantities,	trade	(four	years)1
Current production practices (including pesticides)1,	2
Yields, input costs1,	2
Crop losses, potential yield gains1,	2,	3,	4





70M. Ameriana
data requireddata sources*
Varieties1,	2,	4
Technical probability of success3
Seed industry (how are seeds commercialized)4
Time lags - research, regulatory + costs, intellectual 
3, 4
property
Elasticities1
Market adoption4
Market probability of success4
Gene flow, biodiversity, unintended effects1,	3
* Information/data sources:
	 1	 :	 published
 2 : farmer survey
 3 : scientist interview
 4 : industry expert interview (including private sector, extension workers and regulators)
 The study, conducted from February to July 2005, consisted of reviews 
of published studies, collection of secondary data, farmer group discussions 
(FGDs), a farmer survey, scientist interviews, seed company interviews, 
extension worker interviews, and data conrmation seminars. The FGDs 
relating to virus incidence on tomato took place in the rst week of May 
2005 in Garut and Lembang and involved a number of farmers. Based on 
the FGD responses, a brief farmer survey was designed and conducted in the 
third week of May 2005 in Garut sub-district. Ten farmers were interviewed 
using a structured questionnaire. The survey of scientists was conducted by 
interviewing researchers and lecturers, several working in biotechnology, 
especially in tomato.
economic Model
 This ex-ante impact assessment compared the situations with and without 
MVR tomato research to establish its potential socioeconomic benets. In 
the scenarios, the biotechnology research started in 2005, and is expected 
to produce MVR tomatoes at least ve years in the future. This study used 
an economic surplus model to evaluate the impact of the new technology on 
welfare as described in Chapter 2 and in Alston et al. (1995) and Ellis (1992). 
Since tomato produced in Indonesia is mostly consumed in the domestic 
market, the economic surplus model in this study assumed a small closed 
economy.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia71us 
Seed Premium 
 The technical process of developing the MVR variety consists of cross-
breeding the non-transgenic ToLCV-resistant variety with the transgenic 
CMV-resistant variety. This cross can yield four possibilities: 1) a transgenic 
hybrid variety, 2) a transgenic open-pollinated (OP) variety, 3) a non-
transgenic hybrid variety, and 4) a non-transgenic OP variety. This study 
evaluated only the transgenic varieties, such that seed premium is assumed 
only for the transgenic hybrid and OP varieties. Hybrid seed prices are 400-
700 percent higher than OP seed prices but despite this fact, seed companies 
attest that hybrids will be more protable because of higher productivity. The 
seed companies also estimated that the price of transgenic tomato seed will be 
25-50 percent higher than that of the non-transgenic one. Hybrid tomato seed 
costs Rp90,000 (USD9.68) per 10 grams, and that of OP is about Rp20,000 
(USD2.15) per 10 grams. At a recommended seeding rate of 200 grams per 
hectare, these translate to Rp1,800,000 (USD193.55) per hectare for hybrids, 
and Rp400,000 (USD43) for OPs. If transgenic seed is used, then the 
premium for transgenic seed will cost Rp540,000 (USD58.06) and Rp120,000 
(USD12.90) per hectare  for the hybrid and OP seed, respectively. In addition, 
other scenarios are also assumed in our analysis, that is, Rp1,080,000 
(USD116.13) for hybrid, Rp240,000 (USD25.81) for OP, and zero premium for 
both.
Yield increase
 Yield loss due to ToLCV and CMV is strongly inuenced by the onset of 
virus incidence. Based on the results of the farmer and scientist surveys, our 
analysis assumes three yield scenarios. The application of the MVR transgenic 
variety will reduce yield loss (or increase yield) by up to 6080 percent. This 
study assumed a yield increase of as much as 70 percent, and that the yield 
increase for hybrids will be 40 percent more than that for open-pollinated 
varities (OPV) of tomato. Thus the scenario for each is as follows: 
 Yield loss of 80%: The increase is 56% for hybrid and 40% for OPV
 Yield loss of 60%: The increase is 42% for hybrid and 50% for OPV
 Yield loss of 40%: The increase is 28% for hybrid and 20% for OPV 
The above assumptions on the three variables gave 18 scenarios as shown in 
Figure 1.





72M. Ameriana
tomato
VarietyhybridoP
Insecticide cost reduction325.16325.16
Yield increased28% 42%56%40% 30%20%
Seed premium058.06 116.13012.9025.81
Figure 1. Scenarios for transgenic MVR tomato
Adoption rate
 The adoption rate of the transgenic MVR tomato variety will be related to 
the size of the yield gain, and hence it will be affected by the incidence of ToLCV 
and CMV as well as by the technology itself. Farmers and scientists reported 
that the two types of viruses occur at the same time but ToLCV dominates. A 
2004 survey of tomato production centers in Indonesia showed that TYLCV 
covered 30-100 percent of the total area (Duriat et al., 2004), and the incidence 
range expanded to 60-100 percent in 2005. As such, maximum adoption 
rate may reach 100 percent. This study estimated adoption rate to reach 80 
percent, based on the extent of insecticide cost reduction, and any seed price 
premium for the ToLCV-resistant transgenic variety. Thus, scenarios contain 
four groups, each of which has a different maximum adoption rate: 80, 60, 40, 
and 20 percent. Table 2 gives per unit cost reductions and maximum adoption 
rates.
table 2. Maximum adoption rate for each scenario
cost reduction Maximum expected 
scenario*
per unit (%)adoption rate (%)
OP10		OP11		HB13		OP16		OP17		OP186.78		7.7680
HB1		OP4		OP5		OP	6-	HB7		OP12		5.79HB14		6.7760
HB2		HB84.80		5.7840
HB3		HB9		HB153.81		4.7920
* OP = open-pollinated; HB = hybrid





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia73us 
 The adoption prole for the MVR transgenic varieties is assumed to follow 
the logistic curve (Figure 2). The transgenic MVR tomato variety is assumed 
to be released in the sixth year after the research. Adoption will increase 
until the ninth year, when it reaches the maximum rate, which in turn will be 
maintained for ve years. This means that adoption rate will begin to decline 
from year 14. New virus-resistant varieties with better resistance or changes in 
the viruses themselves may cause this decline. Table 3 shows the prole of the 
18 categories for simulation.
Supply and demand elasticities
 No information was found regarding the supply elasticity of tomato in 
Indonesia. The value of supply elasticity is thus assumed to be 1, given the 
nature of the crop. Meanwhile, only one study (Lieshout, 1992) studied the 
demand elasticity of tomato in Indonesia and found it to be -0.85.
Price
 Tomato price in this study refers to the average wholesale price for the 
period 1999-2003 at Rp1,116,883 (USD120.09) per ton.
Quantity
 Secondary data on the quantities of tomato production for 1999-2003 
were collected from the Indonesia Statistics Bureau (Badan Pusat Statitik 
Indonesia). Fresh tomato production for the said period averaged at 339,110 
ton per year.  
Figure 2. Adoption profiles for transgenic MVR tomato variety





74M. Ameriana
(%)604020606060604020808060806020808080
Maximum 
adoption rate 
5.934.883.816.616.356.096.525.364.197.126.846.567.235.944.647.727.417.11
Per ton (%)
cost reduction
9.267.615.959.268.898.539.267.615.959.268.898.539.267.615.959.268.898.53
Per ha (%)
325267209325312299325267209325312299325267209325312299
usd/ha
cost change
rp/ha
3,024,0002,484,0001,944,0003,024,0002,904,0002,784,0003,024,0002 ,484,0001,944,0003,024,0002,904,0002,784,0003,024,0002,484,0001,944,0003,024,0002,904,0002,784,000
  58116		13  26  58116		13  26  58116		13  26
usd/ha
seed premium000000
rp/ha
   540,0001,080,000			120,000   240,000   540,0001,080,000			120,000   240,000   540,0001,080,000			120,000   240,000
56 56 56 40 40 40 42 42 42 30 30 30 28 28 28 20 20 20 
Yield 
increase (%)
HB1HB2HB3OP4OP5OP6HB7HB8HB9OP10OP11OP12HB13HB14HB15OP16OP17OP18
scenario
able 3. Per unit cost reduction and maximum adoption rates for transgenic MVR tomato
tUSD1	=	Rp9,300





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia75us 
Research Cost
 Research to produce transgenic tomato varieties takes at least ve 
years. The scientists and regulators estimated these research costs to total 
Rp1,625,000,000 (USD174,731) or Rp325,000,000 (USD34,946) per year 
(see Table 8).
results and discussion
Farmer group discussion and Farmer survey
Cropping systems and varieties used
 In Indonesia, tomatoes are grown in monocropping or multiple cropping 
systems (mostly intercropped with hot pepper and cabbage). The common 
cropping patterns in a year are of:
 cabbage  tomato  potato
 tomato  beans  white cabbage
 (tomato + cabbage)  corn  potato
 potato  cabbage  (tomato + hot pepper) 
 Table 4 lists the tomato varieties grown by Indonesian farmers and 
their respective periods of planting, and positive and negative varietial 
characteristics. The table shows that farmers often change tomato varieties 
from time to time. For example, Marta and Samina were mostly grown in 
2005, while Arthaloka was quite popular during 1996 to 2003. Some farmers 
reported that Samina is rather tolerant to ToLCV. This change in varieties 
planted indicates that farmers are responsive to new tomato varieties, and that 
it will be easy to promote a new variety.
table 4. Tomato varieties grown in Indonesia, 2005
no. of 
farmers Period of Positive negative 
Varietieswho plantingcharacteristicscharacteristics
planted
Marta92001		2005 - high yield- phytophthora 
- high pricesusceptible
- long shelf life- virus susceptible
- thick flesh- bacterial wilt 
susceptible
Armina12005





76M. Ameriana
no. of 
farmers Period of Positive negative 
Varieties
who plantingcharacteristicscharacteristics
planted
Samina72003		2005 - virus resistant
Kosmonot12003
Precious11996
TM- easy to grow- small fruit
41999		2002- bacterial wilt - expensive seed
resistant
Arthaloka- bacterial wilt - virus susceptible
resistant
71996		2003
- high yield
- heavy fruit
Presto21995		1997
Bonansa- light fruit
- phytophthora 
51997		1999susceptible
- difficult to buy 
seed
California- difficult to buy 
11990
seed
Pests and pest control
 Table 5 identies the main insects and diseases that attack tomato both in 
the dry and rainy seasons, ranked based on incidence. In the dry season, viruses 
(ToLCV and CMV) are the rst important problems. In years with very serious 
virus incidence, yield loss may reach 100 percent. Farmers could not estimate 
the loss due to ToLCV and CMV separately because they usually infect the crop 
at the same time. Helicoperva armigera, Bemisia tabaci and Spodoptora 
litura can also cause serious problems in the dry season. In this case, aside 
from being a ToLCV vector, Bemisia tabaci also acts as a pest. Meanwhile, 
in the rainy season, late blight is the most dangerous disease, followed by 
bacterial wilt. Sometimes there are also viruses in the rainy season, but their 
incidence is not as high as in the dry season.
 Farmers observed an apparent correlation between the onset of virus 
incidence and yield loss (Table 6). The earlier the onset of virus incidence, the 
higher the yield loss will be. For example, if the onset is at 10-20 days after 
planting, yield loss can be 75-100 percent. If it is at 71-80 days after planting, 
yield loss can only be 5-20 percent.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia77us 
table 5. Main insect pests and diseases of tomato in Indonesia
Maximum expected 
dry seasonrankrank
adoption rate (%)
Virus1Ralstonia solanacearum2
Helicoperva armigera2Virus4
Ralstonia solanacearum6Phytophthora infestans (late 1
blight)
Bemisia tabaci (whitey) 3Rhizoctonia sp3
Spodoptora litura4
Thrip parvispinus 5
table 6. Yield loss average based on the onset of virus incidence
onset of virus incidence
Yield loss (%)
(days after planting)
10		2075		100
21		3060		80
31		4040		70
41		5030		60
51		6030		50
61		7010		30
71		80		5		20
 Farmers reported that mechanical control where infected stems are cut 
off, is the best method currently available to manage viruses (Table 7). If 
the incidence is very high, farmers pluck out the whole plant. Other control 
methods include controlled irrigation and the use of a resistant variety. To 
date, however, farmers have not had a virus resistant variety. The effectiveness 
of using healthy seed, pesticides and mulch is moderate. Insecticides are the 
primary means of controlling the vectors, but are also useless once the vectors 
have infected the crops.





78M. Ameriana
table 7. Yield loss average based on the onset of virus incidence
Very ineffec-In-Very effec-
Method of controlModerate effective
tiveeffectivetive
Healthy seedsP
Widening plant distanceP
Controlled irrigationP
Resistant varietyP
Mechanical controlP
Pesticide controlP
MulchP
Production costs
 Table 8 shows the 2004 tomato production costs in a central production 
area in West Java. Labor and pesticides respectively account for the highest 
(34.4 percent) and second highest (31.7 percent) expense items in tomato 
production.
 Three of the 10 farmers interviewed mentioned that in 2004 TYLCV and 
CMV infected their tomato plants. Table 9 compares the production costs 
between tomato crops with and without a virus. The yield (ton/ha) difference 
between tomato crops with and without virus was quite signicant at around 
135 percent. The insecticide cost for tomato with virus incidence was 34 percent 
higher than that without virus incidence. The labor cost of pesticide spraying 
for tomato with virus was 6.3 percent higher. This indicates that to control 
viruses (the vectors), the farmers increased not only the dosage of insecticides 
but the frequency of spraying as well.
table 8. Tomato production cost in Garut District, West Java, Indonesia, 
2004
Value Percent of total 
Input 
(usd/ha)production costs
Seed	105.59    3.93
Organic fertilizer 250.54   9.34
Inorganic fertilizer180.82    6.74
Pesticides: 
	 Insecticide224.55  8.37
	 Fungicide624.7523.89
Sticker    26.780.99





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia79us 
Value Percent of total 
Input 
(usd/ha)production costs
Labor:
	 Men622.2823.20
	 Women301.1611.23
Bamboo				61.332.28
Mulch213.237.95
Other			14.980.55
Land   50.481.88
          Total production costs	2,681.90100.00
table 9. Tomato yield, pesticide cost, and labor cost in Garut District, West 
Java, Indonesia, 2004
Farms with Farmers without 
difference
virus incidencevirus incidence
(%)
(n=3)(n=7)
Yield (kg/ha)12,505.1529,392.89135.04
Pesticide cost (USD/ha)     933.03					814.93-12.65
Insecticide cost (USD/ha)     294.00					193.75-34.00
Fungicide cost (USD/ha)     638.94					621.18  -2.78
Labor cost of pesticide 
					158.98					148.98  -6.28
spraying (USD/ha)
USD1	=	Rp9,300
scientist surveys
 Scientists felt that if a genetically-modied virus-resistant crop was to be 
developed and adopted, yield would be expected to increase by 60-70 percent. 
The probability of biotech research successfully developing a transgenic MVR 
tomato with a commercially acceptable level of effectiveness against the virus 
problem was estimated at 50-60 percent. The scientist-respondents also indicated 
that, apart from it having some potential for gene ow, the virus resistant variety 
should have no other signicant environmental problems. Table 10 shows the 
expected research and regulatory costs in developing and commercializing MVR 
tomato in Indonesia. It should be noted that the food safety cost only refer to 
nutritional and compositional analysis. Cost of allergenicity and toxicity tests 
are assumed to be available from technology donor.





80M. Ameriana
survey of seed company representatives
 Seed company representatives felt that farmer adoption of any resistant 
variety would be high because viruses are such a serious problem. The time 
required for adoption, however, will be strongly dependent on the varietys 
potential to overcome the problem. Farmers preference for a variety is mainly 
affected by productivity, resistance to pests, and quality. Arthaloka is one of 
the most frequently adopted varieties, having been used for almost 10 years. 
At present, the variety that is widely adopted is Marta. Farmers may not care 
whether the variety is transgenic or not, provided it has high productivity 
and resistance to TYLCV and to other pests, especially bacterial wilt. Tomato 
seed produced by one of the biggest seed companies in Indonesia consists of 
90 percent hybrids and 10 percent open-pollinated (OP) varieties. Farmers 
positively respond to hybrids as these are much more productive than the OP 
varieties. However, the price of hybrid tomato seed may be 5-7 times higher 
than that of OP seed.
table 10. Expected costs in developing transgenic MVR tomato and in 
meeting	regulatory	requirements,	Indonesia
cost by Year (usd)
12345
Technology development80,645
Regulatory5,376
Contained trials-2,688---
Limited field trial-- 32,258
Multi-location field trial---21,505
Food safety assessment---26,881
Apply for commercialization----2,150
Total cost over 5 years (USD)174,731
Research cost/year (USD)34,946
USD1	=	Rp9,300
economic Impacts
 The use of transgenic MVR tomato affects three main variables: insecticides, 
seeds, and yield. Several scenarios were constructed based on these three 
variables and on the type of variety used (open-pollinated versus hybrid) to 
illustrate possible impacts of the technology. Table 11 presents the total value 
of surplus change (in USD) and the net present value (NPV) of the surplus for 
each scenario.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia81us 
 The NPVs for all the scenarios are positive (Table 11). The research 
investment is USD34,946 per year or USD174,731 over ve years. For hybrids, 
a scenario of 56 percent yield increase and cost reduction of USD325/ha 
(scenario HB1) gave the highest NPV, while a yield increase of 28 percent 
and cost reduction of USD116/ha (scenario HB15) gave the lowest NPV. For 
OP varieties, a yield increase of 40 percent and cost reduction of USD25/ha 
(scenario OP6) gave the highest NPV, while a yield increase of 20 percent and 
cost reduction of USD325/ha (scenario OP16), the lowest NPV.
 In addition to yield increase and cost reduction, adoption also affects the 
increase in the total economic value of the new technology. Scenarios HB1, 
HB2 and HB3 assumed maximum adoption rates of 60, 40 and 20 percent, 
respectively, and total surplus changes were USD26,583, USD17.9 million and 
USD9.0 million, respectively. Scenarios OP4, OP5, and OP6 all have maximum 
adoption rates of 60 percent and total surplus changes are similar.
table 11. Projected changes in total, consumer and producer surplus (USD)
seed nPV of change in (usd):
Yield pre-nPV of total 
scenarioincrease mium surplus less total consumer Producer 
(%)(usd/r&d costsurplussurplussurplus
ha)
HB156    026,583,20714,369,301 12,213,906 26,431,908
HB256  5817,926,930	 9,690,232 8,236,698 17,775,631
HB3561169,059,6574,897,1124,162,545	 8,908,358 
OP440    011,625,453	 6,284,029 5,341,424 11,474,154
OP540		1317,695,6009,565,189	 8,130,411 17,544,301	
OP640  2617,833,539	 9,639,7518,193,788 17,682,240
HB742    018,677,558 10,095,9778,581,581 18,526,259
HB842  5812,775,4496,905,6485,869,801 12,624,150
HB9421166,545,1193,537,902 3,007,2176,393,820
OP1030    016,010,5568,654,354 7,356,201 15,859,257
OP1130		1316,213,3958,763,9977,449,39816,062,965
OP1230  2612,251,1076,622,2205,628,88712,099,808
HB1328    09,712,2685,249,8754,462,3939,560,969
HB1428  5811,518,3156,226,1165,292,199 11,367,016
HB15281164,030,619	 2,178,7121,851,9053,879,319
OP1620    08,524,5324,607,8553,916,6778,373,233 
OP1720		138,734,8194,721,5244,013,2958,583,520
OP1820  268,951,052	 4,838,4064,112,645	 8,799,753





82M. Ameriana
 Table 11 also shows that transgenic MVR tomato can improve economic 
welfare signicantly. The total surplus value by scenario varies from USD6.5 
million to USD26.6 million. The change in total surplus is nearly evenly 
distributed to consumers and producers at a ratio of 54 to 46 percent. 
Consumers welfare improves with more of the commodity available at a lower 
price. Producers welfare increases due to yield increase and cost reduction. In 
addition, although selling at a lower price, producers can sell a higher quantity 
of tomato. 
 As indicated earlier, the development of a transgenic MVR tomato variety 
may involve either OP varieties or hybrids. Scientists, however, are not sure 
which type will be released in Indonesia. For one, the cost reduction for OP is 
higher than that of the hybrid because of the lower OP seed price. This low seed 
price has caused all the OP variety scenarios to have high maximum adoption 
rate (60-80 percent), whereas the rate varies between 20 to 80 percent for the 
hybrid. The next difference lies in productivity rate. Hybrids can yield twice 
as much as the OP varieties so that, at the same yield loss levels, hybrids can 
give a higher yield increase. One of the biggest seed companies in Indonesia 
reported that, at the moment, 90 percent of the seeds produced are hybrids, 
and the rest are OP varieties. Despite the higher seed price, farmers prefer 
hybrids over the OP varieties.
 To date, transgenic tomato is not yet produced in Indonesia. Should the 
technology prove to be successful, the question to be addressed will be who 
would be responsible for its production. The seed premium (seed mark-up) 
will indicate protability for the seed company. In other words, the higher the 
seed mark-up, the more protable it will be and the more likely a seed company 
will become involved.
environmental Impacts
 Farmers primarily use chemical pesticides to control pests. Horticultural 
producers in Indonesia use chemical pesticides intensively in terms of both 
spraying frequency and dosage (Udiarto et al., 1995; Rauf et al., 1993; Mudjiono 
and Nurimah, 1993). Tomatoes are sprayed with as much as 9-10 liters/ha of 
insecticides and 50-54 kg/ha of fungicides (Ameriana, 2004).
 As have been documented in the literature, the negative impacts of 
using pesticides include, among others, environmental pollution, insect and 
disease resistance to the pesticides, and chemical residues (contamination) 
in the produce. Analyses of vegetables sampled from producers, wholesalers, 
traditional markets, and supermarkets showed that some vegetables contain 





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia83us 
pesticide residues at the threshold of standardized limit (Adiyoga et al., 2000; 
Harun et al., 1996; Soeriaatmadja et al., 1993).
 The use of the transgenic MVR tomato variety may reduce insecticide use 
by 70-80 percent, saving approximately 7-8 liters/ha. As such, transgenic MVR 
tomato variety can contribute to environmental improvement, preventing the 
development of pest resistance to pesticides, and protecting consumers from 
chemical residues.
unintended effects 
 The most frequently debated environmental concerns with respect to 
trangenics relate to gene ow, biodiversity reduction, and harm to non-
target organisms. The scientist-respondents in this study indicated that there 
are environmental advantages and disadvantages in the use of transgenic 
varieties. The main advantage is reduction in chemical pesticide use, and all 
its consequent positive impacts as already mentioned above. In addition, the 
chances of biodiversity reduction and harm to non-target organism are likely 
to be very small. One disadvantage is the potential occurrence of potentially 
damaging gene ow, although its probability is below 5 percent. This probability 
can be overcome by providing a safe distance between the transgenic and the 
non-transgenic crops.
 In general, the scientists who oppose transgenics worry about, among other 
things, horizontal gene transfer with the potential of creating new pathogenetic 
bacteria and viruses or other weed species. If the transgenic crop becomes a 
weed, an indigenous species may be lost (Kathen, 1997). They also worry about 
new strains developing resistance to herbicides and biopesticides (Wan Ho, 
2005; Environmental Health Perspectives, 1996; Braun and Ammann, 2002).
 A specic consideration for risk analysis in centers of biodiversity is the 
assumption that gene ow occurs, as this potentially can occur with all new 
varieties, transgenic and non-transgenic. Impact analysis should focus on the 
consequences - not on the probability  that such a gene ow occurs because 
it almost always does (Kathen, 1997). Just because it occurs, however, does 
not mean that it causes meaningful damage. The proposed strategy, therefore, 
would be to characterize the species of concern and on a case by case basis, 
focus on the impact of the trait to be introduced. In most cases, after gene ow, 
the unintended altered species do not thrive or even survive and therefore the 
practical consequences of the gene ow should be assessed.





84M. Ameriana
conclusion
This ex-ante study has shown that transgenic MVR tomato has signicant 
potential economic impacts that would increase economic welfare. Across the 
various scenarios examined, the value of total surplus varied between USD6.5 
million and USD26.6 million. The change in total surplus was found to be 
distributed to consumers and producers at a relatively even ratio of 54 to 46 
percent. 
 In addition to yield increase and cost reduction, the adoption rate of 
transgenic MVR tomato affects the increase in the total economic value. 
A higher maximum adoption rate means a bigger change in total surplus. 
Transgenic MVR tomato, by reducing the use of insecticides, indeed has the 
potential to signicantly contribute to maintaining environmental quality and 
minimizing pesticide residues in the products.
references
Adiyoga, W, R Suherman, TA Soetiarso, B Jaya, BK Udiarto, R Rosliani and D Mussadad. 
2004. Prol komoditas tomat. Balai Penelitian Tanaman Sayuran, Lembang, 
Indonesia. (Bahasa Indonesia)
Adiyoga, W, M Ameriana, R Suherman, TA Soetiarso, BK Udiarto dan I Sulastrini. 
2000. Perbaikan sistem usahatani sayuran di daerah urban dan peri urban 
(Bandung) menuju sistem produksi Berkelanjutan. Badan Litbang Pertanian. 
(Bahasa Indonesia) 
Alston, JM, GW Norton and PG Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and 
Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University 
Press, Ithaca, New York.
Ameriana, M. 2004. Kesediaan konsumen untuk membayar premium serta kepedulian 
petani terhadap usaha pengurangan rsidu pestisida pada sayuran tomat.  Disertasi.  
Program Pasca Sarjana. Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia. (Bahasa 
Indonesia) 
Braun, R and K Ammann. 2002. Biodiversity: The impact of biotechnology. Encyclopedia 
of Life Support System, EOLSS Publishers, Oxford. 
Csizinky, AA, DJ Schuster and JB Kring. 1995. Colour mulches inuence yield and 
insect pest populations in tomatoes. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural 
Sciences 120: 778-784.
Duriat, AT, N Gunaeni, W Setiawati and Sardin. 2004. Pengendalian virus Gemini 
ada tanaman cabai di lapangan. Laporan APBN 2003. Balai Penelitian Tanaman 
Sayuran, Lembang, Indonesia.
Ellis, F. 1992. Agricultural Policies in Developing Countries. Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 1996. LMOs: Treasure chest or Pandoras box? 
Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 104, No. 7.
Freitas, J, DE Purcifull, JE Polston and E Hierbet. 2002. Traditional and transgenic 
strategies for controlling tomato-infecting begomo viruses. Fitopatologia Brasilleira 
Vol. 27, No. 5.





costs and Benefits of Multiple Vir resistant tomato in Indonesia85us 
Gunaeni, N, AS Duriat, I Sulastrini, AW Wulandari and E Purwati. 2001. Pengaruh 
perbedaan struktur jaringan tanaman tomat terhadap infeksi CMV dan TYLCV. 
Laporan hasil penelitian T.A. Balai Penelitian Tanaman Sayuran, Lembang, 
Indonesia. (Bahasa Indonesia)
Hartono, S. 2005. Pengenalan dan pengendalian penyakit virus kuning pada cabai. 
disampaikan pada pertemuan apresiasi penerapan penanggulangan penyakit virus 
pada cabai. Yogyakarta, 14 April 2005. Direktorat Perlindungan Hortikultura, 
Departemen Pertanian. (Bahasa Indonesia)
Harun, Y, RTM Sutamiharja, S Partoatmodjo dan RE Soeriaatmadja. 1996. Telaah 
residu pestisida pada sayuran yang dijual di pasar Swalayan dan pasar Bogor. J. Hort 
6(1): 71-79. (Bahasa Indonesia)
ISAAA - International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 2003. Q 
and A about genetically modied crops (Pocket K No. 1). ISAAA Knowledge Center, 
IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.
ISAAA. 2008. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops in 2008. ISAAA 
Briefs No. 39. ISAAA: Ithaca, New York.
Kathen, A. 1997. Biotechnology, biosafety and impact assessment: Field trials of 
transgenic crops in developing countries. BioSafety Journal Vol 3, Paper 4 (BY97004). 
http://bioline.bdt.org.br/by. 
Lieshout, O. 1992. Consumption of fresh vegetables in Indonesia. International 
Communication No 48, Project ATA-395/LEHRI. 
Mazyard, HM, F Omar, A Taher and L Salha. 1979. Observation on the epidemiology of 
tomato yellow leaf curl virus disease on tomato plants. Plants Disease Reporter 63: 
695-698.
Mansour, A and A Al-Musa. 1992. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus: Host range and virus-
vector relationships. Plant Pathology 41: 122-125.
Mudjiono, D dan Nurimah. 1993. Teknologi pengendalian hama terpadu pada sayuran 
dataran tinggi di daerah Tingkat II Malang dan Magetan.  Prosiding Seminar Hasol 
Penelitian Pendukung Pengendalian Hama Terpadu.  Badan Perencanaan Nasional 
dan Badan Litbang Pertanian. (Bahasa Indonesia)
Prabaningrum, I, TK Moekasan, W Setiawati, N Gunaeni, BK Udiarto and AS Duriat. 
1999. Produk unggulan alitsa: BiaRIV-1, BiaRIV-2, kit Elisa, BiaRIV-3 dan Agonal. In 
Ekspo teknologi bagi pengembangan agribisnis. Balai Penelitian Tanaman Sayuran, 
Puslitbang Hortikultura, Badan Litbang Pertanian, 97-110. (Bahasa Indonesia)
Rauf, A, Widodo, D Handayan, R Anwar dan KH Mitaqin. 1993. Survei pengetahuan, 
sikap dan tindakan petani kubis dan kentang di kabupaten Bandung, Sukabumi dan 
Bogor. Prosiding Seminar Hasil Penelitian Pendukung Pengendalian Hama Terpadu. 
Badan Perencanaan Nasional dan Badan Litbang Pertanian. (Bahasa Indonesia)
Soeriaatmadja, RE, ALH Dibyantoro dan I Sulastrini. 1993. Residu insektisida pada 
tanaman sayuran di sentra produksi sayuran dataran rendah propinsi daerah 
Tingkat I Jawa Tengah dan D.I. Yogyakarta. Bull. Penelt Hort 25(3): 72-78. (Bahasa 
Indonesia)
Udiarto, BK, E Suryaningsih dan WW Hadisoeganda. 1995. Studi base line identikasi 
dan pengembangan teknologi PHT pada sayuran dataran tinggi di daerah Tingkat II 
Garut dan Majalengka. Bul. Penelt Hort 27(2): 137-149. (Bahasa Indonesia)
Wan Ho, M. 2005. Transgenic transgression of species integrity and species boundary. 
Biology Department, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 7AA, UK. 
http://online.sfu.edu/~rone/GEessays Accessed June 6, 2005














Document Number: 7513 
costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight
resistant Potatoes in Indonesia
W. Adiyoga
Introduction
Due to their high protein to calorie ratio and short vegetative cycle, potatoes 
yield substantially more edible energy and protein per hectare and per day 
than do both cereals and cassava (Horton, 1987). The potato crops high yield 
per unit of land area and time is an especially valuable trait in developing areas, 
such as Indonesia, where the climate permits more than one crop to be grown 
in the eld each year. While the crop was rst introduced into the highlands of 
Indonesia sometime in the 18th century, available statistics show that potatoes 
were not considered as an important vegetable crop in Indonesia until the 
1970s. Since then, potato production and area in Indonesia have expanded 
rapidly, reaching 1 million tons harvested from about 60-70,000 hectares (ha) 
annually by the mid-1990s. Indonesias domestic potato production meets a 
domestic demand that averages 990,000 tons annually. From 1963 to 2003, 
production grew at 4.6 percent per year on average (with average planted area 
growth of 3.0 percent and average yield growth of 1.6 percent). At the demand 
side, Indonesian consumers prefer potatoes with soft texture, slightly sweet 
taste and yellowish esh color (Ameriana et al., 1998). Potato, typically cut 
up into small pieces and added to a main dish, is consumed by all income 
groups.
 In Indonesias highland vegetable production system, year-round rainfed 
production is possible and two to three crops of short-duration vegetables are 





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia87
often grown. Potato, the most important crop of the system, is typically rotated 
with cabbage or another vegetable during the year. The most recent survey 
indicated that in highland areas, agriculture contributed three-fourths of total 
household income, and potato contributed nearly half of agricultural income 
(Fuglie et al., 2004). 
 By far, the most important potato variety grown in Indonesia is Granola, 
a variety released in Germany in the late 1970s and which was introduced into 
Southeast Asia in the early 1980s. It proved popular in the tropical highlands 
due to its short growing season (harvested 90-100 days after planting), high 
yield, resistance to viruses, and acceptance by consumers. It quickly dominated 
potato production in Indonesia and is grown approximately on 90 percent of 
the potato area every year. However, Granola is very susceptible to late blight 
(Phytophtora infestan), a devastating fungal disease that thrives in the cool 
humid conditions found in Indonesias tropical highlands. Potato late blight 
widely occurs in the major potato production regions in Indonesia, which 
represent more than 50 percent of the total planting area. In the said regions, 
rainfall, temperature and humidity are suitable for potato production, but are 
also suitable for the occurrence and spread of potato late blight.
 The degree of damage from potato late blight is closely related to varietal 
resistance, soil conditions, weather, and planting practice. The earlier the 
disease appears during the season, the more serious the damage. The main 
source of primary infection is through potato seed. 
 Farmers who grow susceptible varieties, especially during the wet season, 
must protect their crop by spraying fungicides every two or three days. Farmers 
may spray their potato crop 20-30 times during a single season. The use of 
late blight resistant varieties can signicantly reduce the number of sprays, 
but unfortunately most varieties are susceptible to the disease. Populations 
with general resistance have been generated by breeders at the International 
Potato Center (CIP, Lima, Peru), and these are being tested in many developing 
countries, including Indonesia. There are some new moderately resistant 
cultivars, but highly resistant cultivars are rare. 
 Recently, genetic engineering is being applied in an attempt to give 
potato resistance to the pathogen. By placing a gene from a naturally blight-
resistant wild potato into a cultivated variety, researchers from the University 
of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of California, Davis have produced 
plants that are resistant to a range of blight strains (McDonagh, 2003). The 
scientists suspected that a four-gene cluster in the wild potato species Solanum 
bulbocastanum was responsible for its resistance to blight. They cloned 
the genes and spliced one gene into each of four batches of potato plants. 
When they exposed these new cultivars to blight, one group stayed healthy, 





88W. Adiyoga
suggesting that the gene it received was conferring resistance. The scientists 
named the gene Rb, for resistance from S. bulbocastanum. A major resistance 
gene (Rb) has been cloned and transferred into Katahdin (a US potato variety) 
under the control of the native promoter. Transgenic plants have been eld 
tested in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington and, for two years, in Toluca 
(Mexico) where highly resistant events have been identied. Based on these 
demonstrations of resistance to all major races of the fungus, it is anticipated 
that this gene will also be effective in other countries, such as Indonesia, where 
late blight is an important disease.
 Farmers rank late blight as the most important pest problem of potatoes, 
given its negative effect on yield and income. Also, the consequent high pesticide 
use can have negative external effects such as water contamination. The 
worldwide debate over the risks and ethics of transgenic crop use is similarly 
a concern. However, with limited empirical evidence of benets and risks 
from adopting transgenic crops, the debate between critics and proponents 
of agricultural biotechnology has often been based on beliefs rather than facts 
(Qaim, 1999). Therefore, an estimation of the benets that can be expected 
from the use of late blight resistant transgenic potatoes in Indonesia would 
provide important economic information to the debate. Furthermore, the 
information generated by evaluations can be used in research prioritization 
and in developing effective product deployment strategies. This study assessed 
the size and distribution of the economic gains generated by the introduction 
of a late blight resistant potato variety in Indonesia.
Methodology and data used
This study employed economic surplus analysis to project economic impacts of 
a late blight resistant (LBR) transgenic potato variety in Indonesia, following 
the approach described in Chapter 2. Both primary and secondary data were 
used in the analysis. Primary data were collected through focused group 
discussions, scientists survey and an industry experts survey. Secondary data 
were obtained from various sources, including the Indonesian Central Bureau 
of Statistics and the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture. Potatoes in Indonesia 
are grown mostly for domestic consumption, such that they were modeled as 
a simple closed economy. 
 Since eld data were not available, cost and return effects of LBR potato were 
calculated using expert opinion and partial budgeting as compared to current 
varieties. The key variables in the partial budget are the difference between the 
per-hectare cost of inputs used in growing traditional varieties and those used 





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia89
for the transgenic technology, the expected yield increase in both cases, and 
seed price difference between the transgenic variety and the traditional variety 
(seed premium or seed markup). To account for the uncertainty of the nal 
value of these variables, the analysis was conducted across a range of feasible 
values. Each combination of values provided a scenario to evaluate the impact 
of the transgenic variety. 
 The per-unit cost reductions associated with transgenic varieties were 
created based on current budget gures for potatoes and the potential 
advantages of a new genetically-transformed variety.
change in Pesticide cost per hectare
 In 2005, the average potato production cost in Indonesia was Rp38,283,500 
(USD4,117) per hectare, 28.6 percent (Rp10,927,000 or USD1,175) of which was 
for pesticides. The cost of fungicides for controlling late blight was estimated 
to be approximately 75 percent of the total cost spent on pesticides. With 
transgenic technology, the maximum reduction in pesticide cost can be 100 
percent or Rp8,195,250 (USD881). However, the study also considered that 
additional treatments may still be necessary when very intensive late blight 
attacks occur. As such, the pesticide cost reduction was assumed at 80 percent 
or Rp6,556,200 (USD705) and at 50 percent or Rp4,097,625 (USD441). 
seed Premium
 One of the most important constraints in Indonesias potato production is 
the availability of high quality seed at an affordable price. On average, farmers 
spend a total of Rp9,127,000 (USD981) per hectare for seed, or 23.8 percent 
of the total production cost. Considering the farmers ability to purchase 
seeds, this study set the seed premium at 0 percent, 15 percent (Rp1,369,050; 
USD147) and 30 percent (Rp2,738,100; USD294) per hectare.
Yield Increase per hectare
 This study used crop loss estimates due to late blight infestation in 
Indonesia, reported to be 30-60 percent, to estimate the yield effect of LBR 
potato. Kusmana (2003) estimated a yield loss of 47 percent for Granola from 
experimental data. This study assumed yield loss at 30, 40 and 50 percent. 
Meanwhile, expert-respondents suggest that the use of a LBR potato variety 
will reduce yield loss by up to 80 percent. Hence, this study estimated potential 
yield increase at 24, 32 and 40 percent.
 Table 1 combines all the above information to create 18 scenarios. 
The scenarios can be depicted in a decision tree with each decision level 
nd
corresponding to each of the variables used. The rst  level and on the tree (2





90W. Adiyoga
rd
3 columns) is the base cost per hectare of pesticide use under the traditional 
technology. The second thlevel  and 5th(4 columns) is the decrease in pesticide 
th
cost due to the use of new (transgenic) technology. The  to next two levels (6
th
8 columns) include the different values for percent yield increase per hectare 
and the seed markup. 
table 1. Transgenic potato scenarios for Indonesia
Pesticide cost 
Yield 
sce-Pesticide cost/hareduction/haincrease seed markup/ha
nario
(%)rpusdrpusdrpusd
P100
P2241,369,050147
P32,738,100294
P400
P56,556,200321,369,050147
P67042	738,100294
P700
P8401,369,050147
P92,738,100294
P1010,927,00000
P111,174241,369,050147
P122,738,100294
P1300
P144,097,625321	369,050147
P154402,738,100294
P1600
P17401,369,050147
P182,738,100294
USD = Rp9,300
Adoption rates and Adoption Profiles
 Adoption rates are crucial because, all other factors equal, they are a major 
determinant of the magnitude of the change in total economic surplus. Seed 
companies undoubtedly consider the expected maximum adoption rate when 
setting seed price markup. Technology adoption rates also increase as the 
expected net benet increases, reducing the risk associated with the technology 
(Mills, 1998). Allowing the maximum adoption rate to vary with the size of the 
technologys net benet provides an insight for policy analysis into the trade-
off between seed markup and economic benets.





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia91
 In the 2003 season, the Granola variety covered about 90 percent of the 
total potato area in Indonesia. Since late blight is such a common potato 
disease, this study assumed that 90 percent of the total area is infested 
annually. The potential adoption rate for the new variety (late blight resistant) 
is then 81 percent, and maximum adoption rates of 20, 40, 60 and 80 percent 
were assigned for the simulation exercises. In addition, the study assumed that 
research takes ve years before the new variety is released, such that adoption 
starts from year six, year seven and so on.
 The study evaluated the stream of benets derived from adopting LBR 
transgenic potatoes for a 15-year period. Having set a maximum adoption rate 
according to the expected net benets, there is still the need to dene a proper 
adoption prole for the period. Alston et al. (1995) suggest linear (trapezoidal) 
or logistic curve forms for adoption paths on ex-ante evaluations, although the 
linear approach has been used more often in empirical studies (Mills, 1998). 
This study assumed that maximum adoption rates are reached four years after 
the technologys release, and that adoption begins to decline after year 15. The 
slow pace of adoption corresponds to the characteristics of a heterogeneous 
potato sector, where large-scale and small-scale farmers respond in different 
ways to the presence of a new technology. This analysis applied the S-curve or 
logistic curve; Table 2 illustrates the adoption paths.
table 2.  Adoption paths for transgenic potatoes in Indonesia
Maximum expected adoption rate (proportion of producers)
Year
80%60%40%20%
20050000
20060000
20070000
20080000
20090000
20100.200.150.100.05
20110.400.300.200.10
20120.600.450.300.15
20130.800.600.400.20
20140.800.600.400.20
20150.800.600.400.20
20160.800.600.400.20
20170.700.530.350.18
20180.600.450.300.15
20190.500.480.250.13





92W. Adiyoga
 Adoption rates depend on the protability of the new technology, which 
in this study is represented by the proportionate change in input cost per ton. 
Adoption also depends on the change in pesticide costs per hectare, the seed 
markup and the expected yield increase assumed in each scenario. Because 
secondary data linking the protability of different technologies to the achieved 
adoption rates were not available, the total range of the proportionate input 
cost change per ton resulting from the simulation of each scenario was divided 
into four quartiles, and each quartile was assigned a different maximum 
adoption rate. The maximum adoption rates range from 20 to 80 percent 
with 20-point intervals. Table 3 illustrates each scenario with the assumed 
maximum adoption rates and range of the proportionate input cost change.
demand elasticity
 Demand for fresh table potatoes in Southeast Asia appears to be 
relatively inelastic with an own-price elasticity of around -0.17 to -0.22. For 
Indonesia, Pasaribu (1989) estimated potato own-price elasticity at -0.6 to 
-0.8. Meanwhile, Fuglie et al. (2002) reported that per capita consumption of 
fresh table potatoes is much higher than that of processed potatoes and is also 
likely to show strong growth in the future. They approximated the own-price 
elasticity of potatoes in Jakarta, Indonesia to be -0.5. Based on these literature 
reviews, this study used a demand elasticity for potato at -0.5.
supply elasticity
 Alston et al. (1995) suggest that most long-run supply elasticities are high 
since in the long-run most xed factors become variable. The literature review 
does not provide precise information from which to infer a proper value for 
the supply elasticity of potatoes in Indonesia. Alston et al. (1995) state that 
for empirical work related to priority-setting and when data is scarce, supply 
elasticity can be set at 1, which this study followed.
Prices
 In the period 2000-2003, wholesale prices of potatoes in Indonesia 
averaged at Rp2,100 (USD0.23) per kg. This study then sets the wholesale 
price constant at Rp2,100,000 (USD226) per ton. 
Quantities
 Base quantities were calculated using average harvested area and the 
average yield, which was 63,095 ha and 15.9 tons per ha, respectively, in the 
period 1995-2003. As such, the base quantity of potato production was set at 
1,060,000 tons.





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia93
(%)806040806040806040604020604020604020
Maximum 
adoption rate 
0.1380.1090.0800.1300.1020.0760.1220.0960.0710.0860.0570.0290.0820.0540.0270.0760.0510.025
Per ton
input cost
Per ha0.1710.1350.0990.1710.1350.0990.1710.1350.0990.1070.0710.0350.1070.0710.0350.1070.0710.035
Proportionate change in 
P1P2P3P4P5P6P7P8P9
P10P11P12P13P14P15P16P17P18
scenario
IIIIIIIVVVI
group
000000
147294147294147294147294147294147294
usd/ha
seed markup000000
rp/ha
1,369,0502,738,1001,369,0502,738,1001,369,0502,738,1001,369,0502,738,1001,369,0502,738,1001,369,0502,738,100
(%)243240243240
Yield 
increase
704441
usd/ha
cost reduction
rp/ha
6,556,2004,097,625
able 3. Proportionate input cost change per ton and maximum adoption rates for transgenic potatoes in Indonesia
t





94W. Adiyoga
Monopolists Profit
 Monopoly prots were calculated using the per-hectare markup estimated 
in the partial budget for the transgenic varieties, the adoption rate in each 
year, and the average cropping area estimated above. The adoption area in 
each year (in hectares) was calculated from the total base area estimated 
for potatoes, and the corresponding adoption rate in each year given by the 
estimated adoption paths.
 
other Variables
 The analysis in this study assumed that the transgenic technology has not been 
released and the relevant probability of research success is 0.5. Annual research 
cost for potatoes was assumed to correspond to the expected yield increase. 
Scientist-respondents estimated a research cost of Rp350 million (USD37,634) per 
year until the technology is released at the sixth year (Table 4).
table 4. Parameter values for the computation of changes in economic 
surplus in potato production in Indonesia
Parameterdescription and value
YearAnnual	benefits	were	projected	for	15	years	after	research	
commences,	2005-2019	(t	=	1,2,..,15)
Supply elasticitySet	at	1
Demand elasticitySet at -0.5
Proportionate yield In this study, 30, 40 and 50% yield loss were used. With LBR potato 
change potentially reducing yield loss up to 80%, the estimates of yield 
increase, used were 24, 32 and 40%, respectively.   
Proportionate Pesticide cost reduction was set at Rp6,556,200 (USD705) (80%) and 
change in input Rp4,097,625	(USD441)	(50	percent).	Seed	premium	was	at	0%	(Rp0),	
cost per hectare15%	(R1,369,050;	USD147)	and	30%	(Rp2,738,100;	USD294)	per	
hectare. Thus, the proportionate changes in per-hectare input cost 
for	80%	pesticide	cost	reduction	were	0.171;	0.135	and	0.0997,	and	
0.107;	0.071	and	0.0355	for	50%	pesticide	cost	reduction.
Probability of Since the analysis assumed that the technology has not been released 
research successyet, the probability of research success is set at 0.5.
Adoption rateThe assigned maximum adoption rates were 20, 40, 60 and 80%. 
Research takes five years before the new transgenic variety is released, 
so adoption starts from year six, and so on.  
Wholesale priceWholesale prices for the period of 2000-2003 are averaged, giving a 
mean	value	of	Rp2,100,000	(USD226)	per	ton.	
Production	quantityThe	pre-research	quantity	is	constant,	equal	to	the	base	production	
quantity	of	1,060,000	ton.
Annual research The estimated annual research cost for potatoes is Rp350 million 
cost(USD37,634) per year. 





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia95
results and discussion
Farm survey results
Potato is grown throughout the highlands of Indonesia. During the 1995-2003 
period, Indonesias potato area ranged from a low of 50,189 ha (1997) to a 
high of 73,069 ha (2000). In the same period, production ranged from a low 
of 813,368 tons (1997) to a high of 1,321,117 tons (2002), and annual national 
yields averaged at 15.94 t/ha, which was close to the world yield average of 16 
t/ha.
 In some provinces, however, potato yields exceeded the national average. 
For example, West Java, which accounts for 37.2 percent of national production, 
reported an average yield of 18.62 t/ha in 2003. Also some regencies of West 
Java reported potato yields far exceeding the national average, with the highest 
yield of 20.5 t/ha observed in Pangalengan. A group of farmers in Pangalengan, 
who were interviewed during the eld visit, reported yields of 25-28 t/ha.
Provincial Distribution of Production 
 In 2003, the three most important potato producing provinces in Indonesia 
accounted for about 72.9 percent of national production  West Java, 37.1 
percent; North Sumatra, 23.3 percent; and Central Java, 12.5 percent. Six 
other provinces (Aceh, West Sumatra, Jambi, East Java, South Sulawesi and 
North Sulawesi) are also considered as major potato producing areas. In 2003, 
the combined output of these nine provinces accounted for over 99 percent of 
Indonesias national potato production.
Potato Varieties Grown
 Key informants estimated that 91 percent of the annual potato crop is 
planted to the Granola variety, with farmers refreshing their seed stock every 
four to ve planting seasons. About 6 percent of the total potato area is sown 
to processing varieties such as Columbus, Atlantic and Panda. The rest of the 
potato area is planted to an assortment of other varieties, including a popular 
farmer selection in East Java known as Ritex.
 After two decades of rapid growth, by the late 1990s, area planted to potatoes 
in Indonesia had stabilized at around 70,000 hectares per year. Assuming an 
average seeding rate of 1.5 t/ha, this implies a need for about 105,000 tons 
of potato seed annually. Several competing sources supply this critical input 
to Indonesian farmers. One important source is the informal seed system, 
where potato seed is saved from the previous harvest or purchased from other 
farmers. In addition, three other sources of improved or quality seed exist. 





96W. Adiyoga
First are imports of certied seed of foreign-bred varieties. The second sources 
of improved seed are private companies with tissue culture facilities supplying 
disease-free plantlets or mini-tubers. A third source of improved seed is a 
newly established public-sector certied seed system located in West Java.
Insects and Diseases 
 Key informants at the Indonesian Research Institute for Vegetables 
(IVegRI) reported that late blight remains to be an important constraint to 
higher potato yields in the country. This disease may reduce farmers yields by 
20-50 percent and also reduce tuber quality. Only a limited number of studies 
have been carried out in Indonesia to quantify the incidence and impact of 
this disease on potato yields. Kusmana (2003) evaluated 21 potato clones and 
found that yield losses due to late blight ranged at 10-90 percent, compared 
to the non-inoculated control. Granola, the most popular potato variety used 
by farmers, lost as much as 47 percent of its yield. Estimated potato yield loss 
caused by late blight provided by farmer-respondents varied depending on 
the date of onset of the disease. Majority of the farmer-respondents provided 
higher yield loss estimates when the disease attack occurs early in the season. 
Yield loss of as high as 75 percent was reported when late blight attack occurs 
at 20-30 days after planting (DAP) while the maximum yield loss estimated at 
71-80 DAP was 10 percent (Table 5).
table 5. Estimated potato yield loss caused by late blight from farmer focused 
group discussion
Farmer-Yield loss (%) when late blight attack occurs at:
respondent20-30 dAP 31-40 dAP 41-50 dAP 51-60 dAP 61-70 dAP 71-80 dAP
Grower	1102030504010
Grower 275-50-2010
Grower 30030302515
Grower 450-20-5-
Grower 52050-6050-6040-5020-255-10
Grower 66040302010-
Grower 77040-6040-6030205
Farm Size, Land Tenure and Cropping System
 In the highland vegetable production system, year-round rain-fed 
production is possible, and two to three crops of short-duration vegetables are 
often grown. Potato, the most important crop in this system, is typically rotated 





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia97
with cabbage or another vegetable during the year. Results of the most recent 
farm survey show that small farms dominate highland vegetable production in 
Indonesia. The average size of a potato farm is about 1 ha, with few farms over 
2 ha. 
 In general, the land market is well developed in the highland vegetable 
production areas and cash rent predominates. About 60 percent of the area 
planted to potatoes in West Java was rented, double the percentage in the 
other provinces surveyed. In all provinces except West Java, there were potato 
growers who are landless households renting land to grow potatoes. According 
to the survey, about 6 percent of the potato growers owned no cropland, about 
half owned their cropland and the rest used both owned and rented land to grow 
crops. A household on average owned 1.16 ha of cropland with an additional 
net rental area (area rented minus area rented out) of 0.34 ha for a total land 
operated of 1.50 ha.
Enterprise Budgets: Inputs and Yields
 Table 6 presents the average costs and returns for potato production in 
Indonesia in 2004. The farm budget shows that purchased inputs accounted 
for 72.3 percent (Rp26,672,000 or USD2,868 per ha) of total costs. Total labor 
requirements averaged at 923 person-days/ha, and hired labor accounted for 
18.1 percent (Rp6,917,000 or USD744 per ha) of total costs. Based on the 
average yield of 28.9 t/ha and a farm-gate price of Rp1,926.50 (USD0.21) per 
kg, average farm income was estimated at Rp17,371,200 (USD1,868) per ha. It 
should be noted though that the farm budget varies considerably with respect 
to specic cost items, most likely due to different denitions/categories used 
to report specic cost items, different reporting years, and the manner that 
each budget values family labor. Table 7 presents the details of pesticide use 
and costs.
table 6. Per-hectare costs and returns analysis of potato production, 
Pangalengan, West Java, Indonesia, 2004
descriptionQuantityValue (rp 000)% of total
INPUTS
Labor (person-days)
Land preparation276.29  2,072				5.41
Applying inputs185.851,393   3.64
Planting  38.57     289    0.75
Harvesting  92.86     696				1.82
Other operations329.072,4676.44
Sub total922.646,91718.06





98W. Adiyoga
descriptionQuantityValue (rp 000)% of total
Material Inputs   
Seed (kg)		1,825		9,127  23.84
Fertilizers (kg)	19.89
Urea3173490.91
Zinc ammonia (ZA)3974761.24
Super phosphate (SP)-363976351.66
Potassium chloride (KCl)3175711.49
Complete	(NPK)	15-15-159521,5243.98
Organic fertilizer25,4004,06310.61
Pesticides10,92728.65
Sub total27,67272.28
Other Costs
Land rent2,3816.22
Others1,313.53.44
Sub total3,694.59.66
Total Expense38,283.5100.00
OUTPUT
Production (kg)28, 889
Price (Rp/kg)1,926.50
Total Revenue55,654.7
GROSS FARM INCOME 17,371.2
INCOME OVER EXPENSES61.4%
table 7. Estimated cost of fungicides and insecticides used in potato 
production, dry and rainy season, Pangalengan, West Java, Indonesia, 2005
cost of 
other costs Pesticide fungicides to Insecticide 
season
(%)costs (%)control late costs (%)
blight (%)
Grower	1Rainy65352510
Dry65351025
Grower 2Rainy60403010
Dry60401030
Grower 3Rainy6040-502020-30
Dry70301020
Grower 4Rainy7822184
Grower 5Rainy60403010





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia99
Marketing and Trade
 Commercial potato farmers typically harvest their crop and sell it to 
middlemen (traders) who visit their farm. The middlemen generally then sell 
to large wholesale markets located in major urban areas. On the other hand, 
some farmers directly market their crop to vegetable sellers in nearby public 
markets, or have contracts to supply supermarkets (for table potato) or food 
processing company (for processing potato). Most of the potato produced in 
Indonesia is consumed domestically. Import and export statistics indicate that 
Indonesia has imported/exported only small quantities of potatoes (Adiyoga 
et al., 1999; Adiyoga et al., 2001).
 North Sumatra accounts for more than 90 percent of Indonesias total 
potato exports (table potatoes for the fresh market). Nearly all of Indonesias 
potato exports are destined for either Malaysia (about 70 percent) or Singapore 
(30 percent). Indonesias quantity of potato exports peaked in 1995 at 103,050 
tons, which was nearly 10 percent of total domestic production. Exports 
subsequently fell to about a third of this level. Between 1997 and 2000, exports 
were relatively stable averaging 30,598 tons/year, or about 3.2 percent of 
domestic production (Adiyoga et al., 2001).
 Meanwhile, most potato imports (1997-2000) are in the form of processed 
products, with frozen French fries accounting for nearly three-quarters of 
the total value of potato imports. Most of these imports originate from North 
America. Other processed potato products such as starch and akes used in 
food processing accounted for another 15 percent of the total value of potato 
imports. Most of these imports come from European countries. Seed potatoes 
are the third most important category of potato imports, accounting for 10 
percent of quantity and 7.4 percent of the import value. The major potato 
seed supplying countries include the Netherlands, Australia, Germany and 
the United Kingdom. On average, Indonesia imports about 1,600 tons/year 
of potato seed, representing only about 1.5 percent of the total annual seed 
requirement. 
scientist Interviews
 The scientist-respondents expect that with the late blight resistant potatoes, 
yield would increase between 5-50 percent (Table 8).  They also expect that the 
adoption of the technology would reduce pesticide cost per hectare by 40-80 
percent and hired labor cost by 5-10 percent.  While there could be no change 
in fertilizer cost, it is expected that the cost of seeds could increase by 5-20 
percent.
 Scientist-respondents indicated a probability of 30-80 percent chances 
of success in developing transgenic potatoes with a commercially acceptable 





100W. Adiyoga
level of effectiveness against the late blight. They also believe that it could take 
about 5-8 years to complete the development of late blight resistant potatoes 
and to meet the various regulatory requirements with total expenditure of 
Rp300-410 million (USD 32,258-44,086) per year.
table 8. Summary of scientist-respondents interview responses
Particularresponses
Yield gain (%)
Minimum5-10
Most likely15-30
Maximum30-50
Cost change (%)
Hired labordecrease	5-10
Pesticidesdecrease	5-10
Fertilizerno change
Seedsincrease 5-20
Development and regulatory costs (Rp000,000)
Research and development750	-1,000
Regulatory costs
Contained25 - 50
Limited field trial25 - 50
Multi-location field trial200 - 300
Food safety assessment200 - 250
Apply for commercialization50	-	100
Total costs for 5 years1,500	-	2,050
Total cost per year300	-	410
Preferred variety characteristic
Variety typesaved seeds/OP
Variety sourceprivate/public
Variety usefresh (Granola, Manohara and Amudra); 
processed (Atlantic)
Industry expert Interviews
 Industry expert-respondents reported that from their experience, the 
estimated average annual crop loss due to late blight in 2005 was about 
10-30 percent and about 10-50 percent in the last 5 years. The preferred 
varieties for which they would like the transgenic technology to be used, in 





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia101
order of preference, are Granola and Atlantic. Industry expert-respondents 
also reported that farmers normally prefer to use seeds saved from previous 
harvests and seeds bought from other farmers.
 No conclusive response was obtained with regard to the time needed to 
complete the development of late blight resistant potato technology and to 
meet the various regulatory requirements. The chances (percent) that the 
product will pass the regulatory requirements and be commercialized were 
perceived to be low (< 10 percent), since the general knowledge and experience 
concerning the development of transgenic crops are still lacking. If the new 
released varieties are an improved version of Granola and Atlantic, the 
perceived maximum percentage of crop area expected to be covered by the 
transgenic potatoes was quite high at 50-80 percent. It was estimated that the 
maximum area to be planted (80 percent of total potato area) will be reached in 
5-10 years once the crop is commercially released. If the new released varieties 
are an improved version of Granola and Atlantic and the price of the seed is 
relatively affordable, an increase in potato area will be expected, especially in 
potato production growing area outer Java.
economic surplus Analysis
 The analysis was based on a set of 18 scenarios for potato production in 
Indonesia. The scenarios were grouped holding the variables cost reduction 
per hectare and yield increase per hectare constant to compare the results 
and infer the implications of seed markup on the distribution of economic 
benets. Three levels of the seed markup were compared within each group of 
scenarios. 
 Technological change brought by the introduction of LBR transgenic 
potatoes increases the total surplus as a consequence of lower costs and higher 
yield. In Table 9, Groups I, II and III simulate a pesticide cost reduction of 
USD705 per hectare, while Groups IV, V and VI simulate a pesticide cost 
reduction of USD441 per hectare. Comparing scenarios P4 and P13 isolates the 
effect of the pesticide cost reduction per hectare. For scenario P4, the increase 
in total surplus is USD203 million, while for scenario P13 the increase in total 
surplus is USD134.5 million.
 Comparing scenarios P1, P4 and P7 isolate the effects of three different 
values of yield increase: 24, 32 and 40 percent, respectively. A 24 percent yield 
increase (the lowest value) increases total surplus by USD169.7 million; 32 
percent gives USD202.7 million total surplus; and a 40 percent yield increase 
results in a  USD236.4 million increase in total surplus. The net present value 
(NPV) of benets and costs shown in the last column of Table 9 is calculated by 





102W. Adiyoga
discounting and summing over time the difference between the benets of the 
transgenic potato and the costs of research and regulatory investment. Because 
the research and regulatory costs are so small compared to the benets, the 
last column in Table 9 is only slightly smaller than the discounted benets 
alone, which are shown in the total surplus column. 
summary and conclusion
This study applied ex-antean  analytical framework to evaluate the welfare 
impact of adopting late blight resistant (LBR) transgenic potatoes in Indonesia 
for the years 2005-2019. The size and distribution of economic benets were 
estimated using an economic surplus closed economy model. 
 Each of the scenarios simulated for the LBR transgenic potatoes increased 
total economic surplus as costs were relatively small. The worst scenario (P12) 
produced national benets of USD29.6 million, while the best scenario (P7) 
gave national benets of USD236.4 million. The extent of adoption of the 
LBR transgenic potatoes has a major inuence on the magnitude of benets, 
which depend as well on factors such as the seed premium farmers may be 
asked to pay. In all the scenarios analyzed, higher adoption rates, of course, 
lead to increased benets, but at the same time, adoption rates are likely to 
be lower, the higher the price markup for the transgenic seed. For the seed 
grower/company, prots may increase with higher seed markups under certain 
conditions, but may decrease with lower adoption rates. There is, therefore, an 
economic trade-off between seed markup and adoption rates.
 This study has concentrated on the pecuniary benets and costs of 
transgenic LBR potato and did not address issues such as environmental 
externalities. In this case, lower pesticide use is projected, which should have 
positive impacts on the environment, while the risk of unintended effects, 
such as gene ow, reduced biodiversity and harm to non-target organisms are 
perceived to be minimal. 
references
Adiyoga, W, R Suherman, A Asgar and Irfansyah. 1999. Potatoes in West Java: A 
rapid appraisal of production, marketing, processing and consumer preferences. 
International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru.
Adiyoga, W, KO Fuglie and R Suherman. 2001. Potato marketing in North Sumatra and 
an assessment of Indonesian potato trade. UPWARD Working Paper Series No. 7.





costs and Benefits of transgenic late Blight resistant Potatoes in Indonesia103
nPV of total 169,557,931	116,594,772	70,921,122	202,531,551	141,592,489	87,772,796 236,204,328 166,999,570	104,820,113	108,934,920	65,743,549 29,480,958 134,353,052	82,888,584 38,159,745	105,997,210	49,701,657	46,879,571	
surplus minus 
r&d costs (usd)
56,573,622 38,919,236	23,694,686 67,564,829 47,251,809	29,311,911	78,789,088 55,720,836 34,994,350 36,365,952 	21,968,829	9,881,298	44,838,663   27,683,840 12,774,227	35,386,716	16,621,531	15,680,836	
Producer surplus
ssurplus
consumer 77,838,473 47,389,373 94,503,618	58,623,822 69,988,700 72,731,904	43,937,657 89,677,326 55,367,681	25,548,455 70,773,432 33,243,063 31,361,672
113,147,245	135,129,659	157,578,177	111,441,672	19,762,5973	
nPV of change in (usd)
otal surplus
t169,720,868	116,757,709	71,084,059	202,694,488 141,755,427	87,935,733 236,367,266 167,162,507	104,983,050	109,097,857	65,906,486 29,643,895 134,515,989	83,051,521	38,322,682 106,160,147	49,864,594 47,042,509 
000000
147294147294147294147294147294147294
seed mark- up (usd/ha)
(%)242424323232404040242424323232404040
Yield 
increase 
705705705705705705705705705441441441441441441441441441
reduction (usd/ha)
Pesticide cost 
P1P2P3P4P5P6P7P8P9P10P11P12P13P14P15P16P17P18
scenario
IIIIIIIVVVI
group
able 9. simulation results for changes in economic benefits (USD)
t





104W. Adiyoga
Alston, JM, GW Norton and PG Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and 
Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University 
Press, Ithaca, New York.
Ameriana, M, W Adiyoga, L Sulistyowati and D Mamun. 1988. Household consumer 
behavior in evaluating potato quality (in Bahasa Indonesia). Jurnal Hortikultura 
7(4): 944-951.
Fuglie, KO, W Adiyoga, R Asmunati, S Mahalaya and R Suherman. 2004. Supply 
and demand for improved potato seed in Indonesia. Unpublished manuscript. 
International Potato Center, Ofce for South and Southeast Asia (CIP-ESEAP). 
Bogor, Indonesia.
Horton, D. 1987. Potatoes: Production, Marketing, and Programs for Developing 
Countries. Westview Press, Boulder, USA.
McDonagh, S. 2003. Stout potatoes: Armed with a new gene, spuds fend off blight. 
Science News 164(3):35. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030719/toc.asp.   
Accessed July 2005
Meyer, PS, JW Yung and JH Ausubel. 1999. A primer on logistic growth. Technological 
Forecasting and Social Change 61(3): 247-271.
Mills, B. (ed) 1998. Agricultural research priority setting: Information investments 
for the improved use of research resources. International Service for National 
Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague, The Netherlands.
Pasaribu, SM.1989. Consumption. In Bottema, JWT, H Siregar, SM parasibu, G Gijsbers 
and R Basuki (eds). Potato in Indonesia: Prospects for Medium Altitude Production. 
CGPRT Centre, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 63-74.
Qaim, M. 1999. Welfare impacts of genetically engineered crops in developing countries. 
Paper presented at the Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing 
Countries: Towards Optimizing Benets for the Poor, Bonn, 15-16 November.














Document Number: 9901 
costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance
to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia
W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Introduction
Potato tuber moth (Phthorimaea operculella), or PTM, attacks potatoes 
primarily in storage, and crop losses can reach 45-90 percent if untreated 
(Setiawari et al., 1998). In the eld, yield loss can exceed 30 percent (Setiawati 
and Tobing, 1996; Soeriaatmadja, 1998), and farmers are then forced to apply 
signicant amounts of insecticides to manage the pest. 
 Recently, genetic engineering has enabled researchers at Michigan State 
University, in collaboration with scientists at the International Potato Center 
(CIP, Lima, Peru), to develop a potato with resistance to PTM through the 
insertion of a synthetic gene designed for potato expression of a toxin identical 
to a Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene. This synthetic potato gene will be 
referred to as the Bt gene. Several developing country potato varieties have 
been transformed with the Bt gene to express resistance to the potato tuber 
moth. For Central Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Congo), PTM-resistant 
varieties include Mabondo, Sangema, Murca, and Cruza 148. For the Andean 
region (Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador), PTM resistance is now in Tomasa Condemayta, 
Costanera, Achirana INTA, Mara Tambea, and Revolucin. For Colombia, 
Parda Pastusa has been transformed. For Costa Rica, PTM-resistant Atzimba 
is available, and for both North Africa (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco) and the 
Southern cone of South America (Argentina, Chile), Spunta and Desiree has 
been transformed with the Bt gene. However, due to various limitations, only 
one of these PTM-resistant varieties has been deployed to their potential target 





106W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
countries. Bt Spunta has been eld tested in Egypt, Indonesia, and South Africa. 
In the latter, Bt Spunta is going through the pathway of regulatory approval for 
commercialization. The material is in holdback in Egypt whereas in Indonesia, 
the Bt potato is under regulatory review for testing. 
 Farmers ranked PTM as the most important storage pest of potato, and the 
second most important pest problem after late blight. Farmers are concerned 
that the pest may increase over time and require increased use of insecticides, 
with potential harm to themselves and to the environment.
 Indonesia has not been immune from the worldwide debate around 
the risks and ethics of transgenic crops. However, this debate often lacks 
information on the potential economic and environmental benets from 
transgenic crops. Opponents and proponents of agricultural biotechnology 
often base their beliefs on perceptions rather than careful study (Qaim, 1999). 
Therefore, estimating the benets that can be expected from the adoption of 
PTM-resistant potatoes in Indonesia can add useful information to the debate. 
The present study simulates the size and distribution of the economic surplus 
(economic benets to producers and consumers) generated by the introduction 
and adoption of PTM-resistant potato variety in Indonesia. The potential 
effects on exports are considered, as well as the changes in pesticide use.
Methodology and data used
Economic surplus analysis was used to project the economic impacts of PTM-
resistant or Bt potato. This approach, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 
2, is commonly used to assess the economic impacts of agricultural research 
(Alston et al., 1995). The appropriate form of the model to be used in the 
analysis depends on the nature of the market for the product, i.e., the extent 
to which the product is traded or the existence of policy distortions. With any 
economic surplus analysis, basic information on production, prices, potential 
yield increases (or savings in losses), cost changes, and technology adoption 
(and non-adoption) over time are considered. Research and development 
(R&D) costs are subtracted from benets and net benets are discounted over 
time to generate a rate of return or a net present value (NPV) of the realized or 
projected net benets (income). In case the research or regulatory process is 
not yet completed, the probability of success is estimated.
 Over 95 percent of the potatoes in Indonesia are consumed domestically, 
with a few exports to Singapore and Malaysia. Potato exports have declined 
over time due to rising domestic demand and increased competition in the 
regional market. The basic model assumes a closed economy, although one 
model was run as an open economy for comparison. 





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia107
data sources and Assumptions
 Both primary and secondary data were collected and used in the analysis. 
Primary data were collected through farm survey interviews of 33 farmers 
in West Java and North Sumatra, ve scientists working on the subject, and 
seven extension workers. Secondary data were obtained from various sources, 
including the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics and the Indonesian 
Ministry of Agriculture. 
 Per-hectare budgets with and without the new technology were developed 
to obtain the percent cost changes required when calculating the per-unit cost 
reduction estimates needed for the economic surplus evaluation. The budgets 
include both pre- and post-harvest costs. It is assumed that the transgenic 
variety affects yield (by reducing storage losses) and pesticide, labor, and seed 
costs, changing their value with respect to the benchmark gures under the 
traditional technology. To account for the uncertainty of the nal value of these 
variables, the analysis is conducted across a range of feasible values. Each 
combination of values produces a scenario for the impact of the transgenic 
variety. The following sections explain the creation of scenarios, including the 
data used and the values selected for specic variables.
 Three critical variables expected to change with the new technology are 
the use of variable inputs, the seed markup (or seed premium) charged for the 
new variety, and the yield net of storage losses. The primary variable inputs to 
change are the post-harvest insecticide cost and associated labor. The change 
in seed cost is in principle a component of the change in variable inputs per 
hectare (by changing the price of one input), but it is considered separately 
from other inputs to specically account for a range in possible markups. The 
seed markup is the difference between the seed prices of the transgenic variety 
and of the traditional varieties. The markup may result from some monopoly 
power (due to a single or limited number of sellers) in addition to increased 
seed production costs which include regulatory costs. 
 The change in yield net of storage losses provides a measure of the change in 
physical productivity of the new variety. Although the transgenic characteristic 
does not necessarily lead to higher yield, it does result in a greater effective 
yield once the losses are reduced for the portion of the crop that is stored. The 
values included in the analysis for each of these variables were obtained from 
1
the farmer and scientist surveys. 
1 The scientists surveyed were Dr. Marc Ghislain, International Potato Center (CIP) Biotechnology 
Advisor; Dr. Keith Fuglie, CIP Division Leader; Dr. Muhammad Herman, Indonesian Center for 
Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development (ICABIOGRAD) 
plant pathologist; Dr. Eri Soari, (Indonesian Vegetable Research Institute (IVEGRI) breeder; 
and Dr. Iteu M. Hidayat, IVEGRI breeder. Other scientists consulted include Dr. Jurgen 
Kroschel and Dr. Fernando Ezeta of CIP.





108W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
 Adoption rates were based on the opinions of extension workers as 
described below. Adoption rates of a new technology are likely to increase 
as the expected net benet increases, reducing the risk associated with the 
technology (Mills, 1998). In 2003, the Granola variety covered about 90 
percent of the total annual potato area in Indonesia. Therefore, to maximize 
the adoption of the transgenic potato technology, this study assumed that the 
Bt gene was inserted into the Granola variety.   
 The study evaluated the stream of benets derived from the adoption of 
the new technology over a 15-year period. The rst years of the period are 
devoted to completing the research and meeting regulatory requirements. The 
length of the pre-adoption period was set based on responses of scientists who 
are knowledgeable about Bt potato and the regulatory system in Indonesia for 
transgenic crops. Farmer adoption was assumed to begin once the new variety 
is released and seeds are bulked up and disseminated, taking a few years to 
reach the maximum. The maximum adoption rate and the length of time to 
reach it were estimated based on the opinions of extension workers and other 
experts, and on the fact that farmers replace their seed every four to ve years. 
Farmer adoption was assumed to proceed at a linear rate up to the maximum 
and then remain at that rate during the remainder of the 15-year period. 
 The literature has few studies on the own-price elasticity of potato demand. 
Pasaribu (1989) estimated the own-price elasticity to fall between 0.6 and 
0.8. Fuglie et al. (2002) reported that per capita consumption of fresh table 
potatoes is currently much higher than processed potatoes and is likely to show 
strong growth in the future. Demand for fresh table potatoes in Southeast Asia 
appears to be relatively inelastic, with an own-price elasticity of around 0.17 
to 0.22. Meanwhile, an own-price elasticity of potatoes in Jakarta, Indonesia 
was estimated at 0.5 (Fuglie et al., 2002). Based on these information, the 
potato demand own-price elasticity was set at 0.5.
 The literature does not provide precise information from which to infer 
a proper value for the supply elasticity of potatoes in Indonesia. Alston et al. 
(1995) suggest that long-run elasticities can be high since in the long-run most 
xed factors become variable. They also state that for empirical work when 
data are scarce, the supply elasticity can be set at 1, as elasticities that are 
very small or very large can give biased results in certain cases. Following this 
approach, this study set the potato supply elasticity at 1.
 Because the PTM potato technology has not been released and the research 
and regulatory success is uncertain, the probability of success as well as the 
research and regulatory costs were elicited from the scientist-respondents. 
Wholesale prices and production were obtained from secondary data sources.





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia109
results and discussion
Primary data and secondary data
Pest Management Practices and Pesticide Costs
 Based on the farmer survey, pesticide cost in potato production in Indonesia 
averaged at USD762.00 per hectare, or 21.6 percent of the average production 
cost of USD3,524 per hectare in the wet season, and USD865 per hectare, or 
24.6 percent of the average production cost of USD3,523 per hectare in the 
dry season. This study focuses on the dry season, when PTM is the greatest 
problem and more insecticides than fungicides are applied. Insecticide costs 
for managing PTM represent approximately 59 percent of total pesticide costs 
according to the 2006 farmer survey in West Java and North Sumatra. From 
the farmers and scientists surveys, farmer-adopters of Bt potato may expect 
a cost reduction of USD129-258 per hectare, or a 25-50 percent reduction in 
insecticide costs. 
 Farmers in West Java and North Sumatra rely heavily on chemical 
pesticides for managing insects and diseases (Table 1), with most farmers 
spraying on a schedule that they developed independent of pest severity in a 
particular year.
table 1. Potato insect and disease control methods in West Java and North 
Sumatra, Indonesia, 2006
Pest and disease control method and West Java (n=18) north sumatra 
frequency of practice(%)(n=15) (%)
Using bio-pesticide:
	Never55.673.3
	1-4	times	per	season44.426.7
Using natural enemies:
	Never100.0100.0
	Sometimes--
Using traps:
	Never44.460.0
	Sometimes55.640.0
o Trap crop22.220.2
o Sex pheromone22.26.7
o Yellow trap11.213.3





110W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Pest and disease control method and West Java (n=18) north sumatra 
frequency of practice(%)(n=15) (%)
Mixing pesticides:
	Never--
	Sometimes11.126.7
	Always/very often88.973.3
Number of pesticides mixed:
	Two33.360.0
	Three55.626.7
	More than three11.113.3
Frequency	of	spraying:
	Twice a week66.780.0
	Depends on the incidence33.320.0
First and last spraying:
	First spraying (days after planting)1613
	Last spraying (days before harvesting)1511
 Potato farmers in West Java and North Sumatra also cited certain 
management practices as helpful in reducing PTM infestation (Table 2). For 
example, although they mainly use insecticides to control PTM both in the 
eld and in storage, potato farmers in Indonesia carry out very careful tuber 
selection before moving them into storage.
table 2. Management practices cited by farmers as helpful in reducing the 
infestation of potato tuber moth, 2006
West Javanorth sumatra
Management practices
no.%no.%
Field practices
	Fumigate soil before planting  2		11.1  0    0.0
	Apply insecticide in field17  94.415100.0
	Frequent	irrigation13  72.211  73.3
	Irrigate right up to harvest15  83.3  8  53.3
	Timely harvest12  66.78  53.3
	Harvest only in cool weather  0    0.0  6  40.0
	Harvest while the tops are still green  0    0.0  0    0.0
	Apply insecticide right before and/or after   8  44.410  66.7
harvest





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia111
West Javanorth sumatra
Management practices
no.%no.%
Post-harvest (storage) practices
	Careful selection before moving tubers 18100.015100.0
into storage
	Rapid handling between harvest and 14  77.810  66.7
storage
	Apply insecticide in storage1810012  80.0
	Good cover over stored potatoes 14  77.810  66.7
	Harvest only when plants are completely 		1    5.6  4  26.7
mature
No practice is actually necessary to reduce the 
infestation of potato tuber moth
	Strongly disagree  8  44.4  5  33.3
	Disagree10  55.6  8  53.3
	Indifferent  0    0.0  2		13.4
	Agree  0    0.0  0    0.0
	Strongly agree  0    0.0  0    0.0
No practice is actually effective to reduce the 
infestation of potato tuber moth
	Strongly disagree  4  22.2  8  53.3
	Disagree14  77.8  6  40.0
	Indifferent  0    0.0		1    6.7
	Agree  0    0.0  0    0.0
	Strongly agree  0    0.0  0    0.0
Seed Premium
 One of the most important constraints in Indonesias potato production 
is the availability of good quality seed at an affordable price. The average total 
seed cost is USD 1,022 per hectare, 29 percent of the total production cost. The 
percent seed premium for Bt potato markup is uncertain, but if Bt potato is 
developed and owned by the public sector, it is likely to be licensed to private 
partners with relatively small markup. CIP intends to initially license the Bt 
potato to an Indonesian private partner who will adhere to an agreed plan for 
release and reproduction. After a specied time period yet to be determined, 
the technology will be released to the public domain. The technology will not 
be owned by one particular partner. Based on this information and markups 
observed elsewhere, the seed markup is set in this study at 0 and at 10 percent 
(USD102) for the analyses. 





112W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Yield Increase 
 Indonesias annual national potato yield during 1995-2004 averaged 
around 16 t/ha, a gure quite close to the world yield average. In some provinces, 
yields exceeded the national average. For example, West Java, which accounts 
for 39 percent of national production, posted an average yield of 19.8 t/ha in 
2004 (see Appendix Table A-3).
 Actual crop losses due to PTM from 2002 to 2005 were estimated by 
farmer-respondents to be at 0-30 percent in West Java and North Sumatra, 
even after application of insecticides. In response, scientist-respondents 
indicated that Bt potato may completely eliminate storage losses due to PTM. 
For this study, yield increase with the Bt potato was allowed to range at 0-10 
percent.   
 The information above was used to generate 12 scenarios for the analysis 
(Table 3). The scenarios can also be depicted as a decision tree with the decision 
levels corresponding to the variables whose values were made to change in the 
st
simulations. The rst level on  column) the tree is the (1decrease in pesticide 
nd
cost due to the use of new technology. The second  column) level includes (2
the various levels of yield increase per hectare (in percentages). The third level 
rd
(3 column) is the amount of seed markup.
table 3. Construction of different cost and yield scenarios for Bt potato
Pesticide cost 
seed markup (usd/
reductionYield increase (%)scenario
ha)
(usd/ha)
0P1
0
102.2P2
0P3
258.305
102.2P4
0P5
10
102.2P6
0P7
0
102.2P8
0P9
129.155
102.2P10
0P11
10
102.2P12





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia113
Harvested Area, Production, and Yield
 Potato is grown throughout the highlands of Indonesia. During the period 
1995-2004, Indonesias potato area ranged from a low of 50,189 ha in 1997 to 
a high of 73,069 ha in 2000. During the same period, production ranged from 
a low of 813,368 t in 1997 to a high of 1,321,117 t in 2002 (see Appendix Table 
A-1). In 2003, the three most important potato producing provinces accounted 
for about 73 percent of national production  West Java, 37.1 percent; North 
Sumatra, 23.3 percent; and Central Java, 12.5 percent. Six other provinces, 
namely: Aceh, West Sumatra, Jambi, East Java, South Sulawesi and North 
Sulawesi are also considered important potato producing areas. In 2003, 
these nine provinces accounted for nearly all of Indonesias national potato 
production (see Appendix Table A-2). The base quantity used was calculated 
using average harvested area and average yield for the period 2000 to 2004, 
which were at 64,585 ha and 16.2 t/ha respectively. Thus, the base quantity 
was set at 1,047,568.7 tons.
Per Hectare Budgets
 Average costs and returns for potato production in the 2005 dry season 
and in the 2006 wet season for West Java and North Sumatra are presented in 
Appendix Table A-3 to Table A-6. Purchased inputs account for 67-74 percent 
(USD2,248 - 2,561 per ha) of total costs. Total labor requirements average at 23 
percent of total cost (USD630 per ha). Based on an average yield of 25.2 t/ha 
(wet season) and 20.9 t/ha (dry season), average farm income was estimated 
at USD2,695 and USD1,853, respectively. The budget varies considerably with 
respect to specic cost items due mostly to different denitions/categories 
used to report specic cost items, reporting years, and the way each budget 
values family labor. 
Varieties 
 All income groups in Indonesia consume potatoes and consumers prefer 
a soft texture, slightly sweet taste, and yellowish esh color (Ameriana et al., 
1998). Ninety-one percent of the potatoes planted are the Granola variety, with 
farmers replacing their seed stock with new seed every four to ve seasons. 
About 6 percent of the potato area is sown to processing varieties, such as 
Columbus, Atlantic and Panda. The rest is planted to an assortment of varieties, 
including a popular selection in East Java known as Ritex (see Appendix Table 
A-7). Table 4 presents the dominant potato varieties grown and the different 
sources of potato seed in West Java and North Sumatra.





114W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
table 4. Variety used and potato seed sources in West Java and North 
Sumatra, 2006
West Java (n=18)north sumatra (n=15)
Variety grown and Wet dry Wet 
seed sourcedry season
seasonseasonseason
Variety grown (%)
	Granola88.994.4100.0100.0
	Atlantic11.1  5.6--
Seed sources (%)
	Own seed55.644.4  73.4  80.0
	Seed grower16.627.8		13.3		13.3
	Seed trader  5.616.6		13.3    6.7
	Formal seed system 11.1  5.6--
	Potato chip processing 11.1  5.6--
company
Farm Size 
 Small farms dominate highland vegetable production in Indonesia. Potato 
farms average at about 1 ha, with few farms over 2 ha.  The land market is well 
developed and cash rent predominates. About 60 percent of the potato area in 
West Java is rented, more than double the proportion in other provinces. In 
the latter locations, about 6 percent of the sample potato growers were landless 
households who rent land to grow potatoes, 50 percent use their own land, and 
the rest uses both owned and rented land. The average amount of cropland 
owned per household was 1.6 ha with an additional net rental area (area rented 
minus area rented out) of 0.34 ha. 
Marketing Channels
 Commercial potato farmers typically harvest their crop and sell it to 
middlemen who visit their farms. Some farmers also directly market their 
crop to vegetable sellers in nearby public markets or have contracts to 
supply supermarkets (for table potato) or a food processing company (for 
processing potato). In contrast, middlemen generally sell to large wholesale 
markets, located in major urban areas. Indonesia consumes most of its potato 
production domestically, importing/exporting only small quantities of the 
produce (Adiyoga et al., 1999; Adiyoga et al., 2000).





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia115
Potato Trade
 In most years, North Sumatra accounts for more than 90 percent of 
Indonesias potato exports. Nearly all of Indonesias potato exports are 
destined for either Malaysia (about 70 percent of total potato exports) or 
Singapore (30 percent of total exports). Between 1997 and 2002, exports were 
relatively stable averaging 30,598 tons/year, or about 3.2 percent of domestic 
production (see Appendix Table A-8).
 Most potato imports are in the form of processed products, with nearly 
three-quarters of the value being frozen French fries (see Appendix Table A-9). 
Most of these imports originate from North America. Other processed potato 
products (such as starch and akes) account for another 15 percent of the value 
of potato imports, which come from European countries. Seed potatoes are 
the third most important category of imports, accounting for 10 percent of 
quantity and 7.4 percent of the value of total potato imports. The major potato 
seed supplying countries include the Netherlands, Australia, Germany and the 
UK. On average, potato seed imports are about 1,600 tons/year, representing 
only about 1.5 percent of the total annual seed requirement. 
Farm-Gate and Wholesale Prices 
 Appendix Table A-10 presents the seasonal pattern of monthly farm-gate 
and wholesale prices for potato in West Java during 1997-2003. Farm-gate 
prices of potato in February averaged 18.0 percent below the yearly average 
price (USD0.28 per kg), and those in November averaged 21.0 percent above 
the yearly average price. The same pattern occurred at the wholesale price level. 
Wholesale prices for potatoes for the period 2003-2005 averaged USD0.39 per 
kg. The base price for the economic model was set initially at USD394 per ton.
scientist Interviews 
 International and local Indonesian scientists were interviewed about issues 
such as the most likely reduction in storage losses and percentage changes in 
production costs if Bt potato is adopted. They were also asked about the chances 
of research success, time and costs involved in meeting regulatory requirements, 
and other related issues. 
 Scientists estimate that the adoption of PTM-resistant potato may most 
likely reduce storage loss by at least 30 percent and at most 95 percent. The 
lowest possible storage loss with such adoption was thought to be about 20 
percent, and the highest was 100 percent. Bt gene should The be quite effective 
at providing resistance to PTM in Indonesia. Insect pressure is not high, given 
the short duration of most potato storage in Indonesia.





116W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
 The scientists also estimated that, among the inputs used for potato 
production, the share of seed cost in total production cost may increase by 5-10 
percent, that of pesticide costs may decrease by 10-40 percent and that of hired 
labor may also decrease by 5-10 percent, with the adoption of PTM-resistant 
potato (Table 5). In addition, the scientists estimated that there is a 25-100 
percent probability (percent chance) of biotech research developing a solution 
with a commercially acceptable level of effectiveness against potato tuber 
moth. Bt potato technology has been successfully developed in other countries 
with PTM species similar to that found in Indonesia. cry1Ab The efcacy of the 
gene against lepidopteran species and in particular the tuber moth present 
in Indonesia has been scientically established in the laboratory, greenhouse, 
eld, and storage conditions with 100 percent resistance in all cases (Ghislain 
et al., 2003). However, the experts added that it may take ve years to obtain 
a Bt potato variety if one of 10 currently being tested proves suitable (Table 
6). If a new Bt variety is needed, the time schedule would likely shift by three 
years. Given the absence of commercial GMO foods produced in Indonesia, 
these estimates are highly uncertain. Unless the benets of the technology are 
shown to be large, government regulators may be slow to approve it given the 
resistance from environmental or civil society groups.
table 5. Estimated percent change in input cost share in total potato 
production cost if the PTM-resistant potato is adopted, 2006
current share (%) in Most likely change in cost
Variable cost
total production costdirectionPercent
Hired labor23.3Decrease510
Fertilizer16.2No change
Pesticides23.1Decrease10-40
Field21.4
Storage		1.7
Seeds28.7Increase5-10
Marketing  5.0No change
 Table 6 also shows in the last column the expected (estimated) costs 
involved in developing the Bt potato technology and meeting the regulatory 
requirements in Indonesia. The numbers assume that regulators will accept 
most of the risk assessment data already available for Bt potato; the total costs 
could double if this assumption is wrong. Estimates of eld trial costs are based 
on CIPs previous experience with non-GMO variety testing. Estimated costs 





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia117
costs
20 - 5010		2040		6050		12050		10050	-	110
estimated (usd 000)80		200*250 - 550
10X
9X
8XXX
7XXX
6XXX
Year
5XXXXX
4XXX
3XXX
2XXX
1XX
Time and investments needed to complete the PTM-resistant potato technology and to meet the regulatory 
ContainedLimited field trialMulti-location field trialFood safety assessmentApply for commercialization
able 6. Technology developmentRegulatoryCommunicationEstimated total costs for five yearsEstimated total costs per year
trequirements* Includes communication





118W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
of applying for commercialization are highly uncertain. Costs of educating 
the public and civil society groups about Bt potato are included as part of the 
application for commercialization process.
 The scientist-respondents were also asked on the type of variety that should 
be developed with PTM technology. The scientist-respondents opined that 
both hybrid and open-pollinated varieties (OPV) should be developed. Since 
Indonesia is not a center of diversity for this crop, gene ow should not be a 
concern unless the regulatory body decides otherwise. Hence, farmers could be 
allowed to save seeds from OPVs. The scientist-respondents noted that farmers 
prefer to source their planting materials from both the public and the private 
seed producers. However, the license for use of the Bt technology is only for 
public domain varieties. Since farmers derive income from both processing 
and fresh/table type potato varieties, both types should be considered. Lastly, 
in terms of target market, the scientist-respondents expressed preference to 
develop PTM varieties for the domestic market rst to simplify the rst phase 
of commercialization, with possibilities of developing varieties for export in 
the future. 
 In terms of ownership and distribution of the seed technology in Indonesia, 
CIP intends to license the Bt potato to an Indonesian private partner who will 
adhere and has the demonstrated capability to implement a mutually agreed 
work plan. After a period yet to be determined, the technology will be fully 
released to the public domain. Alternative technology transfer scenarios may 
be discussed, but the Bt varieties will not be owned by one particular partner 
as stipulated in CIP-Plant Genetic System (technology provider) licensing 
agreement. The Indonesian public partner will have to distribute the planting 
material either directly or through a local private sector partner. 
 As for potential environmental effects, the scientist-respondents expressed 
no or very minimal concern for fears relating to gene ow and reduced 
biodiversity. They also believe Bt potathat to will not harm benecial insects, 
particularly herbivores. However, the scientist-respondents expressed that insect 
resistance management will be crucial to avoid potato tuber moth developing 
resistance against the Bt toxin. Nevertheless, the last two points can be addressed 
by multidisciplinary research during the various contained, limited, and multi-
location eld trials, in parallel with the conventional agronomic performance 
and trait stability trials. Most of the scientist-respondents indicated that 
farmers would not be able to differentiate a Bt potato variety from the same 
non-GM variety.  This means Btthat  potathe to will be substantially equivalent 
in agronomic and compositional traits to its non-Bt counterpart.





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia119
 Most potato seed in Indonesia is not formally certied, and most farmers 
renew their seed once every three to ve seasons by purchasing (non-
certied) seed through the informal seed market. Some farmers specialize 
in purchasing imported seed (which has been certied by a foreign seed 
authority), multiplying it for a few seasons and then selling it as improved 
seed through the informal market. Such seed from reputable seed growers can 
command a price premium in the informal seed market.
 Certied Bt potato seed would command a price premium that would reect 
its general disease-free status as well as its resistance to PTM. However, given 
that PTM does not appear to be a major economic problem in Indonesia, it is 
suspected that farmers would not be willing to pay more than a 5-10 percent 
premium over the normal cost of certied seed for the PTM resistance itself.
extension expert Interviews 
 Seven extension experts were interviewed to elicit their opinions on crop 
losses due to PTM and their projections on the rate Bt potato. of adoption A of 
summary of their responses is provided below, with survey questions provided 
in Appendix 2.
 In general, potato farmers in West Java and Northern Sumatra prefer the 
Granola and Atlantic varieties, in that order. Farmers source their potato seed 
from their own harvest and/or from seed purchased from other farmers. The 
extension experts estimated that potato farmers lost about 10-60 percent of 
their crops to PTM in the last ve years. In 2005 alone, they may have lost 
10-35 percent of seed material and 3-10 percent of the produce for table 
consumption.
 While some expected no change in the area planted to potatoes in 
Indonesia, some of the extension experts projected that the next 10 years in 
Indonesia will see a 10-20 percent decrease in the same.
 The extension experts also perceive that a transgenic (Bt) potato with 
resistance to tuber moth has a 50-80 percent chance of passing the regulatory 
requirements and being commercialized in Indonesia. A maximum of 70-90 
percent of the potato area in the country may be planted to Bt potato once 
available, although it may take two to ve years after commercial release before 
this maximum adoption rate is reached.
 Table 7 presents the potential adoption Bt potato paths in Indonesia. for 
Adoption rates depend on the technologys protability, which in turn is 
determined by the proportionate change in input cost per ton of produce. Per 
unit cost changes depend on the changes in pesticide costs per hectare, the 
seed markup, and the expected increase in yield per hectare in each scenario. 
The same pattern was assumed in this study. The proportionate input cost 





120W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
changes per ton of produce for each scenario are divided into the different 
levels of maximum adoption rate (20, 40, or 60 percent) (Table 8).
table 7. Potential adoption paths for Bt potatoes (percent adoption per 
year)
Maximum expected adoption rate
Year
20%40%60%
2007000
2008000
2009000
2010000
2011000
2012000
2013000
20145.911.717.6
201510.020.030.0
201614.128.242.3
201717.134.251.3
201818.737.456.1
201919.438.858.3
202019.839.659.4
202120.040.060.0
table 8. Proportionate input cost change per ton and maximum adoption 
rates for transgenic potatoes
Propor-
Proportio-tionate 
sce-Maximum cost reduc-seed Yield nate input input cost 
adoption markup increase 
nariotion (usd)cost change change per 
rate (%)(usd)(%)per ha (usd)ton
(usd)
P120258.30  00.070.07
P220258.3102.2  00.040.04
P340258.30  50.150.14
P440258.3102.2  50.12	0.11
P560258.30100.230.21
P660258.3102.2100.200.18





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia121
Propor-
Proportio-tionate 
sce-Maximum cost reduc-seed Yield nate input input cost 
narioadoption tion (usd)markup increase cost change change per 
rate (%)(usd)(%)per ha (usd)ton
(usd)
P720154.80  00.040.04
P820154.8102.2  00.010.01
P940154.80  50.110.11
P1040154.8102.2  50.080.08
P1160154.80100.190.17
P1260154.8102.2100.160.15
summary of Basic Assumptions used in the economic Model
 Based on the primary information gathered from the farmer, scientist and 
extension worker surveys, as well as the secondary information, the set of basic 
assumptions applied in the economic model are listed in Table 9.
table 9. Parameter values for the computation of economic surplus 
changes
Parameterdescription and value
YearAnnual	benefits	are	projected	for	15	years	after	research	
commences,	2007-2021	(t	=	1,2,,15)
Supply elasticityThe	supply	elasticity,	e,	is	set	at	1.0	
Demand elasticityThe	demand	elasticity,	n,	is	set	at	0.5
Proportionate yield Percentage	yield	increases	are	assumed	to	be	0%,	5%	and	10%
change 
Proportionate change The	pesticide	cost	reduction	is	set	at	USD258	(50%)	and	USD129	
in input cost per (25%).	The	seed	premium	is	set	for	0%	(USD0)	and	10%	(USD102)	per	
hectarehectare. Combining these with the yield changes, the proportionate 
changes in per unit cost vary from USD0.00765 to USD0.20725 per 
ton.
Probability of The probability of research and regulatory success is assumed to be 
research success and 50%.
regulatory approval
Adoption rateFor the purpose of simulation the assigned maximum adoption 
rates are 20%, 40%, and 60%. It is assumed that research, 
regulatory approval, and bulking up of seeds take seven years and 
adoption starts from year eight onwards.  
PriceWholesale prices are set at USD394 per ton. 





122W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Parameterdescription and value
Production	quantityThe	pre-research	production	quantity	is	set	at	1,047,669	tons.						
Research costThe estimated annual research and regulatory cost for Bt potatoes 
is USD80,000 per year. 
economic Model results
 Combining the variables discussed above, a set of 12 scenarios were 
produced for analyzing Bt potatoes and the range of its projected economic 
benets. Table 10 shows the simulation results for these scenarios. The rst 
column indicates the specic scenarios, which are grouped rst by level of 
pesticide cost reduction (column 2). The third and fourth columns indicate three 
levels of yield increase per hectare and two levels of seed markup, respectively. 
The fth column presents the Net Present Value (NPV) over the 15 years of 
the change in total economic surplus for each scenario. Because most of the 
potatoes produced in Indonesia are consumed domestically, two thirds of those 
benets accrue to potato consumers and one third accrues to producers. The 
last column represents the NPV of the change in total economic surplus after 
subtracting research and regulatory costs. The NPV is the present worth of the 
net income stream generated by the research and regulatory investment over 
time. It is calculated by discounting the difference of the incremental benets 
and costs of the technology over the 15-year period. 
 A dozen scenarios is presented in this study because of the uncertain nature 
of several parameters, which in various combinations can create a sizable range 
of potential benets (USD1 million to USD133 million). Intermediate values of 
the parameters result in benets over the time period in the USD37-47 million 
range, a sizable return on a very modest investment. The corresponding 
internal rate of return (IRR) on the public investment varies from 20 to 116 
percent. The rates of return for the intermediate values of the parameters vary 
from 84 to 89 percent. Even under the most conservative assumptions, the net 
economic benets are signicant, in part because the research and regulatory 
costs are so small in relation to benets. 
 The export market for Indonesian potatoes is small (3-4 percent of 
production). Therefore, even if the export market reacts negatively to the 
introduction of transgenic potatoes, it would have minimal impact on the level 
of the technologys benets. However, if the export market grows as a result 
of Indonesia being able to guarantee potatoes with less pesticide residue, the 
benets would of course increase for the producers.





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia123
table 10. Potato simulation results for changes in economic benefits (USD)
Pesticide net present net present 
sce-cost Yield seed value of value of total Internal rate 
narioreduction increase markup change in surplus less of return 
(usd/ha)(%)(usd/ha)total surplus r&d costs (Irr) (%) 
(usd)(usd)
P1258  00		10,518,380 		10,172,021  56
P2258  0102.2    6,354,069				6,007,711  47
P3258  50  55,727,892		55,381,534  93
P4258  5102.2		47,733,151  47,386,793  89
P5258100133,794,733 133,448,374116
P625810102.2122,172,902 121,826,544114
P7129  00    5,688,322				5,341,964  45
P8129  0102.2				1,096,450       750,092  20
P9129  50		45,626,961  45,280,603  88
P10129  5102.2  37,724,649		37,378,291  84
P11129100119,113,443 118,767,085113
P1212910102.2107,527,364 107,181,006110
summary and conclusion
This study used ex-antean  analytical framework to evaluate the welfare impact 
of developing, releasing, and adopting Bt potatoes in Indonesia over the years 
2007-2021. The results indicate Bt that technology the in Indonesias potato 
sector potentially would have a sizable impact on societys economic welfare. 
All the scenarios simulated for Bt potato yielded high economic benets. The 
worst scenario produced national benets of USD1.1 million, while the best 
scenario provided projected national benets of USD133.8 million (across 
which IRR range at 20-116 percent). Potato farmers gain even with a lower 
output price because the Bt technology would increase the marketable yield 
and lower production costs.   
 The extent of adoption of the Bttransgenic  potatoes will inuence the 
magnitude of the benets and will depend in part on the seed premium farmers 
must pay. For the seed producer/company, prots may increase with higher 
seed markups under certain conditions, but may also decrease with lower 
adoption rates. Hence, as with any other new seed-based technology, there is 
an economic trade-off between the seed markup and the adoption rates.





124W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
 This study has concentrated on the pecuniary benets and costs of 
transgenic Bt potato and did not address possible environmental externalities. 
Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that a lower use of insecticides would 
have positive impacts on the environment, while the risk of unintended effects, 
such as gene ow, reduced biodiversity and harm to non-target organisms are 
perceived to be minimal. 
Acknowledgements
In addition to the farmers, scientists, and others who answered out survey 
and interview questions for this study, the authors would like to thank 
Marc Ghislain, Keith Fuglie, Jurgen Kroschel, and Fermando Ezeta of the 
International Potato Center (CIP) for reviewing and providing comments on 
an earlier draft. We would also like to thank the International Potato Center 
for nancial support for this study.
references
Adiyoga, W, R Suherman, A Asgar and Irfansyah. 1999. Potatoes in West Java: A 
rapid appraisal of production, marketing, processing and consumer preferences. 
International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru.
Adiyoga, W, KO Fuglie and R Suherman. 2000. Potato marketing in North Sumatra and 
an assessment of Indonesian potato trade. UPWARD Working Paper Series No. 7.
Alston, JM, GW Norton and PG Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and 
Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University 
Press, Ithaca, New York.
Ameriana, M, W Adiyoga, L Sulistyowati and D Mamun. 1998.  Household consumer 
behavior in evaluating potato quality (in Indonesian language). Jurnal Hortikultura 
7(4): 944-951.
Fuglie, KO, W Adiyoga, R Asmunati, S Mahalaya and R Suherman. 2006. Farm demand 
for quality potato seed in Indonesia. Agricultural Economics 35(3), December.
Ghislain, M, A Lagnaoui and T Walker. 2003. Fullling Bt the potato promise in of 
developing countries. Journal of New Seeds 5(2/3): 93-113.
Mills, B. (ed.). 1998. Agricultural research priority setting: Information investments 
for the improved use of research resources. International Service for National 
Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague, The Netherlands.
Pasaribu, SM. 1989. Consumption. In Bottema, JWT, H Siregar, SM Pasaribu, G 
Gijsbers and R Basuki (eds.). Potato in Indonesia: Prospects for Medium Altitude 
Production. CGPRT Centre, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 63-74.
Qaim, M. 1989 Welfare impacts of genetically engineered crops in developing countries. 
Paper presented at the Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing 
Countries: Towards Optimizing Benets for the Poor, Bonn, 15-16 November.





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia125
Setiawati, W and MC Tobing. 1996. Penggunaan feronomoid seks dan insektisida 
Imidaklorpid 200 SC terhadap populasi Phthorimaea operculella Zell dan kehilangan 
kentang pada musim hujan dan musim kemarau. J. Hort. 7(4): 892-898. 
Setiawati, W, RE Soeriaatmadja, T Rubiati and E Chujoy. 1998. Control of potato tuber 
moth, Phthorimaea operculella Zell using indigenous granulosis virus in Indonesia. 
Crop Science.
Soeriaatmadja, RE. 1998. Pengendalian terpadu penggerek daun dan umbi kentang 
(Phthorimaea operculella Zell). Jurnal Litbang Pertanian 7(1): 16-20.





126W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Appendix 1.
table A-1.		Potato	production	in	Indonesia,	1995-2004
YearHarvested (ha)Production (t)Yield (t/ha)
199562,3881,035,25916.6
199669,9461,109,56015.9
199750,189   813,36816.2
199865,047   998,03215.4
199962,776   924,05814.7
200073,068   977,34913.4
200155,971   831,14014.9
200262,5451,321,11721.1
200365,9231,009,97915.3
200465,4201,072,04016.4
Source: Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultura
table A-2.		Potato	production	in	Indonesia,	1995-2004
Province199920002001200220032004
AcehArea 561336425931,5291,659 
(ha)
Prod (t)5,9604,5996,1302,17028,28630,333 
Yield13.6914.4023.0018.5018.2810.62
(t/ha)
NorthArea 13,32515,27512,09316,91014,3019,681
Sumatra(ha)
Prod (t)192,574215,981207,918317,962235,424153,537
Yield14.4514.1417.2018.8016.4615.86
(t/ha)
WestArea 1,4751,4049721,1561,0941,719
Sumatra(ha)
Prod (t)20,47921,21310,82226,57813,88930,489
Yield13.8015.1111.1023.0012.7017.74
(t/ha)
JambiArea 1,8742,6302,1271,5273,1973,139
(ha)
Prod (t)34,34141,75436,95924,67660,89658,717
Yield18.3315.8717.4016.2019.0518.71
(t/ha)





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia127
Province199920002001200220032004
West Java Area 22,99827,77823,04522,82220,14621,092
(ha)
Prod (t)410,483 462,800385,618610,626375,167418,230
Yield17.8516.6616.7026.8018.6219.83
(t/ha)
Central Area 11,5767,1765,9327,3958,1829,680
Java(ha)
Prod (t)148,80686,42476,926128,305126,222161,213
Yield12.8612.0413.0017.4015.4316.65
(t/ha)
East JavaArea 6,7967,5516,3317,2148,9027,263
(ha)
Prod (t)71,54881,37272,926124,19697,308105,254
Yield10.5310.7811.4017.2010.9314.49
(t/ha)
SouthArea 1,7393,1822,3031,2681,2081,208
Sulawesi(ha)
Prod (t)20,38132,72010,35122,72619,16912,205
Yield11.7210.2814.5017.9015.8710.10
(t/ha)
NorthArea 3465,7951,5792,2786,2348,446
Sulawesi(ha)
Prod (t)2,69815,97412,36248,33844,29386,487
Yield7.802.767.8021.207.1110.24
(t/ha)
TotalArea 60,69071,12754,80760,57064,79363,887
(ha)
Prod (t)907,270921,083820,012 1,305,5771,000,6541,056,465
Yield13.1212.3712.6120.1715.4416.54
(t/ha)
Other Area 2,0861,9411,1641,9751,1301,533
provinces(ha)
Prod (t)16,78856,26611,12815,5409,32515,575
Yield7.309.3411.237.878.2510.16
(t/ha)
Indonesia Area 62,77673,06855,97162,54565,92365,420
(ha)
Prod (t)924,058977,349831,1401,321,1171,009,9791,072,040
Yield14.7213.3814.8014.9015.3216.39
(t/ha)
Source: Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultura





128W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
table A-3.  Costs and returns (per ha) of potato production, Pangalengan, 
West Java, Dry Season, 2005
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2005
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
INPUTS
Labor
 Preparing land (work days)5.9
 Male1481,480,000159.1
 Female50400,00043.0
 Planting (work days)1.1
 Male18180,00019.4
 Female22176,00018.9
 Applying inputs and others  9.6
(work days)
 Male2592,590,000278.5
 Female61488,00052.4
 Harvesting and postharvest-4.1
ing (work days)
 Male99990,000106.5
 Female41328,00035.3
Sub total6,632,000713.120.7
Material Inputs
Seed (kg)1,5009,105,000979.028.4
Synthetic fertilizer (kg)1,6002,485,500267.37.8
Organic fertilizer (kg)16,0003,224,000346.710.1
Foliar fertilizer (gr or cc)224,75024.20.7
Lime (kg)---
Fungicide3,410,400366.710.5
Insecticide4,795,200515.615.0
Other inputs568,50061.11.8
Sub total23,813,3502,560.674.3
Other Costs
Land rent (Rp./ha)1,500,000161.34.7
Others117,50012.60.3
Sub total1,617,500173.95.0





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia129
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2005
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
Total Expenses32,062,8503,447.6100.0
OUTPUT
Production (kg)21,860
Price (Rp/kg)2,225.2
Total Revenue48,642,8725,230.4
FARMERS INCOME16,580,0221,782.8
INCOME OVER EXPENSES51.7%
Source: 2006 Farmer survey
*USD1.00 = Rp9,300
table A-4. Costs and returns (per ha) of potato production, Pangalengan, 
West Java, Wet Season, 2006
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2006
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
INPUTS
Labor
 Preparing land (work days)5.0
 Male1351,350,000145.2
 Female48384,00041.3
 Planting (work days)1.0
 Male17170,00018.3
 Female24192,00020.6
 Applying inputs and others  13.2
(work days)
 Male3893,890,000418.3
 Female82656,00070.5
 Harvesting and postharvest-4.9
ing (work days)
 Male1241,240,000133.3
 Female54432,00046.5
Sub total8,314,000894.024.1





130W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2006
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
Material Inputs
Seed (kg)1,69510,122,5401,088.429.3
Synthetic fertilizer (kg)1,2151,887,500203.05.4
Organic fertilizer (kg)18,4503,480,000374.210.1
Foliar fertilizer (gr or cc)261,85028.20.8
Lime (kg)127,98513.70.4
Fungicide5,729,600616.116.6
Insecticide2,105,250226.36.1
Other inputs939,425101.02.7
Sub total24,654,1502,650.971.4
Other Costs
Land rent (Rp./ha)1,500,000161.34.4
Others45,0004.80.1
Sub total1,545,000166.14.5
Total Expenses34,513,1503,711.1100.0
OUTPUT
Production (kg)28, 462
Price (Rp/kg)2,193.64
Total Revenue62,435,3826,713.5
FARMERS INCOME27,922,2323,003.6
INCOME OVER EXPENSES80.9%
Source: 2006 Farmer survey
*USD1.00 = Rp9,300





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia131
table A-5. Costs and returns (per ha) of potato production, Berastagi, North 
Sumatra, Dry Season, 2005
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2006
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
INPUTS
Labor
 Preparing land (work days)4.8
 Male1761,320,000141.9
 Female38285,00030.6
 Planting (work days)1.4
 Male24228,00024.5
 Female28210,00022.6
 Applying inputs and others  12.1
(work days)
 Male3643,458,000371.8
 Female80600,00064.5
 Harvesting and postharvest-4.7
ing (work days)
 Male1241,178,000126.7
 Female56420,00045.2
Sub total7,699,000827.823.0
Material Inputs
Seed (kg)1,6259,912,5001065.929.6
Synthetic fertilizer (kg)1,4502,247,500241.76.7
Organic fertilizer (kg)15,8002,765,500297.48.3
Foliar fertilizer (gr or cc)180,75019.40.5
Lime (kg)---
Fungicide78902003,077,175330.99.2
Insecticide4,813,050517.514.4
Other inputs630,25067.71.9
Sub total23,626,7252,540.570.6
Other Costs
Land rent (Rp./ha)1,850,000198.95.5
Others285,50030.70.9
Sub total2,135,500229.66.4





132W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2006
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
Total Expenses33,461,2253,597.9100.0
OUTPUT
Production (kg)20,054
Price (Rp/kg)2,560.5
Total Revenue51,348,2675,521.3
FARMERS INCOME17,887,0421,923.3
INCOME OVER EXPENSES53.5%
Source: 2006 Farmer survey
*USD1.00 = Rp9,300
table A-6. Costs and returns (per ha) of potato production, Berastagi, North 
Sumatra, Wet Season, 2006
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2006
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
INPUTS
Labor
 Preparing land (work days)6.4
 Male1641,558,000167.5
 Female58435,00046.8
 Planting (work days)1.2
 Male28266,00028.6
 Female16120,00012.9
 Applying inputs and others  12.7
(work days)
 Male3563,382,000363.7
 Female74555,00059.7
 Harvesting and postharvest-5.1
ing (work days)
 Male1381,311,000140.9
 Female36270,00029.0
Sub total7,897,000849.125.4





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia133
Pangalengan, Jawa Barat, 2006
ParticularValueValue% from total 
Quantity
(Rp)(USD)*expenses
Material Inputs
Seed (kg)1,3818,457,244909.427.3
Synthetic fertilizer (kg)1,6662,582,300277.78.3
Organic fertilizer (kg)16,5502,482,500266.98.0
Foliar fertilizer (gr or cc)127,50013.70.4
Lime (kg)225,74524.30.7
Fungicide4,386,565471.714.1
Insecticide1,952,400209.96.3
Other inputs689,75074.22.2
Sub total20,904,0042,247.867.4
Other Costs
Land rent (Rp./ha)1,850,000198.96.0
Others375,00040.31.2
Sub total2,225,000239.27.2
Total Expenses31,026,0043,336.1100.0
OUTPUT
Production (kg)21,940
Price (Rp/kg)2,425.60
Total Revenue53,217,6645,722.3
FARMERS INCOME22,191,6602,386.2
INCOME OVER EXPENSES71.5%
Source: 2006 Farmer survey
*USD1.00 = Rp9,300
table A-7.  Potato farm area and varieties planted in 2000
North West 
West Central East Indone-
ParticularSumat-Sumat-
JavaJavaJavasia
rara
Average potato area 1.341.870.460.460.470.96
harvested per farm 
(ha/year)





134W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
North West 
West Central East Indone-
ParticularSumat-Sumat-
JavaJavaJavasia
rara
Area planted to 87.197.876.695.2100.091.4
Granola (%)
Area planted to 12.90.00.04.80.05.6
processing varieties 
(%)*
Area planted to other 0.02.223.40.00.03.0
varieties (%)^
* These include Atlantic, Columbus, Hetra, and Panda.
^ Other varieties consist mainly of Ritex, a farmer-selected variety popular in East Java.
Source: Fuglie et al. (2004)
table A-8.		Potato	production	in	Indonesia,	1995-2004
YearQuantity (000 t)Value (USD million)Price (USD/t)
199489.1214.08158
1995103.0518.22177
199679.7515.09189
199736.768.43229
199831.255.96191
199933.266.72202
200030.234.46148
200131.344.59146
200220.754.22203
Source: Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultura
table A-9.		Indonesian	potato	imports,	1994-2002
TotalTableSeedFrozenOthers
Year
(000 t)(000 t)(000 t)(000 t)(000 t)
19949.860.330.876.582.08
199513.400.310.789.722.59
199617.220.891.2111.833.29
199727.632.040.9023.061.63
19989.710.680.366.921.74
199924.143.186.126.488.36
200019.824.571.2610.413.59
20018.162.681.14--
20025.422.341.44--
Source: Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultura





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia135
D
1.281.19
3,325.54,365.8
N
1.111.11
2,886.84,079.8
O
0.991.02
2,584.93,747.1
S
0.981.03
2,555.53,763.3
A
0.961.01
2,514.23,717.2
a
J
1.021.02
2,670.73,755.8
Month
J
0.960.92
2,512.73,364.6
Monthly average prices (Rp/kg)
M
0.900.90
2,355.13,300.2
Monthly average as % of overall average
A
0.920.92
2,399.03,378.6
M
0.920.92
2,408.23,387.4
F
0.950.94
2,489.83,448.8
J
0.991.00
2,587.43,679.9
Level
Calculated by dividing each monthly average by the overall mean of crop prices (Rp2,607.5 at farm gate level) and (Rp3,665.7 at wholesale level)
able A-10.  Seasonal pattern of potato prices at the farm-gate level (Pangalengan, West Java) and at the Farm gateWholesaleFarm gateWholesale
twholesale level (Jakarta wholesale market), 2003-2005a Source: Direktorat Jenderal Tanaman Pangan dan Hortikultura





136W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
Appendix 2. Farmer, Scientist and Extension Questionnaires
Farmer Questionnaire
Commodity 
Respondent Interviewer
Name:   Name:  
Location:   Date:  
Education: 
Years in farming: 
1. What are your current crop management practices for the following:
 a) Land preparation? 
 b) Crop establishment? 
 c) Water management? 
 d) Potato storage (percent stored)? 
  
 e) Pest management (Fill in table below)
Frequency
Remarks
Control method(per cropping Quantity
(e.g., brand names)
season)
Chemicals
Insecticides:
Field Storage
Fungicides
Biological
Botanical
Others (specify)
2. Production cost structure
Cost componentQuantity Price per unit
Pre-harvest costs:
Seeds/planting materials
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Labor
Other
Post-harvest costs:
Labor
Pesticides





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia137
Cost componentQuantity Price per unit
Other
Total production and storage costs
3.  What was your yield per hectare for this crop last year?  
and your average over the last 5 years? 
4.  What was your average annual storage loss (%) due to tuber moth last year? 
 and over the last 5 years? 
5.  What are the preferred varieties in your area? 
6.  What is/are your source/s of seeds/planting materials? 
7.  What are your market outlets? ()
 a. traders 
 b. direct selling 
 c. contract growing 
Scientist Questionnaire
Commodity 
Respondent
Name:  
Position:  
Specialization: 
Education: 
Years of experience on the crop: 
1. What will be the most likely (lowest, highest) expected reduction (%) in storage 
loss per ton of potatoes if the genetically modied crop is developed and adopted 
(for those farmers who adopt it in the region)?
Percent reduction in storage loss
LowestMost LikelyHighest
 Justify your choice:
 
 
2. What percent of total variable costs is currently represented by each variable input 
(hired labor, fertilizer, etc.) What is your estimate of the percent change in cost (per 
hectare) (if any) for each of the inputs if the genetically modied crop is adopted?  





138W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
InputMost Likely Cost Change
Current 
No Percent 
Cost Decrease     Increase
ChangeChange
Share  
Variable (per ha)
Hired labor
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Field storage
Seeds
Marketing
3. What is the probability (percent chance) of biotech research developing a 
solution with a commercially acceptable level of effectiveness against tuber moth? 
 Justify your choice:
 
 
4. How many years will it take to complete the technology development and to meet 
the various regulatory requirements?
Year12345678910...
Technology 
development
Regulatory
Contained
Limited eld trial
Multi-location eld 
trial
Food safety 
assessment
Apply for 
commercialization
 Explain briey your background experience to justify your choices:
 
 
 
 
5. What are the expected costs involved in developing the technology and meeting 
the regulatory requirements?





costs and Benefits of Bt Potato with resistance to Potato tuber Moth in Indonesia139
Cost (USD)
Technology 
development
Regulatory
Contained
Limited eld trial
Multi-location eld 
trial
Food safety 
assessment
Apply for 
commercialization
Year12345678910...
 Explain briey your background experience to justify your choices:
 
 
 
 
6. Which variety do you intend to put this technology? {Encircle answer(s)}
Remarks
Variety typehybridsaved seeds/OP
Variety sourcepublicprivate
Variety usefreshprocessed
Target marketdomesticexport
7. What are the expected unintended environmental effects? (check   if a concern 
and explain in one sentence what the concern is)
 a. gene ow
  
  
 
 b. reduced biodiversity 
  
  
 
 c. harms non-target organisms
  
  
 
 d. others (specify)
  
  





140W. Adiyoga and G.W. Norton
8. How often do the farmers purchase certied planting materials? 
9. How often do the farmers exchange planting material (outside of the formal seed 
system)? 
10. Would the farmers be able to segregate Bt potato variety from the same non-GM 
variety? 
11. Would the farmers be willing to pay a premium for the certied planting material 
of Bt potato and what % is it? 
Extension Expert Questionnaire
Commodity 
Respondent  Interviewer
Name:   Name:  
Date:   Date:  
Location: 
Years of experience with potato: 
1.   What is your estimate of the average annual potato storage loss (%) due to tuber 
moth last  year?   and in the last 5 years? 
2. What are the preferred varieties in your area? 
3. What are the main sources of seed? 
4. What are the chances (%) that if a transgenic (Bt) potato were developed with 
resistance to tuber moth, that it would pass the regulatory requirements and be 
commercialized? 
5.  What would be the maximum percentage of potato area expected to be covered by 
the biotech crop?  How many years would it take to reach maximum 
adoption once the crop is commercially released? 
6. Do you expect an increase (decrease) in area devoted to potato over the next 10 
years?  If so, by what percent per year? 














Document Number: 8096 
Implications of regulatory costs for ring spot Virus 
resistant Papaya in the Philippines
J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
Introduction
The adoption of transgenic crops has contributed signicantly to agriculture 
by increasing productivity though improved management of biotic stresses. 
The economic opportunities and challenges posed by the new technology 
are of continuing interest to many countries where food supplies is low and 
poverty in agriculture is pervasive. There is now a rapid adoption of biotech 
crops reecting the many benets realized for both large and small farmers 
in industrial and developing countries (James, 2008). The prospects for 
biotech crops look even more promising as new traits are being developed 
by national research institutes in more crops of major economic importance. 
After the successful commercialization of the Bt and herbicide tolerant corn in 
the Philippines, biotech research has now intensied on rice, banana, abaca, 
coconut, papaya, eggplant, and mango.
 The development and commercialization of these transgenic crops is not 
costless though, as long and costly development and regulatory processes are 
necessary to ensure the stability and safety of the technology (Falck-Zepeda et 
al., 2003). The large investment in developing the technology can sometimes 
stie technology innovation making it not available for commercialization. A 
study by DiMasi et al. (1991) in the United States found that only 21.5 percent 
of the pharmaceutical drugs under development at an average cost of about 
USD800 million per compound make it to the market. The need for biosafety 





142J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
regulations to minimize the risk of food problems and environmental damage 
drives the regulatory costs of agricultural biotechnologies to be substantial. 
Excessive regulations, however, can provide a disincentive for small farmers 
to adopt the new product because of the resulting high price. The size of the 
total product development cost has also become a serious issue in developing 
countries where investments in research are limited. The innovative effort 
may be criticized as too expensive and time consuming without regard to the 
potential benet that might accrue from the innovation (Pray et al., 2005).
 To address these problems and mitigate production losses attributed to 
the papaya ring spot virus (PRSV) in the Philippines, a transgenic variety 
resistant to the virus is presently under development at the Institute of Plant 
Breeding, University of the Philippines Los Baos (IPB-UPLB). This chapter 
aims to examine the technologys development and regulatory costs and 
overall benets to society. The costs represent the total social costs including 
the sum of all opportunity costs introduced by the development and regulation 
of the technology. Social costs may be classied as private or public costs 
depending on who bears them. Private costs are borne by rms or individuals 
in society while public costs are those incurred by society as a whole. Biosafety 
regulations are necessary but if unduly restrictive, might also impose costs that 
could pose as barriers to the development of biotechnology products. Previous 
studies have shown that these costs depend to a large extent on the type of 
regulatory framework adopted, commodity, and institution (Pray et al., 2005; 
Yorobe, 2006; Ramon and Manalo, 2006). In China, the total cost of regulatory 
compliance for the approval of a new GM eld crop was USD65,459 per event 
for private companies compared to only USD53,287 for government institutes 
(Pray et al., 2006). However, neither of these costs appears unreasonably high. 
These costs have not been estimated for the Philippines, providing part of the 
incentive for the current study.
the Papaya ring spot Virus (PrsV) in the Philippines
PRSV is a major limiting factor to papaya production in the Philippines. The 
epidemic of the virus caused by PRSV in the Southern Tagalog region played 
havoc in papaya orchards there. The virus almost wiped out the industry 
in Cavite, where 60 to 100 percent disease occurrence affected most of the 
commercial papaya orchards (Opina, 1988). Since its detection in 1982, the 
virus has spread over long distances throughout the country causing a dramatic 
decline in productivity. It is reportedly widespread in mainland Luzon, covering 





Implications of regulatory costs for ring spot Virus resistant Papaya
in the Philippines143
the provinces of Cavite, Batangas, and Laguna, and islands of Palawan, 
Mindoro, and Marinduque, the Visayan group including Negros, Leyte, Aklan, 
and Panay, and lately claimed in Cotabato in Mindanao (Magdalita, 2000). 
PRSV incidence was rst observed in Silang, Cavite in 1982, and is said to be 
the most destructive of the viruses and diseases infecting papaya plantations 
in the Philippines.
 Infected young fruit develop small light green concentric rings on the 
surface, which become darker green and less distinct as they become older. 
The infected ripe fruit have yellow concentric rings with a green center. 
Vein clearing and chlorosis appear on the infected leaves. Severely infected 
plants have distorted leaves. Oily streaks appear on petioles and on the trunk 
(Sumalde et al., 1995).
 The virus is readily transmitted mechanically from infected to healthy 
plants. It is non-seed borne but efciently transmitted by sap inoculation 
and by several species of aphids in a non-persistent manner. PRSV is rapidly 
spread within a short period of time over long distances.
 Among the methods to prevent and reduce the spread of the disease are 
quarantine, rouging and sanitation, cross protection, use of tolerant as well as 
resistant varieties, and integrated disease management strategies (Magdalita, 
2000). As a quarantine measure, the Bureau of Plant Industry has banned the 
transport of papaya seeds and seedlings from Luzon to virus-free areas. 
 Tolerant varieties make some yield possible despite the presence of the 
virus. Scientists at the IPB continue to search for resistant varieties. Sinta is the 
rst Philippine-bred hybrid papaya that is moderately tolerant to PRSV, planted 
by farmers in mainland Luzon. Hawaii is presently growing a truly resistant 
variety, Rainbow, developed through genetic transformation. A transgenic 
PRSV-resistant cultivar has already been developed by IPB scientists, but has 
yet not been commercialized in the Philippines. Lastly, disease management 
strategies are being recommended to avoid PRSV infection. These include 
planting papaya in areas where there are barrier plants that can disrupt the 
ight of aphid vectors; planting in March when the population of aphids is low; 
removing all infected plants in the area before planting; avoiding intercropping 
papaya with cucurbits which are hosts of the virus; removing weeds with virus-
like symptoms around the area; and planting papaya in relatively isolated areas. 
In addition, papaya should be treated as an annual rather than perennial crop 
(Villegas, 1995).
 Traditional methods to control PRSV infection in papaya plantations have 
had limited success because the virus is efciently spread from plant to plant 
by about 60 species of aphids and transmission is non-persistent, meaning 
the aphids need to feed on a PRSV-infected plant for only a few seconds to pick 





144J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
up the virus. This makes it virtually impossible to control the virus by insect 
control or by discarding diseased plants. There is no known natural resistance 
to the virus, although tolerant varieties with reduced symptoms have been 
identied. In the Philippines, Sinta variety the has been a commercial success, 
but breakdown of resistance and loss of its effectiveness were reported as early 
as two years after the release of the hybrid. Production under netting is an 
option but this requires a large initial capital investment, which most small-
scale producers can not afford. Considerable variation exists in the genomic 
sequences of various strains of PRSV. Because of these limitations, scientists 
have turned to genetic engineering and the use of the PRSV coat protein 
resistance strategy to develop transgenic PRSV-resistant papaya.
Methodology
Data on development and regulatory costs were collected from secondary 
sources and through personal interviews with scientists at the IPB-UPLB, 
funding agencies, and regulators from the Department of Agriculture Bureau 
of Plant Industry (DA-BPI) and the National Committee on Biosafety of the 
Philippines (NCBP). The secondary data include enterprise budgets, yield, 
production, prices, research funds and expenditures by agency, and other 
related economic data on the papaya industry. Two components of social costs 
were considered: (a) the costs of real resources (direct) in the development 
of the variety and biosafety regulatory dossier and (b) government costs in 
regulating the technology. The direct costs are those incurred for personnel, 
supplies and materials, travel, purchase of equipment, provision and use of 
facilities, and other productive inputs necessary to develop the variety and 
regulatory dossier while the government costs are administrative expenses 
and fees incurred by the regulatory body to review and approve an application 
and monitor the trials. 
 Since the PRSV-resistant technology has not yet been released for 
commercial use in the Philippines, the benets and part of the costs were 
projected using an ex-ante economic surplus framework. The economic 
benets base model assumptions and parameter values were based on 
those already presented in Chapter 3 and listed in Appendix Table 1, with 
one difference. Chapter 3 presents a small open economy model in a partial 
equilibrium framework as there is a small amount of Philippine (Solo) papaya 
in the international trade. On the other hand, this chapter assumes a closed 
economy model since it appears that the commercialization of the PRSV-
resistant technology is intended to be grown primarily in Luzon for domestic 





Implications of regulatory costs for ring spot Virus resistant Papaya
in the Philippines145
consumption. For the conceptual issues on this model, reference is made to 
Alston et al. (1995).
results and discussion
Cost data for the development and regulation of the PRSV-resistant papaya 
were collected through a series of interviews with scientists, regulators and 
research/funding institutions, namely: IPB, DOST-PCARRD, UPLB, ISAAA 
and ABSPII. Since the PRSV-resistant technology has just completed the 
conned trial stage, the actual development and regulatory cost data were only 
available for the period 1999-2008. For the period 1999-2009, the cost data 
that were available were mainly disaggregated by line item similar to those 
shown for development cost in Table 1. The actual costs were converted into 
values at 2008 constant prices for comparison purposes.
table 1. Product development and regulatory costs of the PRSV-resistant 
papaya	in	the	Philippines,	1999-2009.
constant cost  % to total 
stageAmount 
at 2008 pricecost
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COSTS(PhP)(PhP)
Discovery
Gene isolation and cloning945,000.001,013,235.05
Transformation, importation 
and selection of primary 1,135,000.00 1,229,544.16
transformants (T)
0
Sub-total2,080,000.002,242,779.217.66
Further breeding and selection
T1 and T2 greenhouse 
efficacy testing and event 2,294,526.332,197,721.67
selection
Sub-total2,294,526.332,197,721.677.50
Confined trial
Efficacy testing and 
5,360,194.44 4,863,142.05
horticultural evaluation
Training and coordination 
275,815.00250,238.59
costs
Sub-total5,636,009.445,113,380.6517.46





146J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
constant cost  % to total 
stageAmount 
at 2008 pricecost
Multi-location trial (two sites; 
one season)
Efficacy testing and 
3,025,000.003,025,000.00
horticultural evaluation -NTC
Sub-total3,025,000.003,025,000.0010.33
Propagation or commercial 
release
Seed increase and variety 
440,000.00440,000.00
registration
Sub-total440,000.00440,000.001.50
Total Product Development 
13,475,535.71 13,018,881,53
Costs
REGULATORY COSTS
Discovery
Preparation of regulatory 
10,000.0010,722.06
dossier
Containment	cost		P2	and	
504,166.67546,163.16
BL2 facility
Sub-total514,166.67556,885.221.90
Further breeding and selection
Partial molecular 
characterization		insert	
2,190,516.94 2,175,111.77
selection and nptII protein 
expression
Monitoring and termination 
20,000.0019,156.21
costs
Sub-total2,210,516.942,194,267.987.49
Confined trial
Preparation of regulatory 
687,500.00719,542.11
dossier
Partial molecular 
characterization and genetic 
4,163,285.13 4,103,598.57
stability testing; transcript and 
protein detection
Other environmental safety 
4,425,278.004,361,835.40
studies
Confinement facility cost308,430.00340,044.08





Implications of regulatory costs for ring spot Virus resistant Papaya
in the Philippines147
constant cost  % to total 
stageAmount 
at 2008 pricecost
Monitoring and termination 
50,000.0055,125.00
costs
Coordination costs184,875.00184,875.00
Sub-total9,819,368.139,765,020.1633.33
Multi-location trial (two sites; 
one season)*
Regulatory filing, assessment 
282,000.00282,000.00
and approval of permit
Other environmental safety 
1,600,000.00 1,600,000.00
studies
Other food/feed safety 
630,000.00630,000.00
studies
Confinement facility cost50,000.0050,000.00
Monitoring and termination 
330,000.00330,000.00
costs
Coordination costs184,875.00184,875.00
Sub-total3,076,875.003,076,875.0010.50
Propagation or commercial 
release*
Preparation of regulatory file 
352,000.00352,000.00
application
Application, assessment and 
330,000.00330,000.00
approval of permit
Sub-total682,000.00682,000.0055.56
Total Regulatory Costs16,302,926.74 16,275,048.36
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AND 
29,778,482.51 29,293,929.90100
REGULATORY COSTS
*Planned activities with estimated budget
Source of data: ABSPII
 At constant 2008 prices, the total technology development and regulatory 
costs relating to PRSV-resistant papaya amount to PhP29.29 million 
(USD658.6 thousand), representing the estimated total investment required 
to secure approval of the event for commercialization. This is lower compared 





148J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
to the development and regulatory costs incurred for the delayed ripening 
papaya event in the Philippines, which amounted to PhP39.9 million (Ramon 
and Manalo, 2006).
 The costs of developing the PRSV-resistant technology account for 44 
percent of the total cost and regulatory activities, 56 percent. The major 
expenditure items including personal services, supplies, and repairs and 
maintenance represented more than 80 percent of the total development cost. 
Costs of laboratory supplies in conducting the transformation and the required 
tests as well as equipment maintenance comprised a substantial part of the 
cost (11 percent). The personal services refer to salaries of hired personnel 
and honoraria of scientists while services account for contract labor and other 
specialized services. The overhead costs on the use of ofce and facilities at 
IPB are imputed and included under the said costs. As more data are required, 
the time and cost of meeting the regulatory requirements for other events may 
substantially increase.
 The regulatory costs were divided into four parts to conform with the 
major stages of bioengineered product development described in Chapter 1, 
namely:  laboratory/greenhouse, conned eld trial (limited eld release), 
multi-location eld trial, and commercialization. These do not include the 
post-commercialization regulatory costs on monitoring pest resistance in 
farmers elds. Because no PRSV coat protein is expressed in the bioengineered 
PRSV-resistant papaya, costs associated with toxicity and allergenicity testing 
were not included.  There was also difculty in disaggregating joint costs 
such when the activity may be classied as both development and regulatory 
particularly in the laboratory/greenhouse stage. For this reason, only the 
costs for required regulatory tests were included at each stage including the 
depreciation of facilities and overhead costs for the use of ofce and laboratory 
facilities. The actual costs were only available up to the conned trial stage. For 
the succeeding activities/stages, the costs were anticipated ex-ante for multi-
location eld trial, and commercialization using 2008 prices.
 The conned trials and multi-location eld trial costs account for more 
than 78 percent of the total regulatory costs (about PhP12.8 million, or 
USD287.8 thousand) due to the expected large outlay on development of 
regulatory le required prior to commercial release and public information 
campaign. The former includes trait efcacy and horticultural performance 
under eld condition, full molecular analysis and relevant food safety studies 
while the public information campaign refers mostly to publication, production 
of communication materials, workshops, and monitoring and analysis of 
media and public opinion. The risk and environmental assessments are part 





Implications of regulatory costs for ring spot Virus resistant Papaya
in the Philippines149
of these costs. The total regulatory cost of PhP16.3 million exceeded the cost 
of regulating rice biotechnology events in the Philippines, which ran to about 
PhP6.1 million in 2006 (Yorobe, 2006).
 Figure 1 presents the total development and regulatory costs of the PRSV-
resistant papaya event annually from 1999 to 2008. The cost was highest in 2008 
which included the two conned eld trials and molecular characterization. 
Least expenditures can be observed during the initial development period 
of 1999-2000 covering preparations for application for contained trials and 
initial research activities (cloning and transformation). This is attributed to 
the establishment of the Papaya Southeast Asian Network (http://www.isaaa.
org) which facilitated the internships of two Philippine scientists to do the 
cloning activities at Monsanto laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri, USA and the 
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation at MARDI laboratory in Malaysia. 
The costs were also large in 2006 during the laboratory/greenhouse evaluation 
and line selection periods.
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
PhP million
4.00
2.00
0.00
19992000200120022003200420052006200720082009
Year
Figure 1.  Development and regulatory costs of PRSV-resistant papaya in the 
Philippines





150J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
Benefits of the PrsV-resistant Papaya technology
The signicance of the estimated development and regulatory costs can 
not be appreciated without examining the potential benets that accrue 
with technology adoption. To estimate these benets, this study employed 
the economic surplus approach already discussed in Chapter 3, assuming 
a closed economy in this case and considering only the areas planted to 
papaya for the domestic market. The internal rates of return on research and 
regulatory investments were also calculated to determine how the alternative 
scenarios would impact on the incentive to develop the PRSV-resistant papaya 
technology.
 The results revealed that the PRSV-resistant technology would likely bring 
about substantial welfare benets to producers and consumers. If released in 
2010, the total economic surplus due to technology adoption is estimated at 
PhP9,823.1 million (before discounting) for the period 1999-2020, with the 
benets accruing more to the consumers than producers (Table 2). The larger 
welfare benet to consumers is realized due to the decrease in papaya prices 
in the market brought about by the increase in output. Even with the PhP29.3 
million development and research costs, the net present value of the stream of 
benets to society was valued at PhP4,125.97 million (discounted at 5 percent). 
These results clearly demonstrate the technologys economic signicance in 
the development of the Philippine papaya industry. The high internal rate of 
return (IRR) of 84.31 percent indicates a good incentive to actually pursue 
the commercialization of the technology. This means that every peso invested 
to produce PRSV-resistant papaya provides a return of PhP84.30 (or about 
USD1.91).
 Four hypothetical scenarios were considered to test the sensitivity of the 
model and estimate the impact on the motivation to develop and regulate the 
PRSV-resistant technology. These scenarios were as follows:
1. An increase in the development and regulatory cost of 20 percent in 
2008-2009 - The technology is currently under regulation whereby 
any additional data requirements or applications can substantially 
increase the total development cost. Seed cost was also assumed to 
increase by 20 percent.
2. A development and regulatory cost decrease of 20 percent.
3. A ve-year delay in the commercialization of the technology, which 
may be brought about by more stringent regulations or the extended 
time necessary to comply with all the regulations.
4. A simultaneous 20 percent increase in development and regulatory 
costs and a ve-year delay in commercialization.





Implications of regulatory costs for ring spot Virus resistant Papaya
in the Philippines151
table 2. Returns to the PRSV-resistant technology under various scenarios, 
Philippines
develop-Impact on surplus
nPV of 
Year of ment and (PhP million)
net ben-
commer-regulatory Irr
scenarioefit
cializa-costscon-Produc-(%)
(PhP mil-
tion(PhP mil-sumersers
lion)
lion)
Baseline201029.295,613.20 4,209.904,125.97 84.31
20% increase 201031.685,613.20 4,209.904,124.5184.17
in development 
and regulatory 
costs
20% decrease 201026.905,613.20 4,209.904,127.4384.44
in development 
and regulatory 
costs
Five-year delay 201429.292,941.51 2,206.131,961.84 53.29
in commerciali-
zation
Simultaneous 201431.682,941.51 2,206.131,960.37 53.05
20% increase 
in development 
and regula-
tory costs and 
five-year delay 
in commerciali-
zation
 If regulatory costs in 2007-2008 were increased or decreased by 20 percent, 
the effect on the internal rate of return and the benets will be imperceptible 
considering that the technology is already in the later stages of the development 
process. The impact of these cost changes will be borne more by the producers 
than the consumers who would realize benets or losses of not more than PhP1 
million for the cost decrease or increase, respectively. While the likely effect of 
more stringent regulation in the last two years may not be substantial, it may 
delay the commercialization process and increase the seed cost to farmers. A 
larger impact is observed when commercialization is delayed for ve years. For 
this scenario, both producers and consumers lose, with a total net benet loss 
of PhP4,675.5 million. The internal rate of return also substantially decreases 
to 53.29 percent.





152J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
summary and conclusions
The economic contribution of the Philippine papaya industry is signicantly 
diminished by damage from PRSV, to which presently all available commercial 
varieties are highly susceptible or at best tolerant to the disease.  To address 
this concern, IPB-UPLB has been developing and undergoing regulatory 
approvals for a transgenic papaya variety with higher level of resistance to 
PRSV than what currently available commercial variety can provide. This 
study assessed the various development and regulatory costs and benets of 
the PRSV-resistant papaya technology in the Philippines in order to provide 
valuable information to farmers, researchers, and policy makers.
 The PRSV-resistant papaya technology is estimated to take 12-14 years 
before it can be commercially released. The discovery and development stages 
which include cloning and transformation and further breeding and initial 
candidate event selection, respectively, have already taken place from 2000-
2006. Further product testing and regulatory compliance is estimated to take 
another six years. The total development and regulatory costs will amount 
to at least PhP29.29 million or an average of PhP2.66 million per year (or 
about USD658.6 thousand total, USD59.8 thousand average per year). The 
development cost comprises 44.4 percent of the total cost and regulatory 
compliance cost, 55.6 percent. The major cost items were personnel services, 
supplies, and repair and maintenance at the development stage and conned 
and multi-location eld trials at the regulatory phase. The costs of the tests to 
comply with the regulations contribute substantially to total costs.
 The estimated total development and regulatory costs are small when 
compared to the potential benets that may accrue from technology adoption. 
The net benets to society with technology adoption is estimated to amount to 
PhP9,823.1 million with an internal rate of return of 84.3 percent. At this IRR 
level, there is a strong incentive to commercialize the technology. This analysis 
also reveals that consumers are more likely to benet more than producers. A 
delay in commercializing the technology will thus result to substantial welfare 
losses to both producers and consumers. It also diminishes the internal rate 
of return by as much 31 percent. The economic impact of this scenario is far 
greater than the increase in the regulatory costs. 
 The major implication of this study is that investing more in the development 
and regulatory activities that facilitate the early commercialization of the PRSV-
resistant papaya technology will result in substantial payoffs to farmers and 
consumers. Streamlining the regulatory process to reduce delays would hence 
prove to be benecial to society and increase the incentives for innovators.





Implications of regulatory costs for ring spot Virus resistant Papaya
in the Philippines153
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the nancial support of the Agricultural Biotechnology 
Support Project II through the International Service for the Acquisition of 
Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), the assistance extended by scientists and 
research personnel at the UPLB Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB) and the 
research specialists from the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and 
Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), the able research 
assistance of Annette Hidalgo and Suzette Simondac, and the comments of 
Dr. George W. Norton of Virginia Polytechnic and State University, USA, 
Dr. Desiree M. Hautea of the Institute of Plant Breeding, University of the 
Philippines Los Baos, and Dr. Dolores Ramirez of the National Committee on 
Biosafety of the Philippines.
references
Alston, JM, GW Norton and PG Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and 
Practice For Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Cornell University 
Press, Ithaca, New York.
DiMasi, JA, RW Hansen, HG Grabowski and L Lasagna. 1991. Cost of innovation in the 
pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Health Economics 10(2): 107-142.
Falck-Zepeda, J, J Cohen and J Komen. 2003. The economics of food and environmental 
safety regulation. Background paper for FAO-SONA, ISNAR, the Netherlands.
Falck-Zepeda, J. 2005. Methodology, research, policy analysis and implications of biosafety 
regulatory costs studies in Asia and Africa. Paper presented at the SEARCA Agriculture 
and Development Seminar Series. Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
James, C. 2008. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008. ISAAA Briefs No. 
39.  ISAAA: Ithaca, New York.
Magdalita, PM. 2000. Papaya ringspot virus and its control. Paper presented at the Fruit 
Techno Forum, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines.
Manalo, AJ and G Ramon. 2006. Cost of development of Bt corn event MON810 in the 
Philippines. Paper submitted to the International Food Policy Research Institute, 
Washington, DC, USA.
Opina, O. 1998. Crop protection. In State of the Art and Abstract Bibliography: Papaya 
Research (Crop Series No. 4). PCARRD. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.
Pray, CE, P Bengali and B Ramaswani. 2005. The cost of biosafety regulations: The Indian 
experience. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44(3): 267-289.
Pray, CE, B Ramaswani, J Huang, R Hu, P Bengali and H Zhang, 2006. Costs and enforcement 
of biosafety regulations in India and China. Int. J. Technology and Globalization 2(1): 137-
157.
Ramon, G and AJ Manalo. 2006. Developing the genetically enhanced delayed ripening 
papaya in the Philippines. Paper submitted to the International Food Policy Research 
Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Sumalde, AC, GP Eusebio, MN Estrella and AF Ferre. 1995. Papaya ringspot. PCARRD/
UPLB, College, Laguna, Philippines.
Villegas, VN. 1995. Sinta hybrid papaya brochure. IPB, UPLB, College, Laguna, Philippines.
Yorobe, JM Jr. 2006. The cost of regulation of GM rice in the Philippines. Paper submitted 
to the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.





154J.M. Yorobe, Jr. and T.P. Laude
Appendix 1.
table A-1.  Assumptions and parameter values in the base model
ItemValueSource
Price elasticity
Supply  0.80Yorobe (2006)
Demand- 0.60Laude (2006)
Research
Commercialization (year)2010
Cost (PhP million)20.1
Adoption rate (%)Yorobe (2006)
Initial (2010)30
Maximum (2016)90
Expected yield increase per hectare (%)77Yorobe (2006)
Change in cost per hectare (%)8Yorobe (2006)
Probability of research success (%)83Yorobe (2006)
Technology depreciation (linear, starts in 2017)10Yorobe (2006)
Papaya production (000 mt) base year 199867.89BAS
Papaya wholesale price (PhP/kg)20.19BAS
Discount rate (%)5














Document Number: 9656 
level and Implications of regulatory costs
in commercializing Bt eggplant, Virus resistant 
tomato, and Bt rice in the Philippines
J.C. Bayer, G.W. Norton and J. Falck-Zepeda
Introduction
Agricultural biotechnologies potentially have signicant benets for developing 
countries, but many countries lack complete regulatory processes to allow their 
release. A suitable regulatory process is necessary for the safety of those who 
consume genetically modied organisms (GMOs) as well as for the environment 
that might be indirectly affected by the products. Each nation needs a set 
of regulations that are both protective and efcient. In setting regulations, 
countries must be cautious but not overly restrictive unless they intend to delay 
or even forgo the benets of the technology.
 Costs associated with implementing a regulatory process for a specic 
transgenic product can be a signicant portion of the total costs of bringing the 
product to market (Jaffe, 2006; Pray et al., 2005). Some of these costs involve 
direct expenditures and some are opportunity costs of benets foregone from 
the product being delayed in moving into commercialization. In evaluating 
the potential net benets of genetically modied crops, it is important to 
understand the magnitude of these costs, both for countries still in the process 
of designing their regulatory processes, and for those implementing one. This 
paper identies the direct costs and opportunity costs of regulation for three 
transgenic products in the Philippines: Bt eggplant, Bt rice, and multiple virus 
resistant (MVR) tomatoes. It nds that direct regulatory costs, while signicant, 
are similar in magnitude or smaller than the research costs for technology 
development. However, both research and regulatory costs are overshadowed 





156J.C. Bayer, G.W. Norton and J. Falck-Zepeda
by even a relatively short delay in product release, which might be caused by 
an unexpected regulatory delay. 
 Regulatory costs vary by country and for conditions specic to each 
organism. For example, costs can be affected if certain biosafety tests for a 
product have already been conducted in other countries, if the product has been 
developed and tested in the public versus the private sector, if the product will 
be exported, and if the product is consumed as a food. Regulatory costs for the 
three crops mentioned above are compared among themselves and to those 
of papaya ring spot virus resistant (PRSV-R) papaya which were discussed in 
Chapter 9 to illustrate how different characteristics affect the costs.
Methods
The steps in the regulatory process and its direct costs and timing were dened 
through review of documents and interviews with government ofcials, 
researchers, and other experts in the regulatory process for biotech products in 
the Philippines. Those interviewed included: (a) scientists and experts from the 
Institute of Plant Breeding at the University of the Philippines Los Baos (IPB-
UPLB), the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and the Philippine Rice 
Research Institute (PhilRice), and (b) representatives from the Department of 
Science and Technology (DOST) and from the National Committee on Biosafety 
of the Philippines (NCBP). The interviews helped identify circumstances in 
which biosafety and other tests conducted in other countries are accepted in 
the Philippines and how that acceptance affects the costs. The costs and time 
associated with each of the following steps were assessed: 
1. Preparing a project proposal for submission to the Institutional 
Biosafety Committee (IBC), 
2. Submitting a proposal to the IBC which conducts a biosafety assessment 
and then endorses it to the National Committee on Biosafety of the 
Philippines (NCBP),
3. Applying to the NCBP for permit to conduct contained testing, 
4. Applying to the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry 
(DA-BPI) for a eld testing permit after contained testing is complete 
and successful (tests relate to gene ow, food safety, toxicity, efcacy, 
and other environmental tests), conditional on endorsement by the 
NCBP,
5. BPI creates a Scientic and Technical Review Panel (STRP) concurrent 
with public notication by the IBC, and the STRP evaluates potential 
adverse effects to humans and the environment,





level and Implications of regulatory costs in commercializing Bt eggplant,
Virus resistant tomato, and Bt rice in the Philippines157
6. Risk assessment by STRP and BPI-Core Biotechnology Team (BPI-
BCT), 
7. Conduct of single eld and then multiple location eld testing with 
each eld evaluated separately once there is receipt of a eld test 
permit, and
8. Obtaining a permit for release for propagation and commercialization. 
 Each step in the regulatory process allows for increased exposure of the 
transgenic or biotech product to people and to the environment. A detailed 
description of the Philippine regulatory process is presented in Chapter 1. 
 Once estimates of the costs of these steps were collected, economic surplus 
models were run to evaluate the economic impacts of introducing each of the 
transgenic products. These models built on previous studies by Mamaril and 
Norton (2006) for rice, Mamaril (2005) for tomato, Yorobe (2006) for papaya, 
and Francisco (2006) for eggplant. The results of their analyses were duplicated. 
Their models assumed small open economies for papaya and rice and closed 
economies for tomato and eggplant. Assumptions in their models were then 
updated and regulatory costs were introduced in addition to research costs. 
The models were run allowing basic assumptions to vary, including regulatory 
costs and the time lags for regulatory steps. Assessment of net benets under 
various scenarios allowed for calculation of opportunity costs associated with 
regulatory time lags.
results
The major activities for which there are signicant regulatory costs can 
be categorized into four groups: a) contained laboratory and greenhouse/
screenhouse testing, b) conned eld trials, c) multi-location open eld 
trials, and d) other commercialization costs (Table 1). Based on information 
from the sources described above, total estimated regulatory costs vary from 
USD248,500 for papaya to USD690,000 for rice (Table 2). The two eld trial 
activities represent the majority of the costs. Scientists and other experts 
projected the time required for each step. The number of years for each 
regulatory activity differs by commodity due to factors such as differing stages 
in which the technologies were received by scientists in the Philippines, and 
the length of time it takes to obtain one generation of the crop. Details for each 
crop are given in Bayer (2007). Total estimated research costs are similar in 
size to regulatory costs, and vary from USD120,000 for papaya (signicant 
research results transferred in from abroad) to USD890,000 for rice.





158J.C. Bayer, G.W. Norton and J. Falck-Zepeda
 PRSV-R papaya, MVR tomato and Bt eggplant are being developed and 
tested by researchers and scientists at the University of the Philippines Los 
Baos (UPLB). Conned eld trials of transgenic or bioengineered papaya 
and eggplant have been completed. It is expected that regulatory costs for 
MVR tomato will follow a similar pattern to that of Bt eggplant, except for 
the toxicology package which will entail substantial cost. Bt rice has been 
developed and tested at the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) in 
Nueva Ecija. Much of the regulatory activity on Bt rice occurred over a three-
year period. Conned screen house testing in the rst year cost USD20,800, 
while the second year contained eld testing cost USD446,700. Multi-location 
eld testing is projected to cost USD105,000 per year. Commercialization and 
public release were projected to cost USD13,180 (Table 1).
table 1. Regulatory costs (USD) and time
cost/yearno. of yearstotal cost
Bt eggplant
Laboratory/greenhouse  90,0002180,000
Confined field trial100,0001100,000
Multi-location field trial100,0001100,000
Commercialization costs  95,0001  95,000
MVR tomato
Laboratory/greenhouse  90,0002180,000
Confined field trial100,0001100,000
1
Multi-location field trial100,0001100,000
Commercialization costs  95,0001  95,000
Bt rice
Laboratory/greenhouse  20,8001  20,800
Confined field trial446,7001446,700
1
Multi-location field trial105,0002210,000
Commercialization costs		13,1801		13,180
PRSV-R papaya
Laboratory/greenhouse		16,0003  48,000
Confined field trial  43,3002  86,600
1
Multi-location field trial		41,7002  82,400
Commercialization costs		31,5001		31,500
1	 Thismulti-location	biosafety	field	 trial	 involved	two	 	sitesand	 	two	seasonsduring	the	 year	.It	is	part	 of	a		
broader variety trial that involved more sites and years. The costs of these additional variety trials are 
not included here as they would be incurred anyway.





level and Implications of regulatory costs in commercializing Bt eggplant,
Virus resistant tomato, and Bt rice in the Philippines159
 A large set of assumptions is required for an economic surplus analysis, 
and several of the most important ones are listed in Table 2. Rice production 
is substantial in the Philippines and adoption of Bt rice is projected to be 
signicant despite a relatively low impact on yield. Adoption is projected to 
be more gradual however, than for the other products, perhaps due to the 
small yield effect. Because Bt rice exists and is part way through the regulatory 
process, the experts were condent it would be successful and gave it a 
probability of research success of 1. MVR tomato is the product that is farthest 
away from the market.
table 2. Basic assumptions in economic surplus models
MVr PrsV-r 
Bt eggplantBt rice
tomatopapaya
Quantity (mt)182,750152,69010,500,000 159,000
Price (USD/mt)200215180363
Supply elasticity0.50.750.950.80
Demand elasticity-0.80-0.45-0.30-1.0
Change in yield (%)40672.477
Change in costs (%)-16-1008
Probability of success (%)705010083
Maximum adoption (%)50706680
Years to first adoption912810
Years to maximum 14141515
adoption
Total research cost (USD)580,000434,000888,729120,370
Total regulatory cost (USD)475,000475,000690,680249,500
 From the inception of the research to over 20 years, the net present value 
(NPV) of benets minus costs (discounted at 5 percent) varied from USD17 
million for tomato, USD20 million for eggplant, USD220 million for rice to 
USD250 million for papaya (Table 3). A variety of sensitivity analyses were 
conducted, such as varying the elasticity of supply and the discount rate. They 
had predictable effects on benets, such as a smaller supply elasticity or a 
smaller discount rate increasing benets signicantly.





160J.C. Bayer, G.W. Norton and J. Falck-Zepeda
table 3. Economic surplus results (USD000)
MVr PrsV-r 
Bt eggplantBt rice
tomatopapaya
Total economic benefits40,81434,240481,723171,976
NPV of benefits minus costs 
20,46616,748220,374  90,766
(at 5% discount rate )
 However, the key sensitivity analyses were to evaluate the effects of 
increasing regulatory costs and altering the time required for regulatory 
approval and hence adoption of the technologies by farmers. Even when 
regulatory costs were doubled or quadrupled, effects on total net benets 
in each case were small (less than USD1 million change in NPV in most 
cases) compared to the losses (opportunity costs) that were incurred when 
commercialization was delayed by one, two, or three years due to regulatory 
delays beyond the expected timeframe (Table 4). In each case, several million 
dollars were lost.
table 4. Sensitivity analysis (NPV of benefits minus costs under varying 
assumptions on regulatory costs and time lags) (5% discount rate, USD 000)
MVr PrsV-r 
Bt eggplantBt rice
tomatopapaya
Increases in regulatory 
costs by:
75%20,55116,530219,97790,633
200%20,12916,165219,31690,417
400%19,43515,582218,25890,097
Regulation time 
lag (delayed 
commercialization)
1	year	longer14,707106,567193,92666,363
2 years longer  8,932  4,855168,73846,061
3 years longer  4,242		1,111144,74929,540





level and Implications of regulatory costs in commercializing Bt eggplant,
Virus resistant tomato, and Bt rice in the Philippines161
 Some of the potential sources of regulatory delays include the repetition 
of tests, review time and information requests by regulators. Another is lack of 
clarity with respect to the requirements. One example of something that can 
cause a time delay is an NCBP request for more information from a previous 
generation. Under the containment rules, it is required that each generation, 
T, of the plant be destroyed once any and all tests are completed and the next 
n
generation, , Thas been produced. In the instance of an information request 
n+1
from the  Tgeneration when the scientists are  testing generation, the  TT
033
then reverts to being  generation the Tand three more generations of the plant 
0
must be produced, resulting in a time loss of three growing seasons. With a 
three-month growing season, the result would be a loss of one year. In the case 
of a one year growing season such as with papaya, the result would be a loss of 
three years. 
 The duplication of tests is another potential source of time delay. An 
example of this is the agro-morphology, or parent to progeny, test that is being 
duplicated by separate tests. A lack of clarity creates time delays by encouraging 
scientists to gather extra information in anticipation of possible later requests 
by regulators. An inherent delay is also created by the NCBP review panel 
schedule, as it meets only once a month. When information is requested about 
a product under review, there is a delay of at least one meeting, implying a 
delay of at least one month. In many cases, this delay can be avoided by the 
attendance of representatives from the IBC together with the researcher/
applicant at the NCBP meeting so they can answer questions the panel may 
have about the product that do not require further testing.  
 The regulatory timeline is also affected by the source of the product. If 
a product has previously undergone biosafety testing in another country, in 
some cases it may be possible to skip certain early laboratory tests (before 
the conned eld trial), although all tests beginning with the conned eld 
trial will of course need to be performed as they are location specic. Another 
potential source of time savings can come from specialization. As more product 
reviews are undertaken, it may be possible to hire specialists for completing 
regulatory paperwork and corresponding with regulatory agencies. Over time, 
as scientists and regulators become more experienced and more products 
make it through the various regulatory steps, all people involved in the process 
should become more procient.
 These examples are not meant to be exhaustive or to single out NCBP as 
BPI is also involved in the regulatory process. It makes no difference where 
delays occur in the process as they are equally costly in terms of foregone 
benets.





162J.C. Bayer, G.W. Norton and J. Falck-Zepeda
conclusion
The key contributions of this paper are to document the nature and size of 
regulatory costs for different types of genetically modied crops in a developing 
country setting, estimate opportunity costs of delays for comparative purposes, 
and summarize potential impacts of several different transgenic products. 
The Philippines is an excellent case study because it has several transgenic 
products already undergoing the regulatory testing and approval process and 
has already released Bt corn. 
 A study in India by Pray et al. (2005) previously found private regulatory 
costs for Bt cotton in the neighborhood of USD2 million. That study notes, 
however, that public sector regulatory costs can be lower, in part because the 
private sector must contract with the public sector for some of the regulatory 
steps. Our results conrm their hypothesis, with regulatory costs running 
less than USD1 million. Especially for products for which many of the basic 
laboratory biosafety tests have already been completed elsewhere, such as in 
the Bt eggplant case, direct regulatory costs do not appear to be prohibitive 
given the size of the benets, assuming the benets can be captured by those 
commercializing the product. It appears that the bigger concern in the release 
of transgenic products is the risk of regulatory time delays at any stage in the 
process point, as the cost (in terms of foregone benets) of a delay of even one 
year overshadows any direct regulatory costs.
references
Bayer, JC. 2007. GMOs in the Philippines: The costs of regulation. Unpublished MS 
thesis. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia. 
Francisco, SR. 2006. Ex-ante impact assessment of fruit and shoot borer resistant 
eggplant in the Philippines. Final report submitted to ISAAA, IRRI, Los Baos, 
Laguna, Philippines, January.
Jaffe, G. 2006. Comparative analysis of the national biosafety regulatory systems in 
East Africa.  EDT Discussion Paper 146. International Food Policy Research Institute, 
Washington, DC, January.
Mamaril, CB. 2005, Multiple virus resistant tomato: An ex-ante evaluation of the 
potential impact of adopting MVR tomato in the Philippines. Final report submitted 
to ISAAA, IRRI, Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines, October.
Mamaril, CB and GW Norton. 2006. Economic evaluation of transgenic pest-resistant 
rice in the Philippines and Vietnam. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 
45(2).
Pray, CE, P Bengali and B Ramaswami. 2005. The cost of biosafety regulations: The 
Indian experience. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 44(3): 267-289.
Yorobe, JM Jr. 2006. Ex-ante economic impact assessment of ring spot virus resistant 
papaya (PRSV) in the Philippines. Final report submitted to ISAAA, IRRI, Los Baos, 
Laguna, Philippines.














Document Number: 3311 
Value of environmental Benefits
of Bt eggplant in the Philippines
S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
Introduction
Farmers in the Philippines apply frequent and heavy doses of insecticides in 
futile attempts to manage fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) in eggplant. Many 
farmers spray their eggplant two or more times a week. Pesticide use is 
expensive and potentially damaging to human health and the environment. 
However, indiscriminate pesticide application allows the borer to become 
tolerant to the chemicals, and pesticides can contaminate ground water and 
food, create resistance in target populations, affect non-target organisms, and 
induce secondary pest outbreaks.  
 Heavy application of pesticides for EFSB control was one factor that 
motivated the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Program II (ABSPII) to 
develop and commercialize transgenic Bt eggplant for farmers in Asia. The 
adoption of Bt eggplant technology may provide important economic benets 
(as discussed in Chapter 4), as well as reduce health and environmental risks 
associated with pesticide use. Although genetically modied (GM) crops 
spark controversy around the world, with GM crops opponents concerned 
about possible long-term negative ecological effects (Schutte, 2003), reduced 
pesticide application with Bt eggplant can bring a potentially signicant 
health and environmental benets (Huang et al., 2002), which should not be 
ignored.
 The GM debate occurs in the political arena, placing pressure on regulatory 
agencies that must approve GM products before they can be released. Regulatory 
agencies require substantial information from researchers in the natural and, 
in some cases, the social sciences (Carter and Grure, 2006). While much of 





164S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
the information is biological in nature, economists may help by providing ex-
ante assessments of benets and costs of specic GM technologies, especially 
if they can place a value on potential environmental and health changes in 
addition to direct economic benets and costs. 
 This chapter uses a variety of techniques to measure the environmental 
and health value of Bt eggplant currently being developed in the Philippines. Bt 
eggplant can potentially increase producer prots while signicantly reducing 
pesticide use. When the product is commercialized, Filipino farmers may 
receive direct health and environmental benets from reduced pesticide use, 
and consumers may receive health benets from reduced pesticide residue in 
eggplant. 
 Quantifying environmental and health benets of GM crops is difcult 
because impacts are potentially both positive and negative. Evaluation is made 
even more difcult by the fact that many people have little or no information 
about GM technologies and thus may have no opinion about them. Rousu et al. 
(2007) explored this situation in an experimental setting in the United States 
and found that respondents who had different types of information placed 
different values on GM products. As might be expected, those who were asked 
to read a negative portrayal of GM prior to value elicitation placed a smaller 
value on GM products than others who were asked to read a positive portrayal 
of GM. 
 In addition, the uncertainty that surrounds all new products complicates 
impact assessment because the exact environmental and health consequences 
cannot be determined until the product is widely used. Scientists make 
predictions about effects based on laboratory experiments, but GM crop 
detractors concerns usually center on long-term and widespread uses. They 
believe that the long-term effects will be more adverse than what researchers 
can simulate in the laboratory (Barton and Dracup, 2000).
 Some environmental and health valuation studies in developing countries 
have used contingent valuation (CV) to generate values. With CV, a series of 
questions are asked of respondents in a survey designed to elicit information 
on what people would be willing to pay for improved health or environmental 
benets that are not valued in the marketplace. Surveys are administered to 
a sample population and average values are extrapolated from the responses. 
This method can be useful but also has some theoretical and practical difculties 
(Bateman et al., 2002). Hypothetical bias can be a problem because survey 
respondents do not actually have to pay the values they indicate. Instrument 
design can help minimize hypothetical bias but not eliminate it. Lack of 
understanding about what is being valued can also be a problem. This lack 
of information could increase hypothetical bias if relevant information is not 
given on the subject.  





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines165
 When benets cannot be achieved and maximized without community-
wide support, values may also depend on values of other community members. 
In the Philippines, for example, the adoption of Bt corn depended on a number 
of social factors that included the opinions of peers (Yorobe and Sumayao, 
2004). 
 To address this set of issues, multiple methods were applied in this study 
to quantify potential health and environmental impacts of Bt eggplant in 
the Philippines. The study aimed to assess the potential value of health cost 
savings and environmental improvements resulting from reduced pesticide use 
when adopting the Bt technology, and to identify policy implications of these 
health and environmental effects. The methods employed included contingent 
valuation (CV), experimental economics (EE), application of a health cost (HC) 
equation, and calculation of an environmental impact quotient (EIQ).
Methodology
The economic assessment of health and environmental impacts of reduced 
pesticide use following the adoption of Bt eggplant was accomplished by 
estimating rst, the impacts Bt eggplant of adoption on the risks caused by 
pesticides to various non-target species and second, societys willingness-to-
pay to reduce these risks. Risks were assessed for various categories of health 
and the environment. CV, EE, and HC analyses were used as alternative 
methods for valuing risk reductions, while the EIQ was used to score risk 
reductions without valuing them.
 The health and environmental categories were classied according to the 
type of non-target organisms affected, such as humans, birds, benecial insects, 
and farm animals, and the consequences of pesticide use on each category were 
considered. Risks posed by individual pesticide active ingredients (a.i.) for each 
category depend on toxicity levels and exposure levels of the organisms to the 
toxic substance. The impact of the pesticide active ingredient was determined 
by combining risk estimates with dosage and concentration of active ingredient 
in the formulation. 
 To measure the benets Bt eggplant of adoption, information on the level 
of adoption of the technology was needed. The degree and level of adoption 
of Bt eggplant were predicted using an econometric model and results from 
previous studies. The change in the degree of pesticide risk brought about by 
changes in pest management activities due to adoption of Bt eggplant was 
calculated and combined with estimates of societys willingness-to-pay (WTP) 
for the reduction in pesticide risks.





166S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
Pesticide risk
The level of pesticide toxicity and exposure for each environmental category 
were assessed using the following method:
ES  =  IS * (% a.i.) * Rate
ijji
where:
ES = eco-rating score for active ingredient i and environmental category j,
ij
IS = risk score for environmental category j,
j
% a.i. = percent a.i. in the pesticide formulation, and
Rate = application rate per hectare
i 
The ecological rating or risk impact score was computed with and without the 
Bt eggplant technology. The difference in the risk impact scores represents the 
amount of risk avoided if the Bt eggplant technology is adopted. Data on risk 
scores for the pesticides for the various environmental categories were obtained 
from Cuyno (1999). Application rates were obtained from a survey of 100 
farmers in the Philippines (see Appendix 1 for a copy of the questionnaire).
Willingness to Pay (WtP)
Contingent valuation method
 There is no market price on societys WTP to reduce pesticide risk, but a 
hypothetical market can be established using either CV or EE. These procedures 
are used to elicit values from respondents who provide hypothetical values (with 
CV) or actual payments for the risk reduction (with EE). For the CV analysis, 
a closed-ended iterative bidding method was used to elicit eggplant farmers 
WTP for a safer formulation of the pesticide they perceived to be effective in 
the control of EFSB. Four different formulations were offered, namely: 1) one 
that avoids human health risk; 2) one that prevents risk to farm animals; 3) one 
that avoids risk to birds; and 4) one that prevents risk to benecial organisms. 
The farmers were told the actual price of the pesticide, and were asked whether 
they will be willing to pay a specied amount for a reduction in insecticide risk 
that was described. If the respondent answered afrmatively, the price was 
then raised by PhP50.00 (about USD1.00) and they were asked if they would 
be willing to pay for it at the higher price if it had the environmental benets. 
If they answered YES, the price was again raised by PhP50.00, and the last 
price before they said NO represents the farmers WTP for the product. The 
last value to which the farmer responded positively represented his/her WTP 
for the risk reduction, i.e., the value that eggplant farmers place on the benet 





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines167
of improving environmental quality with reduced pesticide risk to various 
categories of the environment.
 A total of 100 farmers participated in the bidding in four eggplant-
growing provinces: Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Batangas and Quezon. Twenty 
ve randomly selected farmers from each province were interviewed using a 
structured questionnaire. Information asked of the respondents included crop 
losses due to EFSB, pest management practices for EFSB, pesticide use and 
cost, perceived effects of chemicals on the environment, and their WTP to 
avoid the perceived risks of pesticide use. 
Experimental economics technique
 For the experimental economics technique, the Filipino farmers were 
contacted in four groups including one farmer cooperative. Four experiments 
were conducted with individuals in each group. A facilitator explained that the 
valuation exercise would ask them to place a value on the environmental and 
health benets from Bt eggplant. They were told that three randomly selected 
subjects would be paid an endowment of PhP500 (approximately USD10) each, 
but that those subjects would have to pay back the amount they placed on the 
environmental benets Bt eggplant to research. After the instructions were 
read and questions answered, a short video about a previously released GM 
crop, Bt corn, was shown to help them understand what they would be valuing. 
After the video, an extension specialist discussed Bt eggplant emphasizing that 
the technology used to create Bt eggplant was similar to the one for Bt corn, 
and also stated that the environmental and health impacts of Bt eggplant could 
be similar to those of Bt corn.
 The facilitator then asked them to submit their valuation of the 
environmental and health benets Bt eggplant. of After all values were collected, 
the facilitator read each value aloud keeping the respondents anonymous. The 
whole process was repeated and subjects were allowed to reconsider their 
responses and submit a new set of values. After the fourth and nal round, 
three subjects were randomly selected and each was paid PhP500. The three 
subjects were then asked to donate the nal values they submitted to support 
Bt eggplant research.
 After completing the experiment, the facilitators discussed with the 
respondents why they bid particular values. Some voiced fears about GM 
products, but the general consensus was that the immediate environmental 
and health damage from pesticide spraying was of greater concern than the 
possibility of long-term negative effects from GM products. Thirty seven 
percent of the respondents reported being sick from pesticide spraying and 80 





168S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
percent believed pesticides harmed the environment, but they also emphasized 
that their incomes were dependent on the success of their crops, especially 
cash vegetable crops like eggplant.
estimating the environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant
The environmental benets of adopting Bt eggplant were estimated by 
combining the eco-rating scores and the elicited values for WTP for improving 
the environment by reducing pesticide risk, with projections on adoption of 
the technology and estimates on the proportion of pesticide use on eggplant in 
the affected area. The result represents the monetary Bt eggplant value due to 
adoption from reducing the risk to the four environmental impact categories, 
i.e., human health, avian species, farm animals, and benecial insects.
health cost Model
In addition to the above, a health cost model estimated by Dung and Dung 
(1999) was applied to project savings that farmers and pesticide applicators 
would have if Bt eggplant technology was adopted. The model is:
 Ln HC = 2.7 + 1.24 ln (Age) - 0.02 Health + 0.12 Smoke 
    + 0.62 Drink + 0.075 ln (Ins) + 0.144 ln (Herb)
where: Age is age of farmer-respondent, Health is the farmers weight-over-
height ratio, Smoke is (0 for non-smoker, 1 for smoker), Drink is (0 for non-
drinker, 1 for drinker), Ins is insecticide a.i. rate of application, and Herb is 
herbicide a.i. rate of application. This model was patterned after those utilized 
by Huang et al. (2000), Pingali et al. (1994, 1995) and Rola and Pingali (1993). 
Data in our study were obtained from the 100 farmer survey mentioned 
above.
environmental Impact Quotient (eIQ)
A common way to present changes in pesticide use with GM crops is in terms 
of the volume of pesticides applied with and without GM. That method 
provides a useful but rough indicator of environmental impact, as it does 
not account for toxicity differences in specic products used in GM versus 
conventional crop systems. As such, an environmental impact quotient (EIQ) 
can be used to provide an improved measure of the environmental impact of 
Bt eggplant. The EIQ provides an aggregate assessment of the environmental 
risks associated with the active ingredients of the specic pesticides used. 
This indicator, developed by Kovach et al. (1992), effectively integrates the 
various environmental impacts of individual pesticides into a single eld value 





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines169
per hectare. It draws on toxicity and environmental exposure data related to 
individual products, as applicable to impacts on farm workers, consumers, and 
ecology, which are then given equal weights. EIQ provides a consistent and 
comprehensive measure of environmental impacts associated with pesticide 
use, albeit with arbitrary weights across environmental categories. 
 Following Kovach et al. (1992), the farm worker component is dened 
as the effect on applicator and pickers due to exposure on pesticides, and is 
formulated as C * [(DT  * 5) + (DT  * P)]. The consumer component is the sum 
of consumer exposure potential and potential ground water effects, C * ((S + 
P) / 2) * SY) + (L). The ecological component considers effects on sh, birds, 
bees, and benecial arthropods: R) + (D (F*   ((* S + P) / 2) *3) + (Z * P * 3) + 
(B * P * 5).The EIQ is the average of these three components:
EIQ  =  {(C * [(DT  * 5) + (DT  * P)) + [C * ((S + P) / 2) * SY) + (L)] + [(F * R) + 
(D * ((S + P) / 2) * 3) + (Z  * P  * 3) + (B * P * 5)]} / 3
where DT = dermal toxicity, C = chronic toxicity, SY = systemicity, F = sh 
toxicity, L = leaching potential, R = surface loss potential, D = bird toxicity, S 
= soil half-life, Z = bee toxicity, B = benecial arthropod toxicity, and P = plant 
surface half-life.
 The eld rate EIQ is calculated as (EIQ x pesticide % active ingredient 
x pesticide rate used). The eld rate EIQ can be used to compare the total 
environmental effects of the conventional and the Bt eggplant crop production 
system. While it has been criticized because it includes arbitrary weights in 
its formulas, especially across environmental categories, the EIQ has been 
widely applied as an environmental indicator of pesticide risk to health and 
the environment. 
 Information regarding potential adoption rate and reduction in pesticide 
use was obtained from Francisco (2006). Many of the data for calculating the 
EIQ were obtained from New York State Integrated Pest Management Program 
(NYSIPM) (http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html).
results and discussion
Farmers across the four interview sites applied pesticides against EFSB 
42 times on average during the production season, with Quezon having the 
highest number of applications (Table 1). They applied an average of 65 li/ha, 
equivalent to 12 kg a.i./ha.





170S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
 Many farmers are aware of the effects of pesticides on human health and 
the environment. For example, 89 percent of the farmers interviewed believe 
that pesticides have a negative effect on human health, 76 percent believe it 
harms benecial insects, 62 percent believe it harms farm animals, and 30 
percent on birds. Forty six percent of the farmers reported to have experienced 
ill effects after spraying chemical pesticides, including dizziness, nausea, 
shortness of breath, loose bowel movement, and itchiness.
table 1. Frequencyvolume,	,and	 	activeingredients	ofpesticides		applied	by	 	
eggplant farmers
Freq of spray
Volumetotal a.i
location(times per 
(liters)(kg)
season)
Batangas27.9274.246.24
Pangasinan31.0842.1310.14
Quezon55.0179.0516.93
Nueva Ecija52.2862.9614.47
All sites41.5665.6311.94
 When asked to rank the importance of the different impact categories 
presented to them, they were unanimous in ranking human health as the most 
important among the impact categories considered, followed by farm animals, 
benecial insects, and birds.
Pesticide Impact scores
Table 2 presents the risk  for scores (risks ISposed by) individual pesticides 
j
used in eggplant production. Using these risk scores, the eco-rating scores of 
pesticides were computed. Table 3 summarizes the results for the different 
impact categories with and without Bt eggplant. The projected changes in 
ecological rating due to Bt eggplant are as follows: 19 percent for human health 
and farm animals, 21 percent for bird species, and 19 percent for benecial 
insects. 





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines171
table 2. Risk scores (IS) of pesticides used in eggplant production
j
environmental category
Active ingredientBrand nameBeneficial
humanAnimalsBirds
insects
Insecticide
BetacypermethrinChix 2.5 EC4415
CarbarylSevin WP 852235
CarbofuranFuradan3355
Cartap HCLSuper Cartap 50 SP3335
Cartap HCLPadan 50 SP3335
Cartap HCLDimo 50 SP3335
Cartap HCLBuenas 50 SP3335
Cartap HCLDimotrin3335
Cartap HCLIngam 50 SP3335
Chlorpyfiros + Brodan	31.5	EC3355
BPMC 
ChlorpyrifosSiga 300 EC3355
ChlorpyrifosLorsban 40 EC3355
Chlorpyrifos + Nurelle D3355
Cyper
CypermethrinMagnum 5 EC4415
CypermethrinPoker 5 EC4415
CypermethrinHukom 5 EC4415
CypermethrinCypex 50 EC4415
CypermethrinLakas 5 EC4415
CypermethrinMagik 5% EC4415
CypermethrinServwell TKO 50 SC4415
CypermethrinCypermethrin 5 EC4415
CypermethrinCymbush 5 EC4415
DeltamethrinDecis 2.5 EC4435
DeltamethrinSuperquick	2.5	EC4435
DimethoatePerfekthion 40 EC4433
FenvalerateLegend 2.5 EC3315
FipronilAscend 50 SC3331
ImidaclopridAdmire 5 WP3353
ImidaclopridConfidor	SL	1003353
Imidacloprid + Provado Supra 050 3353
Cyfluthrin EC





172S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
environmental category
Active ingredientBrand nameBeneficial
humanAnimalsBirds
insects
Lambdacyhalothrin Bida 2.5 EC3335
Lambdacyhalothrin Karate 2.5 EC3335
MalathionMalathion4435
MalathionMalathion 57 EC4435
Malathion Planters Malathion 4435
57 EC
MethamidophosTamaron 600 SL4435
MethomylLannate 40 SP4435
ProfenofosSelecron 500 EC4455
ProfenofosKilabot 500 EC4455
TriazophosHercules 20 EC3333
Triazophos Hostathion 3333
Fungicide
Copper HydroxideFunguran-Oh3333
Copper Oxychloride Vitigran Blue 58 WP3333
MancozebDithane M-45 WP 3335
table 3. Amount and percent changes in eco-ratings due to Bt eggplant 
adoption
eco-rating 
eco-rating with % risk 
Impact categorytype usewithout Bt 
eggplantBt eggplantavoided
Insecticides1,013.66		456.15
Human health19.02
Fungicide1,917.561,917.56
Total2,931.222,373.71
Insecticides1,013.66		456.15
Farm animals19.02
Fungicide1,917.561,917.56
Total2,931.222,373.71
Insecticides1,222.51		550.13
Avian species21.37
Fungicide1,924.561,924.56
Total3,147.072,474.69
Beneficial insectsInsecticides1,493.14		671.91
18.67
Fungicide2,904.742,904.74
Total4,397.743,576.65





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines173
Farmers Willingness to Pay (WtP)
Based on contingent valuation analysis
 Table 4 summarizes the farmers WTP for pesticide risk avoidance obtained 
using CV analysis. On average, farmers were willing to pay a higher price for a 
pesticide formulation that is safer to humans (PhP1,019/li), followed by those 
safer for farm animals (PhP945), benecial insects (PhP894), and lastly birds 
(PhP867). These results are consistent with the ranking that farmers placed on 
the different impact categories.
table 4. Farmers WTP to avoid risk to the different environmental categories
Insecticide 
Farmer's 
Impact categoryactual price std devstd devdifference
WtP (PhP)
(PhP)
Human health7244161,019572295
Farm animals724416   945531222
Beneficial insects 724416   894508170
Avian species724416   867493144
 To estimate the value of potential health and environmental benets from 
Bt eggplant, the percentage change in risk avoided is converted to a monetary 
value by combining it with the farmers WTP for risk avoidance. The estimated 
values of benets, presented in Table 5, were multiplied by the assumed 
adoption rate to project the benets derived from risk avoided for the different 
environmental categories. For example, the aggregate benets for human 
health would be PhP2.49 million, while the combined projected benets for 
farm animals, benecial insects, and avian species would be about PhP6.8 
million. These environmental benets are only for the area where the eggplant 
is produced and assumes no change in the use of other pesticides.
Using experimental economics
 Due to the hypothetical nature of the CV estimates, the willingness of 
Filipino eggplant farmers to pay for reduced pesticide risk to health and the 
environment was examined as well using the EE technique. Farmers were 
willing to donate more than PhP400 for research on Bt eggplant if it reduces 
health and environmental risks. No Filipino farmer submitted a zero value in 
all rounds of the experiment. The farmers increased the amount they would pay 
after seeing the bids of their neighbors. Unlike in the CV interviews, farmers 





174S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
actually had to pay what was bid and therefore the results were not subject 
to the bias of a hypothetical question. By the nal round of the experiment, 
farmers were willing to pay more than PhP450 on average, which is about 38 
percent lower than that found using the CV method, where the total WTP per 
farmer across the four environmental categories adds up to PhP726 (see Table 
5).
table 5. Projected health and environmental benefits of Bt eggplant per 
1
farmer
% risk WtPBenefits per Projected 
Impact category
avoided(PhP)farmer (PhP)benefits (PhP)
Human health19.021,019.15193.842,492,229
Farm animals19.02   945.25176.512,269,414
Beneficial insects 21.37   893.69190.942,454,943
Avian species18.67   867.25164.952,120,786
1  
Assumed adoption rate of 50% of total eggplant area and farm area = 0.7 ha
 The nature of the groups seemed to affect the results as well in the EE 
application. The farmer cooperative group had already Bt corn, began to adopt 
and their values started high and remained so across rounds. Their rst round 
average was 76 percent of their endowment of PhP500 and their nal round 
average was 97 percent of the same. The cooperative group can be contrasted 
to a group whose members farm in an area that had rejected Bt corn. In the 
latter group, values began at 32 percent of their endowment but ended at 91 
percent.
health cost
The health cost benets Bt eggplant of for individual farmers were estimated 
using the coefcients of Dung and Dungs (1999) health cost function. The 
incremental health benets were determined as the difference in health costs 
with and without Bt eggplant. The health Btcost  eggplant of adopters would 
be only PhP2,570 compared to PhP2,733 for conventional eggplant producers, 
a savings in health cost of PhP163 per farmer. With a 50 percent adoption 
rate for Bt eggplant, the aggregate estimated health cost savings in the local 
producing areas would be PhP2,095,714, slightly lower than those in Table 
5 for the human health category (PhP163 versus PhP196, and PhP2,095,714 
versus PhP2,492,229), but are of similar magnitude.





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines175
environmental Impact Quotient (eIQ)
Table 6 presents the results of calculating the EIQ and the eld rate EIQ using 
the EXTOXNET database for the different insecticides and fungicides, with 
details in Appendix Table A-1. The mean pesticide usage by the non-Bt eggplant 
farmers was estimated at 12 li/ha, while that of Bt adopters was 6.2 li/ha, a 
reduction of around 48 percent. The EIQ for farmers Bt eggplant not was using 
245 per ha while that of farmers using Bt eggplant was 198 per ha, a reduction 
of 19.5 percent. This environmental improvement would be Bt realized only if 
eggplant is commercialized and adopted by the farmers and accepted by the 
consuming public.
table 6. Reduction in pesticide use and EIQ associated with adopting Bt 
eggplant
Without Bt With Bt 
difference
eggplanteggplant
Pesticide use (kg a.i./ha) 		11.98    6.22  5.76
Field EIQ 245.59197.7547.84
% Change in pesticide use 48.08
% Change in EIQ 19.48
conclusion
The adoption Btof  eggplant will result in using fewer, less toxic, and less 
persistent insecticides, hence leading to a decrease in negative impacts on 
human health and the environment. This chapter assessed and attempted to 
value the health and environmental impacts from adopting Bt eggplant in the 
Philippines. Several methods were applied including contingent valuation of 
risk avoidance, experimental economics valuation of willingness to pay for 
environmental benets, a health cost function, and environmental impact 
quotient. The data used in this study primarily came from various sources 
including a survey of 100 eggplant farmers in four eggplant producing 
provinces, interviews with farmer groups, and secondary sources.
 The farmer survey found that eggplant farmers apply pesticides 42 times 
on average during the production period at an average rate of more than 65 li/
ha (or around 12 kg a.i./ha). Farmers spend 29 percent of the production cost 
(about PhP28,000/ha) on pesticides to control EFSB. Upon inquiry in this 
study, most farmers believe that pesticides have a negative effect on human 





176S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
health, benecial insects, and farm animals, and were unanimous in ranking 
human health as the most important among the categories considered.
 Combining the farmers willingness to pay from the CV analysis and the 
percentage reduction in risk for the different environmental categories, the 
adoption of Bt eggplant should save about PhP2.5 million in health costs and 
PhP6.8 million in other environment categories (farm animals, benecial 
insects and avian species) in the target area. Using the Dung and Dung (1999) 
method to value health cost, the projected savings in human health costs are 
PhP2.1 million, with a pesticide use decline of 48 percent.
 Results from the experimental economics analysis suggest that Filipino 
farmers are willing to sacrice immediate monetary gains for potential 
environmental benets from GM products if those products are expected to 
reduce pesticide use. Their willingness to sacrice for environmental and 
health benets from GM research, although about 38 percent lower than the 
value found with CV analysis, was still a sizable PhP450 pesos per farmer.
 With Filipino farmers appearing to be receptive to adopting Bt eggplant, 
the projected positive impacts on human health, together with the agronomic 
and direct economic benets of Bt eggplant, reinforces the need for continued 
support for its development and commercialization. Combining this type of 
analysis with private benet-cost analysis leads to a more complete valuation 
of the social costs and benets that accrue to farmers, consumers and the 
environment from Bt eggplant production. Information on environmental and 
health benets will thus be very important in helping the public overcome the 
stigma towards GM products.
references
Barton, JE and M Dracup. 2000. Genetically modied crops and the environment. 
Agronomy Journal 92: 797-803.
Bateman, IJ, RT Carson, B Day, M Hanemann, N Hanley, T Bett, M Jones-Lee, G 
Loomes, S Mourato, E 4zdemiroglu, DW Pearce, R Sugden and J Swanson. 2002. 
Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, 
Ltd., Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, 480 pp.
Carter, CA and GP Grure. 2006. International approval and labeling regulations of 
genetically modied food in major trading countries. In Just, RE,  JM Alston, and 
D Zilberman (eds.). Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology. Economics and Policies, 
Springer -Verlag, New York, pp. 459480.
Cuyno, L. 1999. An economic evaluation of health and environmental benets of IPM 
Program (IPM CRSP) in the Philippines. Unpublished PhD thesis. Virginia Tech, 
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Dung, NH and TT Dung. 1999. Economic and health consequences of pesticide use 
in paddy production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Singapore: Economy and 
Environment Program for Southeast Asia, 39 pp.





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines177
EXTOXNET. The EXtension TOXicology NETwork (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/)
Francisco, SR. 2006. Ex-ante impact assessment of fruit and shoot borer resistant 
eggplant in the Philippines. Final report submitted to the International Service for 
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), IRRI, Los Baos, Laguna, 
Philippines.
Huang, J, R Hu, S Rozelle, F Qiao, and CE Pray. 2002. Transgenic varieties and 
productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China. The Australian Journal of 
Agricultural and Resource Economics 46(3): 367-387.
Kovach, J, C Petzoldt, J Degni and J Tette. 1992. A method to measure the environmental 
impacts of pesticides. New Yorks Food and Life Science Bul. Geneva, NYS Agric 
Experiment Station, Cornell Univ. http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/
EIQ.html
Rola, AC and PL Pingali. 1993. Pesticides, Rice Productivity, and Farmers Health: An 
Economic Assessment. International Rice Research Institute and World Resources 
Institute.
Rousu, M, WE Huffman, JF Shogren and A Tegene. 2007. Effects and value of veriable 
information in a controversial market: Evidence from lab auctions of genetically 
modied food. Economic Inquiry 45(3): 409-432.
Schutte, G. 2003. Herbicide resistance: Promises and prospects of biodiversity for 
European agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 217-230.
Yorobe, JM and BR Sumayao. 2004. Determinants of adoption of Bt (Bacillus 
thuringiensis) corn in the Philippines. Report submitted to the International Service 
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), IRRI, Los Baos, Laguna, 
Philippines.





178S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
Appendix 1. 
Environmental Impacts of Bt eggplant
ABSPII  ISAAA Funded Project
FARMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Name:  Location: 
Education:  Years in farming: 
Age:  Height:  Weight:  Farm area: 
Do you smoke?  Do you drink alcohol? 
Yield per ha of eggplant last year?  Ave yield over the last ve years? 
Ave annual crop loss (%) due to EFSB last year?  Over the last 5 years? 
Part 1.  Pest Management Practices
1. How would you describe the severity of EFSB problem? 
 Negligible [ ]   Moderate [ ]   Extreme [ ]
2. How did you control EFSB? Please check if you practiced any of the following 
pest management strategies
 Pesticide application  [ ]  Crop rotation   [ ]
 Use of resistant varieties  [ ]  Use of treated seeds   [ ]
 Use of benecial insects [ ]  Others: 
3. Pesticides use, amount and frequency of application
Frequency Remarks
ControlQuantity
(per cropping Area(e.g., brand 
method usedapplied
season)names)
Insecticides
Fungicides
Others (specify)





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines179
4.  Production cost structure
Cost ComponentQuantityFrequencyPrice per unit
Seeds/planting materials
Fertilizer
Pesticides
Labor
Other
Total production cost
5. How much did you spend on chemicals last season? 
6. What is the most widely used pesticide that you perceived to be most effective in the 
control of EFSB?  Price per liter (kg) PhP 
7. What percentage of your total annual operating expenses is spent on pesticides? 
 %
8. How many hours per week do you spend in the farm? 
9. In your opinion, do pesticides adversely affect the following categories?
CategoriesYesNoDo Not Know
Human health
Benecial insects
Birds
Farm animals, dogs, cats
10. Have you ever experienced being sick from pesticide application? Yes [ ]    No [ ]
 What exactly did you feel? 
 
11. How important to you are the following possible risks from the use of pesticides on 
your farm?
VerySome-Not im-Relative 
Possible risksimpor-what im-portantrank
tantportant
Damage to human health from 
applying pesticides
Harmful effects to birds
Harmful effects to mammals, 
farm animals
Toxicity to benecial insects





180S.R. Francisco, J. Maupin and G.W. Norton
Part 2. Willingness-to-Pay Questions
We would like to ask you questions about pesticide choices you might make next year. 
Assume that next year you will be planting the same crop and that climatic and pest 
conditions will be the same as this year.
1. Suppose that a chemical company made a new formulation of (specify the 
most familiar/commonly used insecticide based on answer to question no. 6) 
 that was very similar to this insecticide in all respects (especially 
efcacy) and the only difference is that this does new not formulation cause 
human health problems. If this new formulation costs P  
(offer different prices higher than the price of stated insecticide in 50-peso 
increments), will you buy this new formulation? 
(Note: as soon as the respondent says NO, indicate last price agreeable to 
respondent)
2. Suppose that a chemical company made a new formulation of (specify the 
most familiar/commonly used insecticide based on answer to question no. 
6)  that was very similar to this insecticide in all respects 
(especially efcacy) and the only difference is that this new formulation does not 
kill the natural pest enemies or benecial . If insectsthis new formulation 
costs P  (offer different prices higher than the cost of stated 
insecticide in 50-peso increments), will you buy this new formulation? 
(Note: as soon as the respondent says NO, indicate last price agreeable to 
respondent)
3. Suppose that a chemical company made a new formulation of (specify the 
most familiar/commonly used insecticide based on answer to question no. 
6)  that was very similar to this insecticide in all respects 
(especially efcacy) and the only difference is that this new formulation does not 
kill the birds in this area. If this new formulation costs P  
(offer different prices higher than the cost of stated insecticide in 50-peso 
increments), will you buy this new formulation? 
(Note: as soon as the respondent says NO, indicate last price agreeable to 
respondent)
4. Suppose that a chemical company made a new formulation of (specify the 
most familiar/commonly used insecticide based on answer to question no. 
6)  that was very similar to this insecticide in all respects 
(especially efcacy) and the only difference is that this new formulation does not 
kill the animals in the farm including the dogs and cats. If this new formulation 
costs P  (offer different prices higher than the cost of 
stated insecticide in 50-peso increments), will you buy this new formulation? 
(Note: as soon as the respondent says NO, indicate last price agreeable to 
respondent)





Value of environmental Benefits of Bt eggplant in the Philippines181
table A-1. Environmentimpact		quotient(EIQ)	 and	 	fieldrate	 EIQ	 	forcurrent		
pesticides used in eggplant production in the Philippines
rateActive Beneficial
PesticideBrand nameeIQ
(per ha)ingredientinsects
Insecticide
CarbarylSevin WP 85     35.80 					14.08	       0.85 					382.51	
CarbofuranFuradan     50.67      96.00        0.05 					126.16	
ChlorpyrifosSiga 300 EC     43.52 					13.05	       0.30 					313.25	
ChlorpyrifosLorsban 40 EC     43.52      25.00        0.40 					435.17	
CypermethrinMagnum 5 EC     30.67 					18.00	       0.05 							18.94	
CypermethrinPoker 5 EC     30.67      43.20        0.05        60.28 
CypermethrinHukom 5 EC     30.67 					13.05	       0.05 							20.01	
CypermethrinCypex 50 EC     30.67        6.25        0.05          9.58 
CypermethrinLakas 5 EC     30.67        5.54        0.05        28.35 
CypermethrinMagik 5% EC     30.67        4.00        0.05 									7.41	
CypermethrinServwell TKO 50      30.67        5.60        0.05          8.59 
SC
CypermethrinCypermethrin      30.67      36.00        0.05        55.20 
5 EC
CypermethrinCymbush 5 EC     30.67        2.64        0.50        40.48 
DimethoatePerfekthion 40 EC     73.97        4.00        0.40 					118.35	
FenvalerateLegend 2.5 EC     49.58        4.00        0.03          4.96 
FipronilAscend 50 SC     90.92        9.60        0.05        93.33 
ImidaclopridAdmire 5 WP					34.91       5.40 	       0.05          7.75 
ImidaclopridConfidor	SL	100					34.91       0.40 								0.10										4.91	
Lambdacyhalothrin Karate 2.5 EC     43.53 				145.00	       0.03        40.69 
Lambdacyhalothrin Bida 2.5 EC     43.53        8.40        0.03 									9.14	
MalathionMalathion     23.83      25.20        0.57        94.69 
MalathionMalathion 57 EC     23.83 					10.00	       0.57 					199.48	
Malathion Planters      23.83 					12.00	       0.57      257.93 
Malathion 57 
EC
MethamidophosTamaron 600 SL     36.83 							1.92       0.60 						195.11	
MethomylLannate 40 SP     30.67 					14.77	       0.40 					125.42	
Fungicide
Copper HydroxideFunguran-Oh     40.08        6.00        0.77 					231.48	
MancozebDithane M-45 					15.77       0.60 	       0.80        47.09 
Neotec WP 














Document Number: 8170 
summary and conclusions
G.W. Norton and D.M. Hautea
Substantial economic benets are projected for research and development 
activities that have been undertaken for the purpose of commercializing 
bioengineered or GM products to solve major insect and disease problems in 
the Philippines and Indonesia. The economic impacts of transgenic papaya 
ringspot virus (PRSV) resistant  papaya, insect resistant (Bt) eggplant, and 
multiple virus resistant (MVR) tomato in the Philippines, and late blight 
resistant (LBR) potato, insect resistant (Bt) potato, and MVR tomato in 
Indonesia are summarized in Table 1, for the most likely scenario recognizing 
that the results in the chapters illustrate a wide range of estimated benets 
for each product depending on particular assumptions on elasticities, type 
of market, adoption rates, yield changes and so forth. Costs and benets are 
projected over 15 years and discounted at 5 percent to obtain a net present 
value for each bioengineered product and country.
 Under the base assumptions, the largest projected benets are for PRSV-
resistant papaya in the Philippines and late blight resistant potato in Indonesia 
(Table 1). The sum of discounted benets, under the most likely scenario 
for each crop ranged from USD18 million for MVR tomato in Indonesia to 
USD216 million for PRSV resistant papaya. All of the bioengineered products 
are projected to earn high returns that justify the investments in their research 
and commercialization.





summary and conclusions183
table 1. Projected impacts of bioengineered crops in the Philippines and 
Indonesia	over	15	years
net present value 
Book chapterProductcountry
(million usd)
3PRSV-R papayaPhilippines216
4Bt eggplantPhilippines  35
5MVR tomatoPhilippines  62
7LBR potatoIndonesia142
8Bt PotatoIndonesia  48
6MVR tomatoIndonesia		18
 A look at some of the key assumptions in Table 2 for each product reveals 
why certain products ranked higher than others. The primary reasons for 
papaya ranking high are high yield change, adoption rate, and probability of 
success. LBR potato also ranked high because of its large production. The small 
projected yield change from adopting Bt potato and the low price for tomatoes 
in Indonesia appear to have reduced the benets for these commodities. While 
they resulted in ranges of estimates, the sensitivity analyses conrm that these 
bioengineered products are protable social investments and that PRSV-
resistant papaya, the product that is expected to come to the market in the 
very near future, has the highest benet. 
table 2. Key parameters for the most likely scenario
PhilippinesIndonesia
PrsV-r Bt egg-MVr lBr Bt  MVr 
papayaplanttomatopotatopotatotomato
Supply elasticity0.80.50.751.01.01.0
Yield increase 74406732556
(%)
Cost change 8(16)(10)(13)(25)(8)
(%)
Probability of 837374505050
success (%)
Maximum 805070404040
adoption rate 
(%)
Discount rate 555555
(%)
Quantity (000 t)1591831531,0601,048339
Product price 363200215225394120
(USD/ton)





184G.W. Norton and D.M. Hautea
 The two chapters on papaya in this book illustrate that benets for that 
crop are also sensitive to the assumption made about the extent of international 
trade for Philippine papaya as well as to the discount rate applied. A 5 percent 
discount rate is more realistic than a 10 percent rate and hence 5 percent was 
used in the base analysis throughout. However, Chapter 3 shows that PRSV-
resistant papaya might struggle in international markets, in which case the 
benets are reduced signicantly from USD216 million to USD76 million 
(Chapter 9) (assuming the 1USD = PhP54 exchange rate at the time of data 
collection).
 The results in Chapters 9 and 10 highlight the importance of moving 
products to the commercialization stage as rapidly as possible. The benets 
foregone due to a delay of just a year or two far outweigh the direct research 
and regulatory costs. The same results are likely to hold in Indonesia even 
though the regulatory cost analysis was not completed in this study.














Document Number: 4175
PROS and CONS of Transgenic Crops: Environmental Considerations
PROS:	
IMPROVEMENTS IN LAND USE

    One of the key arguments in favor of certain transgenic crop varieties is their potential to improve crop quality and yield normally lost to pests. Some transgenic plant varieties -- such as those with resistance to the herbicide Roundup and those producing the protein Bt -- have great potential to reduce the amount of land needed for farming and to also reduce the use of chemical pesticides while reducing the incidence of pesticide resistance. However, these benefits are dependent upon the ultimate adoption of these crops by farmers and the larger problem of keeping pace with the ever-growing world population while overcoming skeptics' doubts about the safety of these plants for use as food.
 
CONS:	
GENE ESCAPE

    Much of the controversy over transgenic crops or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is grounded in the potential for (and/or perceived) adverse impacts on the natural environment. One of the most contentious issues is the fear that a transgenic crop will become a potential conduit for transmission of genes to non-GMO plants of the same or a closely related species.

Why does this matter? First, such genes could have unpredictable effects when inserted into other species without rigorous scientific control. When a transgenic crop is approved for a certain purpose, testing has been undertaken to understand what effect the introduction of a gene(s) will have on the phenotype and fitness of that particular organism. Once that gene transfers into a separate species in the natural environment, the gene might produce a unique phenotype that was not present in the original GMO crop. Because introduced genes often confer advantageous traits, environmentalists worry that their transfer into native species could produce super weeds that would be invasive and hard to control - with long-term effects on local biodiversity.

    Second, if gene transfer occurs from the transgenic to a non-GMO crop line, it could adversely affect farmers who sell to customers and entities who wish to consume non-GMO crops.

    Effective measures to block transmission of transgenic genes are needed to solve both of these problems. One common and simple method employed is an actual physical separation, either by distance or enclosure. Enclosures can be expensive and are of limited utility for plants grown on large acreages such as corn, wheat, or soybeans and for trees and other large plants. A distance-based approach requires detailed knowledge about the range of pollen flow, whether carried by animals or the wind, to insure that transgenic plants are a sufficient distance from other plants -- and farmers would need to cooperate with their neighbors to plan the distribution of transgenic materials to minimize contamination.

    A second method, one that is utilized specifically for corn, is to simply remove the male inflorescence (tassel) before pollen shed occurs, called "de-tasseling". This method is commonly used in the production of hybrid corn, although it requires both expensive machinery to carry workers through the field and manual labor to pull each tassel from the plants; and this method is not foolproof because tassels that emerge very early or very late may send pollen into the environment. Ironically, perhaps one of the most promising techniques to curtail the transmission of transgenes into other species or non-GMO crop lines relies on a transgenic approach. This would involve engineering male sterility into the transgenic plants to prevent the production and transmission of pollen. Assuming that the genetically modified male sterility is absolute, the transgenes should be able to be effectively "quarantined". This method has some drawbacks, too: there is the fear that farmers, especially in the developing world, will become dependent on large seed companies who develop and market the seed. A combination of techniques may emerge as the most fail-safe option. 


ECOSYSTEM DISRUPTION

    Even without gene transfer into wild species, transgenic plants might disrupt an ecosystem. For instance, an introduced gene could confer pest or herbicide resistance in the field in order to improve overall crop yield.     Ecosystems involve complex, integrated connections among organisms in the environment. The introduction of a new variable could be significant enough to affect non-target organisms living in the same environment as the transgenic crop. Often these consequences are not studied or elucidated until after the crop has already been introduced into an ecosystem. See the example of Bt corn and monarch butterflies for conflicting arguments surrounding this overall issue.
    
    








Document Number: 2593
    
PROS and CONS of Transgenic Crops: Economic Considerations
PROS:	
IMPROVED CROP PRODUCTIVITY in POOR AREAS

    The ability to boost agricultural production for poor populations and/or in poor soil or difficult growing climates is one of the stated goals of many plant researchers engaged in this work. A 2003 book edited by Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global Perspective suggests that some progress toward increased productivity has been made. The book, which compiled a variety of research papers, found that insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant technologies are reducing the risk of crop losses.

    In addition, progress is being made toward developing transgenic varieties that are drought-tolerant (especially important for parts of Africa); UV-tolerant (able to withstand the sun's ultraviolet radiation at high elevations in the Andes or Himalayas); or virus-tolerant. 


POTENTIAL to PRODUCE MEDICINES INEXPENSIVELY

    Transgenic plants have the potential to produce pharmaceuticals at modest expense. Currently, transgenic bacteria produce most of the insulin to meet the needs of diabetics in the United States. In a similar vein, plants could be used to grow vaccine ingredients. For more information on biopharma, visit this link. 
 
CONS:	
POOR FARMERS MIGHT BECOME DEPENDENT on INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS for SEED

    Some transgenic crops are designed with terminator technology. This means that the seeds produced by the plant, though edible, are infertile: they cannot be used to grow the crop in the subsequent year. This feature provides two benefits: It reduces the likelihood that the plant will run wild in the environment; and it ensures a steady stream of income to the company that designed and sells the seeds.

    But terminator technology also has two potential downsides - environmental and economic. First, pollen from the plants could invade neighboring fields and render those plants' seeds infertile as well. However, this problem can be addressed scientifically by designing a plant that has both infertile seeds and infertile pollen. Second, third world farmers could become dependent on buying seed every year rather than saving seed from one year's crop to plant the following year.

    
    








Document Number: 5271


PROS and CONS of Transgenic Crops: Scientific Challenges
PROS:	
THE MORE WE LEARN,THE MORE WE CAN DO

    With the sequencing and annotation of plant genomes, researchers will gain ever greater ability to carefully tailor plants to produce specific proteins and be more productive while producing safe, healthy foods with minimal environmental impact.
 
CONS:	
CLAIMS ARE OVERBLOWN

    One of the constant refrains by opponents of transgenic plants is that claims are overblown. Researchers and biotech companies talk about the potential of genetically modified plants to deliver more nutritious food, more productive crops, and inexpensive medicines, but they have been slow to deliver. At the same time, consumer resistance has slowed funding for the research.

    In addition to the challenge of delivering on bold promises, scientists face technical challenges that may be more difficult to overcome than they like to admit. Dealing with pest-resistance to crops containing pesticide genes; handling the problem of gene flow; designing terminator technology that protects the environment but doesn't harm the farmer economically-these are all problems that will challenge scientists for years to come. 
 









Document Number: 7674
PROS and CONS of Transgenic Crops: Food Safety
PROS:	
POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS in NUTRITIVE VALUE of PLANTS

    For many years, researchers have been developing rice modified to contain increased levels of Vitamin A (so-called golden rice). The hope is that such rice could reduce blindness among children in developing countries. But researchers need to prove that the rice significantly increases the plant's vitamin production and also show that it is then absorbed by the body.

    Several companies (Monsanto and DuPont) are working on producing healthier soybean oils - ones that contain more omega-3 fatty acids or do not require hydrogenation. And Dupont is working to produce better tasting soy. 


POTENTIAL to REDUCE ALLERGENICITY of PLANT PRODUCTS

    Some efforts have been made to produce soybeans and peanuts that are less likely to cause allergic reactions. However, a less allergenic soybean product developed in 2002 met with resistance from baby food companies that are avoiding biotech crops altogether because of a perception that they are unacceptable to consumers.
 
CONS:	
POTENTIAL RISK of INTRODUCING ALLERGENS INTO FOOD CROPS

    Plant genetics researchers must take care not to introduce genes for proteins that tend to generate allergic reactions. But the risk of accidentally inserting allergenic products into transgenic plants is actually quite low, as the allergenicity of particular proteins is generally known. 


POTENTIAL RISK of PHARMACEUTICAL CROPS RAISED in FOOD SPECIES

    For a thorough discussion of risks of bio-pharming, visit this link. 









Document Number: 4707
Breeding
What is plant breeding?
Plant breeding has been practiced by farmers for thousands of years and has become increasingly science-based in the past 100 years. Plant breeding is the act of bringing together two specific parent plants to produce a new “offspring” plant. This “cross,” as plant breeders call it, creates a new plant that will contain a mixture of the characteristics of its parents – much like children have a combination of both their parents’ characteristics.

For example, when breeding for improved crop production, the parents are selected because they possess characteristics desirable to farmers, such as grain size, stalk strength, or better tolerance to heat and drought. The offspring are tested under various conditions to determine which has the superior combination of desired attributes. Further improvements are made by mating and continuing selection of superior offspring through several generations.

Today, breeders use a mixture of classic techniques and modern computer- and technology-assisted processes to help select and breed the plants faster and with greater accuracy than ever before. The end result is better seeds and plants that allow farmers to get more production from their fields.

Why is plant breeding important to the agriculture industry?
Plant breeding allows researchers to identify plants with the most favorable combination of desired characteristics to serve as a foundation for biotech traits. Just as a contractor does not build a house without a solid foundation, scientists do not create biotech products without a healthy, genetically superior plant developed through breeding.

Historically, plant breeding has been one of the most important sources of global crop production improvement. And since their introduction in 1996, biotechnology traits have added more to the yield increases breeding has contributed over the years – and will continue to do in the future.

Increasing global population and incomes will double demand for agricultural production by 2050. This reality makes it imperative to unite the unique functions of plant breeding and biotechnology to produce more with less.

Monsanto’s Competitive Advantage
Monsanto has assembled a pool of elite seed genetics, known as germplasm, from geographies around the world. The company applies its cutting-edge marker-assisted breeding to this geographically diverse germplasm base. Marker-assisted breeding allows scientists to track and select the most effective combination of genes, resulting in the highest quality products. Supported by a world-class information technology system that processes tens of millions of data points, the combination of marker-assisted breeding and global germplasm allows Monsanto to put the best seeds in farmers’ hands sooner.










Document Number: 4081
Benefits of Biotechnology
After 13 years of use on more than 2 billion acres (800 million hectares) worldwide, plant biotechnology delivers proven economic and environmental benefits, a solid record of safe use and promising products for our future.



We think of our products benefits in three broad categories of benefits to farmers, processors and consumers.

Farmer benefits increase productivity or reduce cost by:

increasing yield
improving protection from insects and disease
increasing their crops’ tolerance to heat, drought, and other environmental stress
Processor benefits improve the quality and content of animal feed, food and energy sources.

Consumer benefits are advantages such as

Increased protein
Healthier oils (Learn about Vistive Gold soybean oil)
Environmental benefits help reduce agriculture’s impact on the land

Conserve soil and energy
Reduce greenhouse gases
Minimize use of toxic herbicides
Conserve soil fertility and natural resources.
In addition, our biotechnology products have provided specific benefits to farmers, the environment and society at a large. Since they were first planted in 1996, one result of agricultural biotechnology is the increased adoption of conservation tillage by farmers. Conservation tillage methods leave crop mulch covering the ground between growing seasons, providing a protective cover that holds soil in place, minimizes runoff and dramatically decreases erosion.

Numerous independent organizations have documented the benefits of biotechnology.










Document Number: 6492
Biotechnology: The Regulatory Process
Biotech crops undergo more testing and oversight before commercialization than any other agricultural products, including conventional crops. Before we submit a biotech crop to regulatory agencies for approval, our research teams have put it through numerous tests to ensure and prove it’s as safe as its conventional equivalent. Here’s how the process works:

Characterizing a New Biotech Product

At this stage in the regulatory process, Monsanto must prove the gene inserted is safe and the protein produced by the inserted DNA is also safe.

This includes:

Verifying we’ve inserted only one copy of the gene, the copy is intact and we have not inserted any other portions of DNA.
And

Demonstrating the protein produced by the new DNA is safe for human and animal consumption. Check out how we test the safety of the protein.
Once this testing is complete and data has been generated, our Product Safety Center takes over for further testing—this time to conduct safety assessments to determine food and feed safety.

In some cases RNA interference is used to express a trait. RNAi is a mechanism used naturally by cells to regulate gene expression. It is recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as “Generally Regarded as Safe” (GRAS) and as such, consumption is not regulated. Learn more about RNAi

Compositional Analysis

This stage includes a comparative safety assessment. With the comparative safety assessment, Monsanto seeks to establish substantial equivalence, meaning we’re testing to see if a biotech product (a soybean, for example) is compositionally and nutritionally the same as the conventional soybean (one without any biotech traits).

Animal Performance Assessments

Even if Monsanto knows the new biotech products are compositionally the same as their conventional counterparts, we generate additional assurances that food and feed from these products are as safe as food and feed from existing conventional products--through animal performance assessments.

Environmental Safety

A part of the regulatory process includes environmental safety testing. This involves a study of the plant’s impact on the environment including growth, development, interactions with insects, diseases and other stresses.









Document Number: 252
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

Two main concerns about the effects of genetically-modified food plants on the environment are that the new plants will become pernicious weeds or that they will transfer their new genes to wild relatives or similar crops growing nearby with unforeseen effects. A great deal of research has been carried out by ecologists to determine whether or not these worries are likely to be substantiated. This is one of the major reasons for carrying out field trails of GM crops.

Evidence from thousands of field trials suggests that the new plants will behave just like the varieties currently in cultivation. There is also evidence to suggest that the transfer genetic material from transgenic crops to their wild relatives or unmodified plants occurs, although the frequency of such transfer and its significance is still debated.

The ecologists involved in such work have emphasised the need for caution and the importance of case-by-case analysis (in other words, it is difficult to generalise about the impact of GM crops).

A further concern is whether plants with introduced genes that enable them to resist insect attack will quickly lead to the establishment of resistant populations of pests. Because of the intense selection pressure (favouring naturally-resistant individuals) that crops carrying for example, Bt genes will exert, refugia of susceptible plants are usually grown alongside transgenic crops. Indeed, this has been a legal or voluntary requirement in the USA and Australia where transgenic, insect-resistant cotton has been grown. To date, there have been no confirmed cases of resistant populations developing, but it is generally accepted that without measures such as the limited use of a range of pesticides and the use of refugia, resistant pest populations will certainly develop. With this in mind, in January 1999, four major producers of Bt maize plants (Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Novartis, and Mycogen-Dow AgroScience) proposed that 20% of farmland should be set aside for non-transgenic crops when Bt maize is grown.

There are also concerns, expressed by English Nature, the RSPB and others, about the wider impact of GM crops on farmland wildlife.

 









Document Number: 1043
FOOD SAFETY: MARKER GENES

The current generation of genetically-modified organisms sometimes contains 'marker' genes. These are short, easily-detected sequences of DNA put there so that the researchers can tell which organisms have taken up the introduced genes. Among the questions that regulatory authorities have asked are whether the marker genes permit their recipient to make a new protein and if so, what levels of that protein (if any) would be expected in the food. Could that protein have any unwanted effects? Finally, is it at all likely that the marker gene could be transferred to other organisms such as microbes in the intestine of the consumer?

The Food Safety Unit of the World Health Organisation and a working party of the OECD has looked specifically at the safety issues associated with marker genes in plants that are to be consumed as foods. The need for marker genes was accepted and the impracticality of removing these genes (at present) was recognised.

The marker genes in plant varieties approaching commercialisation are restricted to two markers that break down specific antibiotics and a few herbicide tolerance markers. The presence of marker genes per se (the DNA itself) in food was not thought to constitute a safety concern. There is DNA in abundance in almost all the food we eat, but no recorded evidence for the transfer of genes from plants to microorganisms in the gut or to any other living things (including humans).

However, the recent introduction and approval of maize with a bacterial marker conveying resistance to the antibiotic ampicillin has raised new fears, particularly in the European Union. Recent scientific advice has suggested that as a precaution, the use of antibiotic resistance markers in commercial crops (rather than in contained research) should be phased out, and this is indeed happening.

Both the possibility of DNA transfer and the production of proteins from marker genes, and their possible effects, are considered on a case-by-case basis by the regulatory authorities in the USA and Europe.

 









Document Number: 2251
CHANGES IN FARMING STRUCTURE

Biotechnology has the potential to affect world agriculture dramatically. Although great benefits may come, it has been suggested that there might also be accompanying disadvantages. Several of these disadvantages are no different to existing trends in world agriculture, such as the shift towards larger farms and more capital-intensive farming systems. This tends to favour, for example, wealthy farmers in the Northern hemisphere who can invest in new technologies rather than those in the impoverished South. In the developed world, there are concerns about over-production of food, although these worries are unlikely to be shared by those countries where the growth in population far outstrips the capacity of farmers to provide sufficient food. Biotechnology, alongside other changes and technologies offers a realistic prospect of long-term sustainable agriculture to farmers in the Third World. At least, this is the finding of several recent independent investigations into the topic (see 'Publications').

 









Document Number: 9546
BIODIVERSITY

Plant breeding methods have produced plants with greatly improved characteristics compared with the old cultivars. Biotechnology might encourage the production of a far wider variety of new crops, increasing biodiversity. Modern agriculture has been so successful in increasing the yield of food that farmers in the USA and Europe are paid to take land out of cultivation or to grow new crops, again increasing diversity. Because it has the potential to reduce waste, biotechnology may accelerate this trend.

The opposing argument is that plant breeding will increasingly fall into the hands of just a few companies, and that the plant varieties they offer to the farmer will be correspondingly reduced. This could make crops more susceptible to attack by pests and diseases, and lead to a reduction in the use of important old cultivars and their wild relatives.

However, biotechnologists depend upon the genetic resources of the World for their raw materials, and thus have a vested interest in maintaining biodiversity. The techniques of plant tissue culture are already used to help maintain rare and endangered plant species. Some argue in favour of patents on living organisms as they might allow Third World countries to obtain payment for the use of their genetic resources. Provisions for such payments in the 'Biodiversity Treaty' of the Brazil Earth Summit are widely thought to be one reason that the USA refused to sign this treaty at first.

 









Document Number: 3950
ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

Classical animal breeding has done much to improve the productivity and well-being of farmed livestock. Changes in characteristics such as maturity, fecundity and the distribution of muscle tissue are noticeable in many modern breeds compared with their wild ancestors and old domestic breeds.

The majority of features in livestock are controlled by many genes, each with a small effect. Just which genes should be altered to improve animal productivity or health is therefore difficult to predict and the modification of animals by genetic engineering is still in its infancy. This area requires very careful consideration. Developments in livestock production that compromise animal welfare are increasingly unlikely to be accepted by regulatory authorities or the public. There are currently no products of animal biotechnology in food shops, nor do we know of any proposals to introduce them anywhere in the world. Several retailers in the UK already have specific policies regarding biotechnology and animal welfare.

In the immediate future, most benefit is likely to come from the development of new diagnostic agents, vaccines and therapeutic agents for veterinary medicine.

Agriculture in Europe and North America already produces sufficient food for the indigenous population. Looking to the future, the real benefits from improved animal production might be seen in the Third World. For example, it may one day be possible to introduce disease resistance into otherwise vulnerable animals. There are well-advanced animal genome projects which parallel the successful mapping of the entire human genome. The Bovine Genome Project could result in, for instance, resistance to trypanosomiasis being introduced into more productive breeds of cattle from their naturally-resistant African counterparts.

 









Document Number: 4612
CONSUMER CHOICE

If the numerous surveys that have been undertaken in Western Europe are to be believed (and there is no reason to think that they are inaccurate), the vast majority of the population here does not wish to consume GM food.

The first GM product in Europe (the Zeneca tomato pure) presented no problem in this respect, as the cans were both clearly-labelled and always offered alongside a similar non-GM product. The problem arose when GM food ingredients that are traded as bulk commodities entered the market. First GM soya, then maize started to be grown in the USA and traded internationally. This presented UK retailers, who had planned carefully for the introduction of the tomato pure, with an unforeseen problem.

Initially, the amount of GM maize and soya grown was very small, forming just a fraction of the total US harvest. It was impossible, with GM and non-GM material being mixed after harvesting, to devise a statistical sampling regime that would reliably permit the detection of the GM material in bulk shipments. UK retailers therefore assumed that GM material would be present in any maize or soya obtained from the USA, and labelled their products accordingly. The major retailers prepared leaflets, that were available to shoppers, explaining this decision and the reasons for it. This unavoidable decision fed right into the hands of anti-GM campaigners, who claimed that up to 65% of processed food sold in the UK was made with GM ingredients -- and the food packets in the shops seemed to bear this out. Consumers were being denied a choice. Newspaper articles and even entire books were devoted to lists of GM-containing and GM-free products, although they were often rather misleading.

As the proportion of GM soya and maize on the world market increased, food producers and retailers tried to obtain certified non-GM material. In August 1999, the UK firm Marks and Spencer estimated that the cost of obtaining crops that were segregated at source added 10-15% to the cost of the food sold in their shops.

Within a few months, however, all of the major UK food producers and retailers had obtained GM-free material, aided by lists of suppliers prepared by the (then) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The GM-free material was routinely tested using the sensitive PCR method which is, in theory, able to detect as little as one molecule of DNA. The very sensitivity of technique caught out some producers who had unwittingly incorporated GM material into their products, but in fact the levels detected were usually below those (1%) which would at that time have triggered the necessity under UK law to label the products. [The level of 'contamination' permitted in the EU has since been lowered to 0.5%. This figure compares with 5%, which is the permitted level of 'contamination' of organic produce with conventionally-grown crops. And of course, unlike GM material, there is no way of detecting such non-organic 'contamination'.]

Today the situation is rather different. Almost all food in the shops is non-GM and it could be argued that it is those who would wish to buy GM food who are being denied a choice. It seems very likely that producers and retailers will continue to obtain certified non-GM material to meet consumer demand. The 2003 EU labelling regulations are now even stricter than before, and consumers will definitely have a choice about whether or not they eat products of modified crops.

The new problem is whether, if GM crops are to be grown commercially in the UK, organic farm produce will be compromised. Pollen from GM crops, spread on the wind and by insects, could find its way in organic fields and beehives. At least in the UK, there probably aren't any genuinely organic beehives.  Bees range over too wide an area to be able to guarantee they have foraged only on organic sources.  There is debate about this, and one large-scale Scottish beekeeper believes his product to be organic due to the isolated nature of his operation (he supplies the 'Duchy Originals' range). But for the rest of the country, the predominant use of non-organic crop husbandry precludes the description 'organic' being applied to honey and bee products.

The distances required to prevent pollen transfer between crops are the subject of controversy and disagreement, although such measures have been commonplace in conventional seed production for many decades. Transfer is likely to occur, but given stringent separation distances some claim that it should be possible to limit the range and degree of any spread.

It remains unclear whether those who oppose the commercial production of GM crops because of potential 'contamination' do so though a fundamental opposition to GM technology, or for well-founded concerns for the status of organic farming.







Document Number: 5577

According to a recent survey by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 54 percent of soybean acreage, 25 percent of corn acreage and 61 percent of cotton acreage in the United States are planted with seeds produced through biotechnology. More than 1,800 scientific evaluations in the United States – including tests for allergenicity and environmental safety – arrived at the same conclusion: commercially available soybeans produced through agricultural biotechnology are safe for consumers and the environment.

The Basics (Traditional Crossbreeding vs. Biotechnology)

There’s been some confusion over what biotechnology is and whether or not there is cause for concern. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding spread by some very vocal, but severely misinformed people. Following is an explanation of why biotechnology is safe and how it provides promise for our future.

Agricultural biotechnology is a science that has evolved over hundreds of years. Through experimental crossbreeding of garden peas, Gregor Mendel’s work in the 1860s helped explain the basic laws of genetics, demonstrating that there is recombination of parental traits in offspring. Mendel’s work with peas also led to an explanation of dominant and recessive hereditary traits. Today, agricultural biotechnology is a continuation of the work that Mendel and others began.

Through methods similar to Mendel’s experimental crossbreeding, farmers and plant breeders have labored for centuries to improve crops. Traditional crossbreeding methods include selecting and sowing seeds from plants with desirable traits, such as higher quality nutrition, disease resistance and higher yield. By breeding plants through traditional crossbreeding, plant breeders are subject to a slow and inexact process, and more often than not, multiple variations of the desired end product are produced.

Agricultural biotechnology works toward the same goals as traditional crossbreeding and achieves them with greater precision and predictability. The tools of biotechnology allow plant breeders to carefully select and introduce beneficial traits to the crops grown for food. The results are environmentally friendlier agriculture and a more nutritious, healthful and abundant food supply.

Benefits

Protecting Water Quality
Reducing nutrients in farm runoff, increasing crops' fertilizer efficiency and conserving topsoil are ways that biotechnology helps protect water quality. Herbicide tolerant crops promote conservation tillage, preserving topsoil and even reducing greenhouse gas effects by keeping carbon sequestered in soil. And reduced insect damage in Bt crops means healthier plants use fertilizer more efficiently, reducing harmful residues left in the soil.

Reducing Chemical Pesticides
Biotechnology is used to strengthen a crop's own ability to defend itself against destructive insects, reducing the need for chemical pesticides.

Developing Environmentally-Friendly Weed Control
Crops that are genetically modified to withstand applications of herbicides allow farmers to integrate best management practices, such as the use of environmentally gentler herbicides and conservation tillage.

Producing Healthier Foods
Advancements in agricultural biotechnology are leading to healthier, more nutritious foods. For example, a healthier soybean oil is currently being developed with reduced saturated fat content.

Feeding a Hungry World
In 25 years, the world’s food production must increase by more than 75 percent to keep up with the Earth’s population. Agricultural biotechnology is the safest and most efficient way to meet that demand.

Promising Hope in Developing Countries
Scientists have developed a type of rice that could eliminate vitamin A deficiency in the developing world, a problem that is a common cause of blindness and other health troubles in millions of children. Produced through biotechnology, scientists say the improved nutritional composition of “golden rice” could prevent 1 - 2 million deaths per year.

Delivering Edible Vaccines
Scientists around the world are using biotechnology to develop edible vaccines through such food products as bananas, tomatoes and potatoes. Although vaccines exist for such devastating diseases as Norwalk virus, cholera, rotavirus and hepatitis B, delivery is often difficult in underdeveloped countries due to the lack of funding, trained personnel and refrigeration. Plants enhanced with edible vaccines will provide low-cost tablets, powders or purees that can be easily stored and administered.

Regulation

Agricultural biotechnology is regulated by three federal agencies: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Food and Drug Administration
FDA policy is based on existing food law, and requires that biotech foods meet the same rigorous safety standards as is required for all other foods.

Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA analyzes technical issues presented by advances in biotechnology and synthesizes these technical issues with laws necessary to develop regulatory programs for products produced through biotechnology.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Within the USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the government's lead agency regulating the testing of biotechnology-derived, new plant varieties. A company, academic or research institution, non-profit organization or public sector scientist wishing to field test or move a biotechnology-derived plant must generally obtain APHIS approval before proceeding. Also under USDA supervision, the following agencies contribute to the regulating and monitoring of agricultural biotechnology: Food Safety Inspection Service, Foreign Agriculture Service, Agriculture Research Service, Economic Research Service, Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service, Agriculture Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

Other Industry Endorsements
Health and food professional organizations such as the American Dietetic Association and the Institute of Food Technologists endorse the use of biotechnology to enhance food production.

Safety

Soybeans and the Brazil Nut Protein
In April 1993, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. discontinued its research program aimed at enhancing the nutritional content of soybeans through introduction of a Brazil nut gene. Preliminary results of a study, funded by Pioneer, at the University of Nebraska suggested that the Brazil nut gene transferred a potential for allergenicity to the soybeans. Following the findings, Pioneer discontinued all field-testing and destroyed all plant material and seeds not held for laboratory study.

Note: No soybeans with the Brazil nut protein are currently, or have ever been, in animal or human food streams.

Pioneer’s discontinuation of the Brazil nut research program is a prime example of how the current regulatory process ensures the safety of biotech foods before they are introduced to the market.

Misconceptions About “Superweeds”
The safety reviews conducted by FDA, EPA and USDA include a careful evaluation of possibility for outcrossing, or the passing of a trait from one species to another. Outcrossing is not a concern for herbicide-tolerant soybeans grown on U.S. farms. Soybeans have no wild relatives in the United States so pollen carried from soybean plants will find no receptive weedy species to pollinate. In addition, soybean plants are almost entirely self-pollinating, which means they do not generally trade pollen with other plants. Because of these factors, regulatory agencies have agreed that herbicide-tolerant soybeans are safe for the environment.

In addition to monitoring herbicide-tolerant soybeans, regulatory agencies have established guidelines to evaluate weed responses to other biotech crops on the market.

The Monarch Butterfly
A study presented in the science journal, Nature (May 1999), found that pollen from corn produced though biotechnology may harm monarch larvae. A research team at Cornell University fed monarch larvae milkweed dusted with the pollen grains of Bt corn, which contains a bacterium gene that makes the crop resistant to corn borers. The Cornell research was limited to laboratory testing and provides no evidence on what effect the Bt pollen has on monarch populations in the wild. The conditions represented in this study do not represent what one would actually find in the field as it relates to monarch mortality. Larvae mortality was not correlated with the plant location within or at the edge of the field. Research shows that the number of pollen grains found on milkweed plants drops rapidly beyond the edge of the field.

Approximately one year later, researchers at Iowa State University announced they, too, found evidence that pollen from Bt corn could be deadly for monarch larvae. The Iowa study published in the journal, Oecologia, claims to present the “first evidence that Bt corn pollen naturally deposited on common milkweed in a corn field causes significant mortality…” It is important to note that this study, much like the Cornell study, was not done “in the field;” rather, researchers measured field conditions and attempted to duplicate those conditions in a laboratory setting. To date, no measurements of monarch larvae mortality were taken, or have been taken, in a natural setting.

Last year, more than 28 million acres were planted with Bt corn, which was about a 40 percent increase from the previous year. In the same time period, the monarch butterfly population flourished, increasing by about 30 percent over previous years.

Labeling

FDA guidelines on food labeling currently state that if a food presents a safety issue — if it contains a serious allergen, for example — it must be labeled in order to protect consumers. Currently, the FDA maintains that when a technique is used to modify a plant in a way that does not significantly change its composition or safety, special labeling is not necessary. 











Document Number: 2576

A Comparative Analysis

As the first link in the food delivery chain, U.S. farmers are dedicated to cultivating crops in the most efficient way possible without compromising the environment. In support of that effort, the United Soybean Board commissioned the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) to conduct an extensive literature review. CAST published this report in their Special Publication 30 by a task force led by Dr. Larry G. Heatherly in April 2009.

The full report is available in 11 languages. You may download high- and low-resolution formats. Please select from the following.
High Res: 	
Low Res: 	

The review was conducted by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). It concludes that currently commercialized biotechnology-derived soybean, corn and cotton crops yield environmental benefits, including:
93 percent decrease in soil erosion
Preservation of one billion tons of top soil
70 percent reduction in herbicide run-off
326 million pound reduction in CO2 emissions












Document Number: 6638
The United Nations has called for a 50 percent increase in food production by 2030.


Can high-yield soybean crops help meet this call to feed a hungry and growing world, while remaining environmentally and economically sustainable? 

To assess the sustainability of U.S. soybean production, the United Soybean Board requested the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology conduct an extensive literature review. This brochure summarizes the key findings. 


Introduction - Sustainable Soybean Production


Farmers live off the land, and so they take their environmental stewardship very seriously. Sustainable soybean agriculture allows U.S. soybean farmers to meet the needs of the present, while improving the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, by:
Adopting technology and best practices that increase productivity to meet future needs while being stewards of the environment,
Improving human health through access to safe, nutritious food, and
Enhancing the social and economic well being of agriculture and its communities.
Feeding the World 
An estimated 800 million people around the world suffer from chronic food shortages, and millions more could go hungry due to current and future food crises. To meet this need, the United Nations has called for a 50 percent increase in food production by 2030. 

High-yield soybean crops can help feed a hungry and growing world with high-quality protein. But, can this crop production feed the ever-growing world population while remaining sustainable? 

A Comprehensive Review 
To assess the sustainability of U.S. soybean production, particularly on environmental and economic scores, the United Soybean Board commissioned the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) to conduct an extensive literature review. CAST published this report in their Special Publication 30 by a task force led by Dr. Larry G. Heatherly in April 2009. 

This brochure summarizes key findings of CAST Special Publication 30, referred to throughout this brochure as the CAST report. It also includes information on the environmental benefits and global adoption of biotechnology provided by the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISSSA). 

Key Sustainability Findings
The CAST report determined that over 92 percent of U.S. soybean acres are planted with soybean varieties developed through agricultural biotechnology. These currently commercialized biotechnology-derived soybean crops yield environmental benefits, primarily by supporting conservation tillage on more fields than previously implemented. 

The benefits include:
93 percent decrease in soil erosion
Preservation of one billion tons of top soil
70 percent reduction in herbicide run-off
326 million lbs reduction in CO2 emissions
The overriding conclusion of the CAST report is that all three of the major soybean production systems (conventional, biotech and organic) are environmentally sustainable and can be managed for profit, assuming that appropriate market rewards exist for each system. 

However, most soybean production in the U.S. today relies on biotech soybean varieties that are resistant to one or more herbicides for sustainable weed management. Thus, this brochure has a pragmatic focus on the sustainability of biotech soybeans. 











Document Number: 244
Feeding the World


The UN Calls for Increased Food Production
United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has urged nations to seize an “historic opportunity to revitalize agriculture” as a way of tackling the food crisis. Mr. Ban told a UN-sponsored summit in June 2008 in Rome that food production would have to rise by 50 percent by the year 2030 to meet demand. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has warned industrialized countries that, unless they increase yields, eliminate trade barriers and move food to where it is needed most, a global catastrophe could result. 

Food prices experienced in 2008 are believed to have pushed 100 million people into hunger worldwide. And, the world population continues to increase further straining food supplies. Currently at 6.7 billion people, the world population increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion by 1999, and is projected to grow to 9 billion by 2040.	

World Population 1950-2040
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base (IDB), 2008




Using biotechnology-derived soybean varieties results in improved weed control and better weed management efficiency. Plants that resist pests and diseases, tolerate harsh growing conditions and reduce spoilage prevent farmers from losing billions of pounds of important food crops annually.

Echoing this point, ISSSA calculates the major reasons farmers have adopted the biotech crops so widely are a 56 percent reduction in production costs and a 44 percent increase in yield, as well as simplicity and flexibility in crop management.











Document Number: 3919
Changes in U.S. Soybean Production


Soybean production in the U.S. has changed since the time of its initial introduction into the Corn Belt in the mid-1800s. Initially, the crop was produced mainly for forage and received only minimal inputs. Its husbandry evolved to become a grain crop that is a major source of both protein in animal diets and vegetable oil for human consumption. Soybean production generally occupies approximately 22 percent of the harvested cropland or over 72 million acres in 31 U.S. states. 

The majority of U.S. soybeans are grown in three distinct regions: the Midwest or Corn Belt; the Midsouth or lower Mississippi River Delta; and the Southeast and Atlantic coast. Producers in these three regions apply common components of sustainable production practices at differing levels due to soil and climate differences.

An Assessment of Present-Day Soybean Production


A recent report in Field Crops Research summarized the state of present-day soybean production in the U.S. using data from Iowa, Nebraska, Kentucky and Arkansas.
Harvested soybean acreage increased dramatically from 1972 to 2003.
Yields during the 32-year period increased in 79 percent of the analyzed areas.
Yield increases were concurrent with increased harvested acreage.
Permanent plateaus (i.e., no change in yield since 1972) were common in low-yield, high-stress environments.
The rate of yield increase was enhanced by irrigation in Nebraska and Arkansas.
Stagnant soybean yields and doublecropping were associated with each other.
High-yield systems had the greatest increases in yield.
Irrigation could greatly increase yields in drier areas.
The challenge for the future of soybean production in the U.S. is not only to keep yields increasing in productive environments, but also to develop and apply technology to increase yields in high-stress, low-yield environments. High-stress environments provide more challenge to sustaining U.S. soybean production. 
 










Document Number: 4931
Defining Sustainable Agriculture


The concept of sustainability in agriculture is not a new concept, and has been a consideration in agricultural systems for many decades. The key components of sustainability were summarized by the U.S. Congress in the 1990 Farm Bill, as an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term:
Satisfy human food and fiber needs
Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends
Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls
Sustain the economic viability of farm operations
Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.
Sustainable agriculture implies using production methods that result in the commensurate maintenance or enhancement of environmental quality and economic profitability. In other words, for a production system that is environmentally sound to be truly sustainable, it must be profitable for the producers who adopt and use the system over the long term. 











Document Number: 5559
Sustainability of Herbicide Resistant Soybeans


The Introduction of Glyphosate-Resistant Soybeans
Soybean varieties have been developed using conventional breeding techniques since about 1930, and these varieties have allowed progressive improvement in soybean production through improved yield, quality and resistance to pests. 

Biotech soybeans were first introduced in the mid-1990s when glyphosate-resistant (GR) varieties became available. In 2008, biotech varieties (exclusively herbicide tolerant) were grown on 92 percent of U.S. soybean acreage. 

GR Soybeans, Sustainable Weed Management and Water Quality

The development of GR soybeans has been considered the greatest step toward a sustainable weed management system. The use of glyphosate has displaced tillage operations and the use of non-glyphosate herbicides. 

In general, the fate of all herbicides in the environment is related to their retention, degradation (length of persistence) and transport in air, water and soil. The retention of herbicides in soil depends on adsorption. Adsorption refers to the binding of herbicide to soil particles. The sorbed portion of the herbicide is generally unavailable for leaching, degradation or plant uptake. Glyphosate is sorbed tightly and rapidly to soil and thus not readily available for leaching or runoff losses. 

As a result, herbicide run-off in a GR soybean production system is much lower than in a non-herbicide-tolerant, conventional soybean system. The herbicide used with biotech GR soybeans has no soil activity with a half-life of 47 days, while herbicides that are active in the soil can last for 90 days or longer. Soil adsorption of glyphosate eliminates the potential for water contamination. 

Between 1995 and 2006, the amount of non-glyphosate herbicide applied to soybeans decreased by 38.8 million pounds, or 83.5 percent, while the total number of soybean acres increased by 46 percent in the U.S. 

This trend is thought to be due to the broad spectrum of weed control provided by glyphosate, which can substitute for the use of mixes of two or more conventional herbicides. The decrease in herbicide application demonstrates how U.S. soybean farmers are using fewer active ingredients, which translates into ease of management and strong environmental stewardship. 

GR Soybeans and Low Insecticide Use

Insecticide use is low in most soybean producing regions of the U.S., with less than 16 percent of soybean acreage nationwide treated with insecticides. Research is underway on developing insect-resistant soybeans through biotechnology, with particular emphasis on beetle-resistance. 

Because some strains of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are known to kill beetles, and because new biotechnology using RNA interference also has been effective against Coleoptera, a biotech-derived insecticidal soybean variety will not be limited biologically to the control of moths. 

New Varieties Emerge from the Research Pipeline

Beginning in 2009, additional soybean varieties will carry a different Roundup resistant “gene” known as “Roundup Ready 2 Yield” (Monsanto Company) or that carry a “gene” for resistance to glufosinate, the active ingredient in commercial herbicide products known as Liberty or Ignite. The latter varieties are known as “Liberty Link” (Bayer Company, Germany). 

When used properly with other herbicides and resistance mechanisms, glyphosate and GR soybeans will continue to provide a large contribution toward the sustainability and environmental impact of soybean production in the U.S.


These new soybeans have gained approval in major international markets and will be commercially available for planting in 2009. In future years, additional varieties with resistance to dicamba and 2,4-D are scheduled for release as regulatory approvals are obtained, and will form the backbone of weed management strategies in U.S. non-organic soybean production, thus helping prolong the effectiveness of the current system that mostly depends on using glyphosate with GR varieties. 

Beyond herbicide resistance, forthcoming varieties will possess value-added traits to improve product functionality and health benefits. Examples include increased oleic and stearic soybean oils and reduced saturated fat soybean oils, which will offer food companies highly functional oils with zero grams of trans fat; reduced raffinose and stachyose, two antinutrients in livestock feed; and low phytate, for both improved human absorption of iron and zinc, and also improved animal feed that will reduce phosphorus pollution and improve water quality. These traits are expected on the market during 2010 to 2015. 

Most public soybean breeding programs will likely continue to emphasize conventional breeding rather than using biotech materials. But, the availability of seed will depend on the demand from domestic and international markets. It is unlikely that conventional varieties will reclaim significant soybean acreage in the U.S. in the foreseeable future due to weed control concerns and lack of variety availability. 











Document Number: 4480
The Rise of Conservation Tillage


U.S. soybean farmers have almost completely eliminated plowing on their fields. Although “no-till” was feasible on a limited number of farmland soil types and in a limited number of U.S. latitudes prior to the arrival of biotech crops, the biggest environmental impact of biotech crops has been the widespread adoption of no-till farming. In fact, no-till soybean acreage in the United States has increased by 35 percent since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant soybeans. 

Sustainability Benefits of Conservation Tillage


Today, conservation tillage is used on over 65 percent of U.S. soybean acres, and results in the following achievements:
93 percent decreased soil erosion
31 percent decreased wind erosion
70 percent decreased pesticide run-off
80 percent reduction in phosphorus contamination of surface waters
An annual soil moisture evaporation loss reduction of 5.9 inches
Greater than 50 percent reductions in fuel use 
 

Conservation tillage is thus both economically and environmentally sustainable for U.S. soybean production. 

U.S. soybean farmers have almost completely eliminated plowing on their fields.


Decreased Soil Erosion
A recent summary of global soil erosion supports the conclusion that the conservation tillage systems used to produce soybeans in the U.S. can provide a foundation for sustainable soybean production, specifically by reducing soil erosion rates from 3.94 millimeters/year under conventional tillage to approximately 0.12 millimeters/year using conservation tillage. Additionally, crop residues left in no-tillage farming allow better soybean root system development. 

Reduced CO2 Emissions and Global Warming
Surveyed farmers made 1.8 less trips across the field using no-till. A decrease in number of tillage operations and number of trips across the field translates to decreased fuel usage and decreased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the motorized farm equipment. More precisely, CO2 emissions will be decreased by 302 million pounds from farm operations using GR soybeans planted in a no-till system compared to other soybeans planted using conventional tillage. Consequently, global warming may be delayed with the adoption of GR soybeans in conjunction with no-till farming practices. The decreased CO2 emissions brought about by no-till farming in 2008 are equivalent to removing 125,750 cars from the roads each year. 

A review on global warming potential from greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture showed that global warming potential from conventional tillage practices is 8.14 times greater than no-tillage. This substantial reduction of global warming potential in no-tillage systems was attributed to increased carbon storage in no-till soils and reductions in fuel consumption for no-till. No-till systems accumulate 570 pounds more net carbon/acre annually than conventionally tilled systems. Conversely, a fivefold loss of CO2 from soil was recorded from one pass of a moldboard plow than in no-tilled plots. 

Looking ahead, approximately 21.6 million tons of topsoil would be preserved by planting herbicidetolerant biotech soybeans in no-till systems. Reduced tilling saves approximately 3.9 gallons of fuel per acre, which will translate to a decrease of 3.3 million tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere by 2020. 

The decreased CO2 emissions brought about by no-till farming in 2008 are equivalent to removing 125,750 cars from the roads each year.


Enhancing Biodiversity with No-Till Soybeans
Biodiversity is also maintained in no-till soybean fields. Soil microbes, beneficial insects and earthworms exhibit increased diversity in conservation tillage soybean fields relative to plowed fields. 

Earthworm numbers were 3.5 to 6.3 times greater following 17 years of no-till cropping compared to conventional tillage. Bobwhite quail chicks needed only 4.2 hours to obtain their daily dietary insect requirement in no-till soybean fields compared to 22 hours in conventionally tilled soybean fields. 











Document Number: 6555
Advancements in Soil and Water Management


Soil tests provide the best opportunity to accurately measure nutrient deficiencies and prevent overfertilization that may result in environmental contamination. Variable Rate Technology can be used to apply phosphorus on a site-specific basis as needed to increase profits and decrease nutrient loss. 

On a small scale, cover crops provide positive environmental benefits including decreased nutrient loss to leaching, reduced water and herbicide runoff and improved control of winter erosion when used in a soybean or soybean- corn production system. While cover crops are rarely economically viable, farmers continue to use them on about 10 percent of soybean acreage in the Corn Belt. 

The Advantages of Crop Rotation
Crop rotation provides positive production and environmental benefits to both soybeans and the rotated crop in most systems. Grain crops result in more dry matter and subsequent plant residue than soybean crops. And so, a rotation of a grain crop with soybeans, with soybeans planted no-till, decreases erosion potential. 

Nitrogen fertilizer applied to a grain crop following soybeans can be reduced by an estimated 40 to 80 pounds/ acre compared to the grain crop following itself. Energy output:input ratios favor a two-year soybean-corn crop rotation in the Corn Belt. In a comparison of cropping systems in Nebraska, the energy output:input ratio ranged from 4.1 for a continuous corn or sorghum system to 11.6 for a soybean rotation with corn or sorghum using conventional tillage. 

Rotating soybeans with a crop that is not a host to soybean cyst nematode (SCN) pests and using a rotation of resistant soybean varieties are effective in alleviating this pests’ damage to soybean crops, as well as in delaying or preventing SCN adaptation. The biannual soybean-corn rotation, however, is not a guaranteed long-term pest control measure. 

Monocropping and Doublecropping
The preponderance of evidence suggests that annual rotation of soybeans and a small grain (doublecropping) is an environmentally sustainable practice, but it may not always be viable. In most cases, though, soybeans rotated biannually with another summer crop will enhance economically and environmentally sustainable production. 

The majority of soybean production is monocropped in the southern U.S., and there is little long-term research to evaluate the effects of doublecropping in that region. Total economic returns from a soybean-wheat doublecrop system are estimated to be similar to those from a soybean monocrop system. Irrigation to mitigate soybean yield loss due to drought stress is the most important factor in sustaining doublecropping in the Midsouth. 

Crop rotation provides positive production and environmental benefits to both soybeans and the rotated crop in most systems.


Irrigated soybean systems are the most productive in the U.S., averaging over 48 percent more yield than dryland systems.


Dealing with Drought
Drought is the most damaging abiotic (non-living) stress to soybean crops. One of the major challenges for future soybean production is to develop technology to reduce the risk of yield loss due to drought stress in drought-prone production areas. Seed technology companies are evaluating soybean germplasm with drought stress tolerance traits that may be commercially available within the next three to five years. 

Three recent advances in soybean production management and breeding provide an opportunity to mitigate some of the effects of drought:
The Early Soybean Production System for the Midsouth, which uses early planting of earlier-maturing varieties to avoid the most drought-prone period of the growing season
Release of two breeding lines that maintain a higher rate of nitrogen fixation during drought periods
Identification of two soybean plant introductions that are slow-wilting
These developments offer management options and genetic potential that can be used to reduce yield loss in soybean as a result of the effects of mild to moderate drought stress. 

Irrigated soybean systems are the most productive in the U.S., averaging over 48 percent more yield than dryland systems. Overcoming drought is a key factor to sustaining maximum soybean yields, but only about 8 percent of U.S. soybean acres are irrigated. The ability to continue using irrigation will rely on maintaining the quantity and quality of ground and surface water resources. Improvement of soybean productivity with limited moisture through plant breeding and biotechnology represents a more sustainable approach to dealing with drought. 











Document Number: 7548
Sustainable Pest and Weed Solutions


Economically important problems in soybean crops include weeds, insects, fungi, nematodes and viruses. Weeds are considered the number one problem in all major soybeanproducing countries. Pests (disease-causing pathogens, nematodes and insects) cause pervasive and extensive management challenges in all U.S. soybean production systems. In the northern U.S., annual soybean yield losses attributed to diseases and nematodes averaged approximately 294 million bushels from 1999 to 2005. In the Midwest, most insect pests are attacked by natural enemies or biological control agents, with few consistent problems. In the southern U.S., insects caused an estimated 51.4 million bushels in annual yield losses from 1999 to 2005. 

Sustainable Pest Management Techniques
The most effective and widely deployed management strategy for soybean pathogens is host-plant resistance. For diseases caused by fungi where host resistance has not been identified or is difficult to incorporate, there are now many fungicides labeled for use on soybean crops. For the management of soybean rust, fungicides were applied to less than 1 percent of U.S. soybean acres in 1995; in 2006, they were applied to only 4 percent of the acres. 

SCN is effectively managed through a combination of planting resistant varieties, rotating varieties with alternative sources of resistance and rotating with non-host crops. 

Integrated pest management has been promoted and used for insect management in U.S. soybean crops, and has resulted in significant cost savings with limited environmental impact. Scouting of fields to determine insect pressure is widely and effectively used to avoid unwarranted applications of insecticides. Early planting in the Midsouth is used to avoid damaging late-season defoliators. 

When damaging insect outbreaks occur, chemical insecticides are available and can be used to provide consistent and effective control. However, synthetic insecticides were applied to only 16 percent of U.S. soybean acres in 2006. 

Sustainable Weed Management 
Weeds are typically responsible for more soybean production losses than either insects or diseases and are estimated to potentially cause as much as 37 percent yield loss globally if left uncontrolled. Sustainability of weed management in a conventional (non-biotech) soybean production system is limited by several factors. 

Few new herbicide chemistries that will control problem weeds or address weed resistance concerns are forthcoming.
Available chemistries may disappear due to environmental concerns and lack of market to sustain their production.
Few non-biotech varieties are being developed and released by seed companies because grower demand has been for GR soybean.
Reverting to post-emergent tillage to facilitate weed management in conventional soybean is not likely to occur because of erosion concerns, labor constraints and farm size.

Weeds are considered the number one problem in all major soybean producing countries.










Document Number: 5717

The Organic System


In 2005, there were 122,217 certified organic soybean acres in the U.S., which comprised 0.17 percent of the total soybean acres. Almost half of these organic acres were in Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota. 

In order to sell certified organic soybeans, producers must be certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Marketing Service’s National Organic Program. Requirements to be certified as an organic soybean producer include: 

No synthetic fertilizers or pesticides for at least the previous 3 years,
An approved, planned sequence of crops in each identified field,
Use of organically produced seed, and
Complete records of inputs and operations.

Organic producers may not utilize biotechnology. Disease and pest management relies on varietal resistance and crop rotation. Tillage is used for cover crop management and weed control, and this may increase erosion potential. Where mechanical weed control is not effective, hand weeding is necessary. Crop rotation and rotation sequence are fundamental to managing weeds, insects, diseases and fertility, as is using animal manures and legume cover crops as fertilizer sources. 

An extensive survey of Midwestern U.S. commercial soybean farmers compared the economics and practices of conventional and organic soybean production. The following key points are pertinent to U.S. organic soybean production: 

Organic soybeans are produced on smaller farm operations (averaging 478 acres) than non-organic soybean (averaging 748 acres).
Significant labor requirements associated with organic soybean production make organic production less practical on larger farms (labor cost of $16.89/acre for non-organic vs. $54.33/acre for organic).
Organic soybean operations substitute field operations for chemicals and incur higher fuel, repair and hired labor costs.
Organic soybean producers obtain an average yield of 31 bushels/acre compared with 47 bushels/acre for conventional producers.
The market premium for organic soybeans is $9 bushel compared to other production systems.

Organic producers may not utilize biotechnology. Disease and pest management relies on varietal resistance and crop rotation. Tillage is used for cover crop management and weed control.











Document Number: 5812
The Role of Economics in Sustainability


Farm communities must experience economic wellbeing in order to continue to farm, and pass family farms from one generation to the next. One of the criteria for determining sustainability of a production system is, therefore, the profitability of that system. 

Most states compile budgets for only GR varieties; the few states that compile separate budgets for conventional (non-GR varieties) and biotech (GR varieties) systems show nearly identical per-acre costs for each system. The lower cost for seed of conventional varieties compared to biotech GR varieties, primarily associated with the technology fee, is offset by the higher cost for herbicides in the conventional system compared to the biotech system. 

A Comparison in the Corn Belt
In the Corn Belt, the breakeven price for non-organic soybeans is estimated at $5.88 to $6.18/bushel (with low fertilizer input) and $8.22/bushel (with normal fertilizer input). In the Midsouth, the breakeven market prices for non-irrigated, non-organic soybeans are estimated to be $7.10/bushel (Early Soybean Production System, with a 40 bushels/acre yield) to $10.60/bushel (25 bushels/acre yield). 

In Iowa, the estimated breakeven price of $8.22/bushel for non-organic soybeans is considerably lower than the estimated breakeven price of $11.45/bushel (40 bushels/ acre yield) to $14.77/bushel (31 bushels/acre yield) for organic soybeans. The estimated additional costs for producing organic soybeans vs. non-organic soybeans total $6.55/ bushel. The profitability of soybeans in an organic rotation is dependent on a high price premium, which averaged more than $9/bushel in 2006 for organic soybeans. 










Document Number: 4214
Conclusions on the Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Systems


The CAST report’s comprehensive review of research findings leads to the conclusion that conventional, biotech and organic soybean systems are all environmentally sustainable, and can be managed for profit with appropriate market incentives when proper practices and technologies are used. 

Production practices are evolving to ensure the continued sustainability of soybean production in the U.S. These innovations include: improved production and management practices; advances in breeding and variety development; and new or improved materials and methodology for disease, nematode, insect and weed management. 

However, conventional, biotech and organic systems are not equally viable to meet current and future needs. 

A Changing Definition of Conventional Agriculture
The original “conventional soybean production system” (defined here as a system that uses nonbiotech soybean varieties) now occupies less than 8 percent of total U.S. soybean acres, and likely will stay at or below this level in the future. 

This “old” conventional system will only be used by growers to produce non-biotech soybean for a niche market that pays a premium price, by organic growers and by growers who refuse to plant biotech varieties because they are more expensive or because of their opposition to industry restrictions on the usage of biotech seed. 

Conventional, biotech and organic soybean systems are all environmentally sustainable, and can be managed for profit with appropriate market incentives when proper practices and technologies are used.


Organic Soybean Production Findings
Organic soybean production currently occupies less than 0.2 percent of U.S. soybean acreage (approximately 122,200 acres), and likely will continue to occupy a very small acreage in the U.S. 

Reasons for this are: (1) individual operators will only be able to sustain management of small acreages because of the required inputs of hand labor and animal manure; (2) stringent initial requirements for establishment of and regulations for maintaining an organic cropping system may require more commitment than many producers are willing or able to make; (3) cost of production is greater and yields are lower than for a non-organic soybean system, thus requiring a significantly higher market price to sustain profitability; and (4) oversupply of organic soybeans will quickly eliminate the price premium paid for organic soybeans that is required for continued profitability of the system. 

The present and anticipated future small organic soybean acreage in the U.S. will not contribute to the long-term sustainability of U.S. soybean production in general, but will be profitable for small-acreage producers as long as consumers are willing to pay a $7 to $10 premium. The organic system will be important in supplying niche markets that do not allow seed with biotech traits. 

Biotechnology’s Role as the Predominant System
The results of the CAST report indicate that U.S. soybean production now has a “new” conventional system that is based on using biotechnology. Over 92 percent of the 75.7 million U.S. soybean acres are planted with soybean varieties developed through agricultural biotechnology. 

As stated earlier, the CAST report notes that this biotech system has already led to the following achievements through conservation tillage: 

93 percent decrease in soil erosion
Preservation of one billion tons of top soil
70 percent reduction in herbicide run-off
326 million lbs reduction in CO2 emissions
In addition to no-till agriculture, biotech soybeans reduced farmers’ needs to use pesticide applications, thanks to targeted pest control methods. New traits will improve water quality through decreased phosphorus waste deposition from livestock feed. 

The UN Secretary General has indicated that the global food supply must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet demand. Agricultural biotechnology is a key tool for meeting the needs of a growing global population over the next two decades. Biotechnology-derived soybeans, planted on over 66.5 million hectares (164 million acres) worldwide, increased world production by 32 million metric tons in 2007. Continued development and adoption of biotech traits will be essential to meeting the goal of feeding the world’s hungry while providing environmental sustainability through enhanced conservation of soil and water and improved water and air quality. 

Over 92 percent of the 75.7 million U.S. soybean acres are planted with soybean varieties developed through agricultural biotechnology.



Literature Cited



Baum, J. A., T. Boaert, W. Clinton, G. R. Heck, P. Feldmann, O. Hagan, S. Johnson, G. Plaetinck, T. Munyikwa, M. Pleau, T. Vaughn, and J. Roberts. 2007. Control of	coleopteran insect pests through RNA interference. Nat Biotech 25:1322-1326. 

Carpenter, J., A. Felsot, T. Goode, M. Hammig, D. Onstad, and S. Sankula. 2002. Comparative environmental impacts of biotechnology-derived and traditional soybean, corn, and cotton crops. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Ames, IA. www.castscience.org. Sponsored by the United Soybean Board. www.unitedsoybean.org. 

Egli, D. B. 2008. Soybean yield trends from 1972 to 2003 in midwestern USA. Field Crops Res, 106:53-59. 

Fawcett, R., D. Towery. 2003. Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can Improve the Environment by Reducing the Need to Plow. Conservation Technology Information Center, West Lafayette, IN. 

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACTA), Public Law 101-624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1603 (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990) NAL Call # KF1692.A31 1990. 

Gold, M. V. 2007. Sustainable agriculture: definitions and terms. Alternative farming systems information center. U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Library (USDA-NAL), Washington, D.C. http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/terms/srb9902.shtml.

Gold, M. V. 2008. Sustainable agriculture: Information access tools. Alternative farming systems information center. USDA-NAL, Washington, D.C., http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/agnic/susag.shtml. 

Heatherly, L., A. Dorrance, R. Hoeft, D. Onstad, J. Orf, P. Porter, S. Spurlock, and B. Young. 2009. Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Production: Conventional, Transgenic, and Organic Production Systems. Spec. Publ. 30. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA. www. cast-science.org. Sponsored by the United Soybean Board. www.unitedsoybean.org. 

James, C. 2008, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008. ISAAA Brief No. 39. ISAAA, Ithaca NY, http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.html. 

Kelley, K. W. 2005. Grain sorghum and soybean cropping sequence affect yield and fertilizer N requirement. Crop Mgmt 22 September, http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/cm/research/2005/sequence/cropping.pdf (online only; limited access). 

McBride, W. D., and C. Greene. 2008. The profitability of organic soybean production. Paper No. 6449. Agricultural and Applied Economics Assoc Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, 27-29 July, http://purl.umn.edu/6449. 

Montgomery, D. R. 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc Nat Acad Sci 14:13268-13272, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13268.full.pdf. 

Onstad, D. W. 2008. Insect Resistance Management: Biology, Economics and Prediction. Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts. 

Singer, J. W. 2008. Corn belt assessment of cover crop management and preferences. Agron J 100:1670-1672. 

Stanger, T. F., J. G. Lauer, and J. P. Chavas. 2008. The profitability and risk of long-term cropping systems featuring different rotations and nitrogen rates. Agron J 100:105-113. 

UN News Center. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon Rome (Italy) Address at High-level Conference on World Food Security. United Nations. http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=255 (accessed Oct. 4, 2008). 



Larry G. Heatherly, PhD, is lead author of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology’s Special Report 30, on the sustainability of U.S. soybean production. Dr. Heatherly devoted nearly 30 years of service to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), as a research agronomist in Stoneville, Mississippi. He is a recognized authority in the fields of irrigation management, stale seedbed technology, cropping systems, and the Early Soybean Production System. Dr. Heatherly has written and presented extensively during his tenure at USDA-ARS. He is also an adjunct professor of plant sciences at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Heatherly received his doctorate in agronomy from the University of Missouri at Columbia in 1975. 

Information for this report was obtained primarily from Special Publication 30 Sustainability of U.S. Soybean Production: Organic, Traditional, and Transgenic Production Systems prepared by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). CAST is a non-profit organization composed of 36 member scientific societies and many individual members with the mission of assembling, interpreting, and communicating credible science-based information regionally, nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private sector, and the public. 

Additional key points cited in this report were obtained from a report published by the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) entitled Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can Improve the Environment by Reducing the Need to Plow. CTIC is a non-profit organization with the mission to provide reliable, profitable solutions to improve the relationship between agriculture and the environment. It is made up of members of ag industry, ag publications, ag associations, conservation organizations and producers and is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service and other public entities. 

The United Soybean Board (USB) is a farmer-led organization comprised of 68 farmer-directors who oversee the investments of the soybean checkoff for all U.S. soybean farmers. Soybean farmers are united by a commitment to produce wholesome, nutritious foods that can help sustain and nourish an ever increasing population. And, soybean growers take pride in their role in producing one of the healthiest food crops in the world. USB has invested millions of dollars into health and nutrition research related to soy. 











Document Number: 5415
A Trade Journal’s Perspective on Pew’s Biotech Initiative

A month before the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology concluded its work last March, Nature Biotechnology published this editorial, “Hearts and Minds,” in its February issue. Published with permission of the Nature Publishing Group. Copyright © 2007

The nonprofit Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology is closing, but the need for an independent and neutral body to facilitate dialogue on U.S. biotech policy has never been greater.

For the past six years, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology has provided a unique sounding board for stakeholders engaged in the contentious debate on policy oversight of agricultural biotech products in the United States. When it closes its doors next month, one of the main U.S. outlets for open discussion of the complex economic, legal, societal, regulatory and political issues surrounding these products will disappear.

The initiative has served a central role in curbing the excesses of debates about biotech and its products. Its closure will create a dangerous vacuum that will probably be filled by ludicrous hyperbole unless something more structured is put in place first.

The food and biotech project was created in 2001 by The Pew Charitable Trusts, through an initial grant of $11.9 million to the University of Richmond (later extended to $17.4 million). At the time, agbiotech was seemingly mired in controversy: Monsanto was widely portrayed as a corporate bully, railroading its products onto world markets opened up by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Starlink corn had just been discovered in the human food supply. Public antagonism to agbiotech productsacross the Atlantic was setting European legislators firmly on the path to confrontation with the United States.

Against this background, the initiative was established as an independent and objective source of credible information on agbiotech for the public, media and policy makers. It has produced over 20 reports, fact sheets and briefings that cover safety issues and the social, economic, political or ethical impacts of genetically manipulated flora and fauna—from transgenic trees to cloned cows.

One of its major contributions was a deep, critical analysis of the U.S. Coordinated Framework, which highlighted potential loopholes and gray areas for current and future products. This, together with a “Legislative Tracker” database collating available data for ongoing U.S. state-level legislative initiatives pertinent to biotech products, helped establish the project as the go-to resource for neutral and trustworthy information on agbiotech.

But it is the project’s success in bringing together stakeholders with divergent opinions that is likely to be its most valuable but fragile legacy. This was achieved, despite initial reservations on the part of industry that it might be “ambushed” by opponents when participating on such panels. One of the earliest and most ambitious initiatives, the Stakeholder Forum, assembled representatives from industry, academia, consumer and environmental groups to find consensus on recommendations to enhance U.S. regulatory oversight of agbiotech products. Although this effort ultimately foundered in May 2003 without achieving consensus, many participants felt the exercise provided a richer understanding of other stakeholders and helped build professional relationships for the future.

One criticism of the project is that too often it placed undue emphasis on the perceived risks of recombinant technology without providing sufficient context on the risks of other conventional approaches, creating an impression of controversy where none exists. What’s more, to get people with divergent views to sit around the same table, the initiative provided all comers with equal time and weight in the policy discussion, regardless of whether their opinions were backed by scientific data; in some instances, detractors argued this gave certain viewpoints more credence and validation than they deserved.

But those who dogmatically dismiss a dialogue on biotech products because it strays outside science are fundamentally in error. The discussion has moved beyond inventions or discoveries or regulatory systems. It involves products. And biotech products, like the products of any other business, need markets—markets where the values expressed by consumers clearly trump scientific arguments every time.

One need look no further than what has happened in Europe in recent years. Although industry did an abysmal job of preparing the political and professional ground for the arrival of its products, the real benefits of the technology to agriculture and the environment were lost because consumer values were ignored. And when public acceptance and trust collapsed, serious support for the products evaporated. Food companies and politicians alike rely on branding, and neither can afford to sully their image through intervention in a values debate that doesn’t appear to be winnable.

Now that the initiative’s funding is coming to an end, the biotech industry must ask itself whether it needs a neutral and independent U.S. forum to continue a broad and inclusive policy debate for its next generation of products. We would argue it does. The issues aren’t going to go away. Indeed, at least three key drivers will ensure that debates become more frequent and more complex.

Biotech products are moving on from simple modifications of plant cells to manipulation of mammalian and even human cells, encroaching further into areas of moral or psychological discomfort.

Then, there is the increasing speed with which information and misinformation about biotech products is traveling electronically around the globe in e-mails and blogs and chat rooms. This means opinions are likely to become entrenched more quickly, often on flimsier evidence, and industry will need a means of anticipating controversies and responding more rapidly.

And finally, the increasing internationalization of trade and technical capability will mean that new biotech products will be adopted by economies somewhere, even if the U.S. or Europe remains embroiled in an ethical/policy debate.

Industry’s preference for working behind the scenes and in the lobby halls is all very well. But the values debate is also part of market reality. These issues need to be addressed in a moderating body similar to the Pew initiative. Waiting until they are raised by a congressional committee loaded with opponents, when public opinion is antagonistic and the media start to smell blood, will be too late. By then, the battle for hearts and minds will already have been lost.









Document Number: 9912
20 QUESTIONS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS

Q1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?

These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response to questions and concerns by a number of WHO Member State Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically modified food.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called modern biotechnology or gene technology, sometimes also recombinant DNA technology or genetic engineering. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species.

Such methods are used to create GM plants  which are then used to grow GM food crops.

Q2. Why are GM foods produced?

GM foods are developed  and marketed  because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers so have concentrated on innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.

The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high.

Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.

Q3. Are GM foods assessed differently from traditional foods?

Generally consumers consider that traditional foods (that have often been eaten for thousands of years) are safe. When new foods are developed by natural methods, some of the existing characteristics of foods can be altered, either in a positive or a negative way National food authorities may be called upon to examine traditional foods, but this is not always the case. Indeed, new plants developed through traditional breeding techniques may not be evaluated rigorously using risk assessment techniques.

With GM foods most national authorities consider that specific assessments are necessary. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional foods. Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.

One of the objectives of the WHO Food Safety Programme is to assist national authorities in the identification of foods that should be subject to risk assessment, including GM foods, and to recommend the correct assessments.

Q4. How are the potential risks to human health determined?

The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.

Q5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?

While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.

Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as outcrossing), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food products, are under discussion.

Q6. How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?

Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO concerned and the potential receiving environment. The assessment process includes evaluation of the characteristics of the GMO and its effect and stability in the environment, combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in which the introduction will take place. The assessment also includes unintended effects which could result from the insertion of the new gene.

Q7. What are the issues of concern for the environment?

Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g. insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in agriculture. The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably according to local conditions.

Current investigations focus on: the potentially detrimental effect on beneficial insects or a faster induction of resistant insects; the potential generation of new plant pathogens; the potential detrimental consequences for plant biodiversity and wildlife, and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations; and the movement of herbicide resistance genes to other plants.

Q8. Are GM foods safe?

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.

Q9. How are GM foods regulated nationally?

The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some countries GM foods are not yet regulated. Countries which have legislation in place focus primarily on assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries which have provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general, taking into account health and environmental risks, as well as control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and labelling regimes). In view of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is likely to continue to evolve.

Q10. What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?

All GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides. All the genes used to modify crops are derived from microorganisms.

Q11. What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?

No specific international regulatory systems are currently in place. However, several international organizations are involved in developing protocols for GMOs.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO body responsible for compiling the standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex Alimentarius: the international food code. Codex is developing principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods. The premise of these principles dictates a premarket assessment, performed on a case-by-case basis and including an evaluation of both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended effects (that may arise as a consequence of insertion of the new gene). The principles are at an advanced stage of development and are expected to be adopted in July 2003. Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization (SPS Agreement), and can be used as a reference in case of trade disputes.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), an environmental treaty legally binding for its Parties, regulates transboundary movements of living modified organisms (LMOs). GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating genetic material. The cornerstone of the CPB is a requirement that exporters seek consent from importers before the first shipment of LMOs intended for release into the environment. The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country has ratified it, which may be in early 2003 in view of the accelerated depositions registered since June 2002.

Q12. Have GM products on the international market passed a risk assessment?

The GM products that are currently on the international market have all passed risk assessments conducted by national authorities. These different assessments in general follow the same basic principles, including an assessment of environmental and human health risk. These assessments are thorough, they have not indicated any risk to human health.

Q13. Why has there been concern about GM foods among some politicians, public interest groups and consumers, especially in Europe?

Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans), there has been increasing concern about such food among politicians, activists and consumers, especially in Europe. Several factors are involved.

In the late 1980s  early 1990s, the results of decades of molecular research reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of this research. In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety because they perceive that modern biotechnology is leading to the creation of new species.

Consumers frequently ask, what is in it for me?. Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more readily accept biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. medicines with improved treatment potential). In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European market, the products were of no apparent direct benefit to consumers (not cheaper, no increased shelf-life, no better taste). The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices. However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the risk-benefit equation.

Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has decreased significantly as a result of a number of food scares that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are unrelated to GM foods. This has also had an impact on discussions about the acceptability of GM foods. Consumers have questioned the validity of risk assessments, both with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing in particular on long-term effects. Other topics for debate by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance. Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing an informed choice. At the same time, it has proved difficult to detect traces of GMOs in foods: this means that very low concentrations often cannot be detected.

Q14. How has this concern affected the marketing of GM foods in the European Union?

The public concerns about GM food and GMOs in general have had a significant impact on the marketing of GM products in the European Union (EU). In fact, they have resulted in the so-called moratorium on approval of GM products to be placed on the market. Marketing of GM food and GMOs in general are the subject of extensive legislation. Community legislation has been in place since the early 1990s. The procedure for approval of the release of GMOs into the environment is rather complex and basically requires agreement between the Member States and the European Commission. Between 1991 and 1998, the marketing of 18 GMOs was authorized in the EU by a Commission decision.

As of October 1998, no further authorizations have been granted and there are currently 12 applications pending. Some Member States have invoked a safeguard clause to temporarily ban the placing on the market in their country of GM maize and oilseed rape products. There are currently nine ongoing cases. Eight of these have been examined by the Scientific Committee on Plants, which in all cases deemed that the information submitted by Member States did not justify their bans.

During the 1990s, the regulatory framework was further extended and refined in response to the legitimate concerns of citizens, consumer organizations and economic operators (described under Question 13). A revised directive will come into force in October 2002. It will update and strengthen the existing rules concerning the process of risk assessment, risk management and decision-making with regard to the release of GMOs into the environment. The new directive also foresees mandatory monitoring of long-term effects associated with the interaction between GMOs and the environment.

Labelling in the EU is mandatory for products derived from modern biotechnology or products containing GM organisms. Legislation also addresses the problem of accidental contamination of conventional food by GM material. It introduces a 1% minimum threshold for DNA or protein resulting from genetic modification, below which labelling is not required.

In 2001, the European Commission adopted two new legislative proposals on GMOs concerning traceability, reinforcing current labelling rules and streamlining the authorization procedure for GMOs in food and feed and for their deliberate release into the environment.

The European Commission is of the opinion that these new proposals, building on existing legislation, aim to address the concerns of Member States and to build consumer confidence in the authorization of GM products. The Commission expects that adoption of these proposals will pave the way for resuming the authorization of new GM products in the EU.

Q15. What is the state of public debate on GM foods in other regions of the world?

The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM foods have resulted in a public debate in many parts of the world. This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader context of other uses of biotechnology (e.g. in human medicine) and their consequences for human societies. Even though the issues under debate are usually very similar (costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate differs from country to country. On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way to address consumer concerns, there is no consensus to date. This has become apparent during discussions within the Codex Alimentarius Commission over the past few years. Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, significant progress has been made on the harmonization of views concerning risk assessment. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is about to adopt principles on premarket risk assessment, and the provisions of the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety also reveal a growing understanding at the international level.

Most recently, the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa has drawn attention to the use of GM food as food aid in emergency situations. A number of governments in the region raised concerns relating to environmental and food safety fears. Although workable solutions have been found for distribution of milled grain in some countries, others have restricted the use of GM food aid and obtained commodities which do not contain GMOs.

Q16. Are peoples reactions related to the different attitudes to food in various regions of the world?

Depending on the region of the world, people often have different attitudes to food. In addition to nutritional value, food often has societal and historical connotations, and in some instances may have religious importance. Technological modification of food and food production can evoke a negative response among consumers, especially in the absence of good communication on risk assessment efforts and cost/benefit evaluations.

Q17. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own their crops?

Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers. Intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially patenting obligations of the TRIPS Agreement (an agreement under the World Trade Organization concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) have been discussed in the light of their consequences on the further availability of a diversity of crops. In the context of the related subject of the use of gene technology in medicine, WHO has reviewed the conflict between IPRs and an equal access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits. The review has considered potential problems of monopolization and doubts about new patent regulations in the field of genetic sequences in human medicine. Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM foods.

Q18. Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence of the chemical industry on agriculture?

Certain groups are concerned about what they consider to be an undesirable level of control of seed markets by a few chemical companies. Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the use of a rich variety of crops, both in terms of good crop protection practices as well as from the perspective of society at large and the values attached to food. These groups fear that as a result of the interest of the chemical industry in seed markets, the range of varieties used by farmers may be reduced mainly to GM crops. This would impact on the food basket of a society as well as in the long run on crop protection (for example, with the development of resistance against insect pests and tolerance of certain herbicides). The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on these chemicals. These groups fear a dominant position of the chemical industry in agricultural development, a trend which they do not consider to be sustainable.

Q19. What further developments can be expected in the area of GMOs?

Future GM organisms are likely to include plants with improved disease or drought resistance, crops with increased nutrient levels, fish species with enhanced growth characteristics and plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins such as vaccines. At the international level, the response to new developments can be found in the expert consultations organized by FAO and WHO in 2000 and 2001, and the subsequent work of the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. This work has resulted in an improved and harmonized framework for the risk assessment of GM foods in general. Specific questions, such as the evaluation of allergenicity of GM foods or the safety of foods derived from GM microorganisms, have been covered and an expert consultation organized by FAO and WHO will focus on foods derived from GM animals in 2003.

Q20. What is WHO doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?

WHO will take an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily for two reasons:

(1) on the grounds that public health could benefit enormously from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased allergenicity and more efficient food production; and (2) based on the need to examine the potential negative effects on human health of the consumption of food produced through genetic modification, also at the global level. It is clear that modern technologies must be thoroughly evaluated if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is produced. Such evaluations must be holistic and all-inclusive, and cannot stop at the previously separated, non-coherent systems of evaluation focusing solely on human health or environmental effects in isolation.

Work is therefore under way in WHO to present a broader view of the evaluation of GM foods in order to enable the consideration of other important factors. This more holistic evaluation of GM organisms and GM products will consider not only safety but also food security, social and ethical aspects, access and capacity building. International work in this new direction presupposes the involvement of other key international organizations in this area. As a first step, the WHO Executive Board will discuss the content of a WHO report covering this subject in January 2003. The report is being developed in collaboration with other key organizations, notably FAO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It is hoped that this report could form the basis for a future initiative towards a more systematic, coordinated, multi-organizational and international evaluation of certain GM foods








Document Number: 4045 
Agricultural Biotechnology: Helping Increase Crop Yields for America's Farmers

Did You Know?

In the United States, agricultural biotechnology, along with better agronomic practices adopted in recent years, has helped increase farmers crop yields. As biotechnology is used to develop new and improved crops, yields (i.e. the amount of oilseed, grain, or fiber produced per acre) are expected to continue increasing, allowing farmers to produce more on the same number of acres without cultivating additional land.

Corn

In the United States, where 86 percent of the nation's corn acreage is planted with biotechnology varieties (USDA ERS, 2010), average yields in 2010 were roughly 30 percent higher than the average corn yields prior to 1996the year biotech varieties were first planted (USDA NASS).

Soybeans

Ninety-three percent of the U.S. soybean acreage is now planted with biotech varieties (USDA ERS, 2010). Soybean yields have increased roughly 20 percent from the average yields in years prior to the introduction of biotech soybeans in 1996 (USDA NASS).

Cotton

Ninety-three percent of U.S. cotton is now genetically engineered (USDA ERS, 2010).  Cotton yields have increased approximately 33 percent (USDA NASS) as compared to the average cotton yields prior to the introduction of biotech cotton in 1996.










Document Number: 3292
iotechnology and Drought: Producing More Crop per Drop



Download Fact Sheet
Nearly every year, some part of the United States and other parts of the world suffer from drought, which can hamper the growth of crops and significantly reduce harvests. Adequate water is the most pressing challenge for the nation's farmers who provide us with essential crops and grains for food, fiber and for the production of biofuels to enhance our nation's energy security.

Did you Know?

70 percent of the worlds fresh water is used for agriculture (James, 2010).
If present consumption patterns continue, three billion people could live in water-stressed conditions by the year 2025 (U.N. Population Fund). 
For more than 15 years, farmers have been using plants improved through biotechnology to combat environmental stresses such as insects and to control weeds more effectively.   
Biotech Crops: Helping Address Climate Challenges

Dealing directly with drought conditions is the next frontier. New developments in agricultural biotechnology can play a role in helping American farmers produce crops that use water more efficiently, thus reducing the negative consequences of drought. While research continues around the world, some initial breakthroughs have already arrived. Field testing is well underway for a variety of drought-tolerant crops, including corn, wheat and canola.

Drought-tolerant corn is expected to be available for planting in the United States in 2012 (James, 2010).
Drought-tolerant corn could be available in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2017 (James, 2010).
Field trials of drought-tolerant wheat in Australia have shown up to a 20 percent yield increase compared with conventional varieties (James, 2010).










Document Number: 3895
Biotechnology and Food: Helping Increase Global Food Security



Download Fact Sheet
The world's population has grown nearly four-fold over the last century and is projected to rise from more than 6.6 billion people today to more than nine billion by 2050 (UNFAO). Feeding the growing population by 2050 will require doubling food production and improving food distribution (UNFAO). Accomplishing this will necessitate significant increases in the amount of food produced per acre, or crop yield.

Biotechnology has boosted the amount of grain produced per acre. From 1996-2009 yield gains from biotech varieties of soybeans, corn, cotton and canola totaled 229 million tons (James, 2010). This is important because farmable land is limited, yet the demand for grain for food, feed and fiber is growing dramatically. 

The United States is the leading producer of biotech crops, including soybeans, corn, cotton (oil), canola, papaya, alfalfa, sugar beets and squash (James, 2010).

Biotechnology is Already Helping and Has the Potential to Do More

As of 2010, 15.4 million farmers in 29 countries are planting biotech crops. Ninety-three percent of those farmers are resource-poor farmers in developing countries (James, 2010).

In addition to yield and productivity improvements, research is well underway to use biotechnology to improve the nutritional profile or productivity of crops that are staples in many developing countries where malnourishment or food security is an issue.  Here are a few examples:

Herbicide-tolerant wheat  While biotech corn and soybeans have been widely adopted in the United States and abroad, biotech wheat varieties are not yet available. As a result, in recent years farmers have opted to plant easier to manage, higher yielding, and more profitable biotech crops over wheat, and wheat supplies have decreased. In 2010, many companies and countries decided to pursue development of several biotech traits in wheat. The first biotech wheat is expected to be commercialized in 2017 (James, 2010).
Pest-resistant (Bt) rice and phytase maize (corn)  In 2009,Chinathe worlds top rice producer and second largest corn producercompleted approvals for Bt rice, and phytase maize (corn), an animal feed crop.  Both crops were developed by Chinas public sector, and mark a monumental change in Chinas ability to produce more food for its 1.3 billion inhabitants (James, 2009).
Vitamin-enhanced golden rice  Although not expected to be commercially available until 2013, researchers have enhanced ricea staple food for billions worldwideto provide more beta carotene, which is a precursor to the bodys production of Vitamin A (James, 2010). The World Health Organization estimates that millions of children worldwide may be suffering from Vitamin A deficiency, which can cause irreversible blindness. A lack of Vitamin A also weakens the body's ability to ward off infection and minor illness (U.N., 2004). 
These are only some examples of the new and exciting developments in biotechnology that are helping the world's farmers meet demands for a safe, sustainable food supply. Biotech-enhanced plants are designed to provide benefits that include: resisting pests, using water more efficiently, controlling the growth of weeds, and providing other improvements to help farmers around the world.

The many benefits of biotech crops make them an attractive choice for small and large-scale farmers worldwide.










Document Number: 3322 
Biotechnology and Sustainability: Supporting Sustainable Solutions in Agriculture



Download Fact Sheet
Concerns about growing populations, increased food scarcity and the environment have led researchers, farmers, non-profit organizations, governments and industry representatives to work together to help find sustainable solutions to meet the worlds growing demand for food, fuel and water. Now more than ever, agricultural practices need to get more from cultivated land with a lighter environmental footprint, and in an economical way.

The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculturea diverse group of growers, conservation organizations, and companies throughout the agriculture and food supply chaindefines sustainable agriculture as follows:

Meeting the needs of the present while improving the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;    
Increasing productivity to meet future food demands;
Decreasing impacts on the environment;
Improving human health; and
Improving the social and economic well-being of agricultural communities.
Environmental Sustainability

According to the Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture, over the past decade, since the commercial adoption of biotech crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton, the United States has seen gains in productivity (yield) per acre, while improving agricultures efficiency in its use of resources such as land, energy and water.

Every year, population growth is putting a heavier strain on the planets land and water resources. To conserve natural resources for future generations, it is necessary to use sustainable agricultural practices to produce enough food, fuel, feed and fiber for ourselves and for generations to come. 

Agricultural biotechnology can increase protection against weeds, insects and diseases, and has the potential in the future to help plants better tolerate stresses like droughts, floods, excessive cold, and salt. The use of pest-resistant crops means that farmers can use more targeted crop protection products, which helps further reduce agricultures environmental footprint.

Conserving Land

Biotech-derived crops allow for higher productivity on land currently under cultivation, preventing the conversion of tropical forests and land used for other, non-agricultural purposes to farmland. If biotech-derived crops had not been used to produce the 229 million tons of food, feed and fiber that farmers produced globally from 1996-2009, farmers would have had to convert an estimated 185 million additional acres to farmland (Brookes and Barfoot, 2011).

Conserving Water

New developments will help American farmers produce crops that use water more efficiently, thus reducing the negative consequences of drought such as yield or total crop loss. Drought-tolerant corn is expected to be available in the United States in 2012 (James, 2010). Field trials of drought-tolerant wheat in Australia have shown up to a 20 percent yield increase compared with conventional varieties (James, 2010).

Reducing Carbon Emissions

With the adoption of biotech crops, farmers have reduced the tilling needed to control weeds, resulting in better containment of carbon in the soil (sequestration) and less tractor fuel needed to plow the land. In 2009, the combined savings of carbon emissions attributable to biotech crops was equivalent to removing almost eight million cars from the road (James, 2010).

Economic Sustainability

Biotech crops enhanced farm income in the United States by $29.8 billion from 1996 to 2009 (Brookes and Barfoot, 2011).

Of the 15.4 million farmers who grew biotech crops in 2009, 93 percent were small-holder or resource-poor farmers from developing countries (James, 2010).

The economic benefits to farmers are a result of increased yields and lower production costs, such as fewer pesticides needed and increased income from more crops sold to meet demand (Brookes and Barfoot, 2009).










Document Number: 246 
Part I: Addressing Water Scarcity with Drought-tolerant Crops

Droughts have been a major problem in agriculture for centuries. Today, they affect large swaths of the United States  including some of the countrys most productive farmland  every year.  Between 1980 and 2005, the United States experienced nine "drought events," each of which cost the economy an estimated $1 billion or more, primarily in agricultural productivity.  According to some estimates, the 1988-1989 drought may have cost the country as much as $40 billion.1 

Several regions in the United States currently suffer from persistent drought conditions, particularly the Southwest and some portions of the Southeast, and many other parts of the country have recently experienced droughts as well. The West is expected to suffer historic drought conditions in the coming decades, and climate change may alter a significant portion of winter precipitation in some regions from snow to rain. Warmer temperatures could also result in earlier spring thaws, which would mean longer droughts in the peak growing of the summer months, potentially affecting the cost and availability of food.2 It is no wonder water scarcity is expected to be the single most significant constraint on crop production over the next 50 years.3 

Droughts can appear suddenly during critical points in the growing season, significantly reducing crop yields. Although there is no magic bullet that will end the increasing problem of water scarcity, agricultural biotechnology researchers are currently developing and field-testing drought-tolerant strains of many important crops  including corn, cotton, and canola  that can stabilize yields in areas where water availability is highly variable, such as the central and west corn belts. 

Research is ongoing to develop new plant varieties that exhibit one or more of these capabilities:  to use water more efficiently; to recover and produce food following a prolonged lack of water; and/or to produce the same yield under drought conditions as they do under normal conditions.

More efficient use of water. Biotech crops subjected to a two-week induced drought (70 percent less water than normal) in California were able to use water two to three times more efficiently than the control group of non-biotech crops. Moreover, their water content dropped only slightly, from 92 percent to 86 percent.4 
Ability to recover from drought. Following the two-week induced drought, the same biotech and non-biotech crops were then watered. In contrast with the non-biotech plants, all of which died in spite of being watered, the biotech plants recovered, regained their pre-drought water content, and continued growing.
Same yield under drought conditions.  In the same study in California, biotech crops subjected to drought conditions survived, with virtually no loss in yield.   In Illinois, one strain of biotech corn not only survived drought conditions, but actually produced a 10 percent higher yield than non-biotech corn did under non-drought conditions.5
 Part II: Addressing Water Scarcity with No-till Agriculture

Water scarcity is expected to be the single most significant constraint on crop production over the next 50 years.6 The depletion of surface and groundwater is already forcing California farmers to import water from other parts of the country, and experts predict similar situations in parts of our Midwestern "bread basket" within less than a decade. 

The need for American farmers to conserve water and to use it more effectively is clear. The question is, "How?"

Answering that question effectively will require a number of interrelated solutions. Many approaches to the water-scarcity challenges are being addressed by agricultural biotechnology; some are available today, and others will be in the relatively near future. One such solution is a conservation practice known as no-till agriculture.

Farmers have used tillage  more commonly called plowing  for centuries to control weeds, so their crops would not have to compete for sunlight, water, or nutrients in the soil. Unfortunately, tillage has undesirable side effects, including soil erosion due to wind and rain, as well as significant water runoff. 

The practice known as conservation tillage  leaving much or all of the crop residue in the field after the harvest and either reducing tilling or eliminating it altogether  both conserves water and also protects the soil from erosion and compaction. It does virtually nothing to control weeds, however, and therefore has historically not been widely adopted. 

The advent of crop plants that have been engineered to tolerate the new class of lower-impact herbicides, however, has enabled farmers to switch to no-till agriculture  the most soil- and water-conserving form of conservation tillage. Herbicide-tolerance also enables farmers to apply less herbicide, and more selectively. Rather than spreading it broadly over their fields before planting, they can wait until after crop plants emerge and use herbicide only where  and only in the quantities  needed. 

Since these crops were introduced in 1996, the use of no-till agriculture has increased by 35 percent.7 So far, herbicide-tolerant strains of soybean, corn and canola plants have been developed, and research on other crop plants is ongoing. In 2005, nearly 67 million acres  89 percent  of U.S. soybean acreage was planted with herbicide-tolerant varieties.8 No-till agriculture not only makes possible better absorption and conservation of water from both rainfall and irrigation; it also reduces soil erosion and enriches soil  all of which help maximize yield while also conserving water.

There is still another benefit to no-till cultivation. It reduces the use of agricultural machinery in fields, which in turn, leads to a reduction in harmful greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since 1996, farmers worldwide have saved 441 million gallons of fuel and kept 10.2 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere  the equivalent of removing four million cars from the road for an entire year.9 










Document Number: 9052
Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits to Farmers

Natural resources such as water and land are experiencing the pressure of a world population that grows by 210,000 every day1 and is projected to rise to seven billion by 20132 and eight billion by 2030.3  U. S. population has grown by 20 million since 2000.4 

Agricultural biotechnology can help farmers feed the world's growing population, while minimizing impacts on the global environment.  In 2007, 12 million farmers in 23 countries  12 developing and 11 industrialized  planted biotech crops, primarily soybeans, corn, cotton and canola.  Eleven million of them were small or resource-poor farmers in developing countries.5 After more than a decade of use on over a billion acres worldwide, agricultural biotechnology continues to provide economic and environmental benefits for today and tomorrow, as well as a solid record of safely.6

In 2006, U.S. farmers grew eight different biotech crops  alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soybean, squash and sweet corn  most of which were either disease-resistant, pest-resistant or herbicide tolerant.  These traits increase production, boost farmers' incomes and enable them to farm more sustainably.

Agricultural biotechnology benefits are many, and include:

Increasing production.  Average corn yield in the United States has increased from 33 bushels per acre in 1945 to 150 bushels per acre today, due in large part to agricultural biotechnology. Biotech plants that resist pests and diseases, tolerate harsh growing conditions and reduce spoilage prevent farmers from losing billions of pounds of important crops.  In 2005, such plants helped U.S. farmers avoid losing some eight billion pounds of crops.8
Improving farmers' bottoms lines.  In addition to increasing farmers' yields per acre, agricultural biotechnology also lowers their costs.  A study released in 2005 by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy found that biotech plants improved to resist herbicides and insects helped U.S. farmers reduce their annual production costs by $1.4 billion, contributing to an increase in net profits of $2 billion.
Enabling sustainable farming.  No-till agriculture, made possible by plants that tolerate the newer class of lower-impact herbicides, has improved soil and water quality and reduced runoff.  In 2005, 89 percent (67 million acres) of U.S. soybean acreage was planted with herbicide-tolerant varieties, enabling farmers to eliminate plowing almost entirely.
Agricultural biotechnology helps farmers be better stewards of their land in many other ways.

Improved pest management.  Biotech crop varieties have dramatically reduced farmers' need for pesticides, eliminating 70 million pounds in the United States in 2005.
Benefits to biodiversity.  No-till agriculture maintains soil health and conserves topsoil and moisture.  Coupled with reduced pesticide application, no-till agriculture has encouraged the growth of habitats that support different varieties of wildlife, including songbirds, which have returned to agricultural fields in increasing numbers as biotech crop acreage has increased.
Supporting threatened ecosystems.  The United Nations estimates that feeding the world's population over the next quarter century will require doubling food production,
accelerating the threat of converting rainforests and other ecosystems to farmland.  Increasing yields on existing farmlands reduces the pressure to convert more wild lands to agriculture.  In addition, traits such as the ability to thrive despite drought, salty or toxic soils, or freezing temperatures will enable farmers to bring heretofore non-arable lands into production.
Improved sustainability.  Fertile soil depends on healthy microbial communities and moisture retention, both of which are dramatically enhanced by no-till agriculture.  Eliminating plowing also reduces the use of tractors and other farm equipment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Since 1996, biotech crops globally have saved farmers 441 million gallons of fuel, preventing nearly 10.2 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.










Document Number: 8687
Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits for Biofuels and U.S. Energy Security

America's "addiction" to petroleum has national security, economic and environmental consequences for our nation. Oil imports are a major contributor to the U.S. trade deficit. They are purchased from countries which often do not share America's international goals and agenda. They contribute to harmful greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which impact the planet's climate. Finding the solutions to reducing America's reliance on imported oil will require a variety of new technologies and innovations. Many industries are searching for solutions, including leading agricultural biotechnology researchers.

U.S. Energy Security

The United States imports 60 percent of the oil it consumes today,1 and 15 percent of that imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf.2 U.S. dependence on foreign oil has grown dramatically since 1980, when imports made up only 37 percent of our oil needs  and that disturbing trend is continuing.

The key to U.S. energy security is multi-faceted and complex.  It includes making businesses, factories, homes and appliances more energy-efficient, and increasing vehicles' fuel efficiency, and developing clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar. But it also includes the search for new fuels to power our transportation systems.

Biofuels

Biofuels have been identified as one component in reducing both America's dependence on foreign oil and its contribution to climate change. Although biofuels today offset only 3 percent of total U.S. transportation energy consumption, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 includes a renewable fuels standard (RFS) that will require a seven-fold increase in domestic biofuel production by 2022.3 

Already, 40 percent of the gasoline used in America is a blended fuel containing as much as 10 percent ethanol derived from corn, sugarcane and other crops.4 The production and use of nearly five billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 reduced America's dependence on imported oil by 170 million barrels, nearly equal to the amount we buy from OPEC in a month.5  At current prices, this means that $17 billion stayed in the United States instead of going overseas.

Biodiesel, made from soybeans and other oilseed crops, is being increasingly used in farm equipment, trucks and buses.  U.S. sales of biodiesel have increased 100-fold since 2000, and are expected to exceed 200 million gallons in 2008.6 Diesel cars  already prevalent in Europe and now on Detroit's drawing boards  can also run on biodiesel.

Cleaner-burning than gasoline, currently available biofuels reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 18 to 29 percent, compared to gasoline.  In 2007, biofuels reduced GHG emissions by more than eight million tons  equivalent to removing 1.2 million vehicles from America's road.7 Research is continuing to develop even cleaner-burning biofuels.

The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology

Achieving the Clean Energy Act's mandated seven-fold increase in domestic biofuel production by 2022 is an ambitious goal  made even more challenging by the imperative that doing so must not adversely affect either the availability or the cost of food. This means significantly boosting crop yields, as well as identifying and harnessing the energy potential of non-food crops.

Agricultural biotechnology is already doing both.

Boosting today's crop yields through agriculture biotechnology.

Higher yields per acre means that farmers can grow more grain for both food and fuel. Since the introduction of biotech corn in 1996, yields have increased by an average of 20 percent, or 27 bushels per acre.8 Of the 92.9 million acres of corn planted by American farmers in 2007  with an expected average yield of 153 bushels per acre  about a quarter of the harvest was expected to be converted to more than nine billion gallons of ethanol.  The remaining three-quarters  nearly 11 billion bushels  would be used for food, feed and export markets, easily meeting or exceeding the 2006 demand.9
Corn yields are expected to continue increasing over the next two decades, nearly doubling by 2030.10 It has been estimated that, if current yield improvements continue, little or no additional corn acreage will be required to meet projected needs for food and feed, while achieving the RFS target mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.11
Producing tomorrow's biofuels from alternative crops. 

Researchers are developing biocatalysts  enzymes, yeast and bacteria produced using biotechnology  that can break down almost any organic matter, including grasses and agricultural waste such as cornstalks. This will greatly expand the raw material from which tomorrow's biofuels can be produced  without any decrease in the nation's food supply. 
A cornfield in Nebraska or Iowa, for example, could generate corn for human consumption and livestock feed, and the stalks of that same crop  which today are left in the field as waste  could be transformed into biofuel.  Another example of organic matter for biofuel is switchgrass, which can be grown on marginal farmland, leaving more productive acres for food crops.  Biofuels produced in this way could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 88 percent.12










Document Number: 2376
gricultural Biotechnology: Benefits for Water Scarcity in the United States

The scarcity of fresh water is a real and growing concern around the world. The United Nations has predicted that, if present water consumption patterns continue, two out of three people will live in drought or water-stressed conditions by 2025.1

The United States faces similar challenges. Droughts have been a persistent problem in American agriculture for three centuries, and the combination of climate change and population growth in the South and Southwest are serving to exacerbate the situation. 

Water used in irrigating crops accounts for approximately 40 percent of total freshwater use in the United States. It is overwhelmingly the largest and most significant consumer of freshwater because of its high "consumptive use." In contrast with other sectors, such as power generation and public water utilities  which recover, reuse or recycle 90 percent of the freshwater they use  fully half of the water used in irrigation cannot be recovered.2 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, agriculture is responsible for between 80 and 90 percent of the country's consumptive use of water. 

Water scarcity is expected to be the single most significant constraint on crop production over the next 50 years,3 and a recent New York Times article warned that, "unless the world changes its ways over the next 50 years. . . a growing water crisis [will] fuel violent conflicts, dry up rivers and increase groundwater pollution."4 

There are two major areas of concern in the United States: (1) the use and continued depletion of surface and groundwater, and (2) the likelihood of continuing droughts, particularly in the West.

Depletion of Surface and Groundwater

The freshwater used in agriculture is currently 58 percent surface water and 42 percent groundwater. Reliance on water pumped from groundwater stores  called aquifers  has increased dramatically since 1950, when it accounted for only 23 percent of the water used in irrigation, with surface water providing the rest. This trend toward ever greater dependence on groundwater is expected to continue. 

The High Plains Aquifer, one of the world's largest sources of groundwater, stretches from Texas to South Dakota. It provides water to eight agriculturally important states  and is the most heavily pumped aquifer in the country. Depleting an aquifer at a rate greater than it can replenish itself  known as overdrafting  can cause sedimentary deposits to build up, eventually making it impossible to extract any more water from it. Recent studies have shown that the highly productive farming region of western Kansas will no longer be able to pump from this aquifer in 50 years,5 and portions of Arkansas could be in danger as soon as 2015.6

Moreover, surface and groundwater are interrelated. Nearly half of river flow nationwide depends on groundwater,7 for example, and excessive pumping of groundwater can actually change the flow and direction of rivers.

Given these dynamics, it is not surprising that California farmers, who previously depended on the Central Valley Aquifer, have resorted to importing water from other parts of the country. It is also not surprising that Federal and state policymakers are putting an increasing emphasis on "groundwater sustainability." 

Drought

The depletion of surface and groundwater is closely connected to drought. Between 1980 and 2005, the United States experienced nine "drought events"  each of which cost the economy an estimated $1 billion or more. According to some estimates, the 1988-1989 drought may have cost the country as much as $40 billion.8 

Several regions in the United States currently suffer from persistent drought conditions, particularly the Southwest and Southeast, and many other parts of the country have recently experienced drought conditions as well. The West is expected to suffer historic drought conditions in the coming decades, and climate change may alter a significant portion of winter precipitation in some regions from snow to rain: earlier spring thaws would mean longer droughts during the peak summer growing season.9

The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology

Recent developments in agricultural biotechnology are already helping farmers cope with water shortages, and ongoing research holds the potential for even greater advances. Researchers are focusing on developing plant varieties that have one, or both, of these beneficial qualities:

They are able to thrive and produce food under drought conditions; and
They can be grown using the conservation practice known as "no-till agriculture"  the practice of leaving much or all of the crop residue in the field, which vastly improves absorption and conservation of water from rainfall and irrigation.
Crops that thrive in drought conditions

Researchers are developing food plant varieties that use water up to two or three times more efficiently; that are able to recover, regrow and produce food following a prolonged lack of water; and that produce the same yield under drought conditions  defined as a 70 percent reduction in water  as under normal conditions.

No-till agriculture

Tillage, or plowing, which farmers have historically used to control weeds, can cause significant runoff and erosion, wasting precious water and reducing yields. Since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops in 1996, the practice of no-till agriculture has increased by 35 percent.10  










Document Number: 6860

Myth: Demand for corn to produce ethanol is causing a shortage of food.

Mythmaker: "What this is shaping up as at the global level is competition between the 800 million people who own automobiles and the 2 billion low-income people in the world, many of whom are already spending over half their income on food." (Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute)

Fact: While corn and other crop prices increased from 2006 to 2007, there is no shortage of food crops. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service says U.S. farmers planted 92.9 million acres of corn in 2007 (NASS: Acreage), with average yield expected to be 153 bushels per acre (NASS: Crop Production). USDA says 3.4 billion bushels, roughly 26 percent of the expected harvest, will be converted to approximately 9.3 billion gallons of ethanol, leaving more than 9 billion bushels for food, feed and export markets, which would easily meet or exceed 2006 demand from these markets.

More, technological progress - particularly in biotechnology - can help meet both the energy and food needs of growing populations throughout the world.

Agricultural productivity has grown steadily at a rate of 1.8 percent over the past 35 years, according to the USDA. Eighty percent of this increase in productivity has come from higher per-acre crop yields, thanks in large part to biotechnology.

And biotech seed enhancements that allow sustainable production of crops promise continued improvements in crop yields. The record yield for 2006 was 347 bushels per acre, according to the NCGA (NCGA 2006 Corn Yield Contest National Winners). An increase of 1.8 bushels of corn per acre produces an additional 154 million bushels, which can be used to produce 430 million gallons of ethanol.










Document Number: 7918

Myth: Demand for corn by ethanol plants in the United States is driving up the price of food throughout the world.

Mythmaker: "Tortilla prices have tripled or quadrupled in some parts of Mexico since last summer." (Manuel Roig-Franzia, Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2007)

Fact: Current fluctuations in food prices from increased demand for corn for ethanol do not represent a permanent competition between fuel demand and food security, and in fact, biotechnology-enabled increases in crop production can increase yields sufficiently to meet both food and fuel demands.

Food prices increased 4.1 percent in the United States from June 2006 to June 2007 due not only to higher corn prices, but also to increased costs of oil, worldwide weather-related disruptions (droughts and freezes), and contamination scares. The costs of all goods, excluding energy and food, rose 2.2 percent in the same period, according to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which compiles the Consumer Price Index (CPI, July 2007 CPI Release PDF).

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rising energy prices accounted for 48 percent of the overall rise in the CPI, while food prices accounted for 17 percent.

According to Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), traders have anticipated higher prices and have built them into futures contracts. Most of the anticipated price changes have already shown up in market prices (CARD Publication: Emerging Biofuels: Outlook of Effects on U.S. Grain, Oilseed, and Livestock Markets).

Biotechnology is helping farmers throughout the world to increase productivity. Biotech crops were grown by some 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries in 2006. Ninety percent of these farmers (9.3 million) were resource-poor farmers from 11 developing countries. Planting of biotech crops in developing countries grew by 13 percent between 2005 and 2006.










Document Number: 2462

Myth: Cellulosic ethanol is a decade or more away.

Fact: The world's first cellulosic ethanol production facility -- owned and operated by Iogen in Ottawa, Canada -- has been converting wheat straw into ethanol since 2004. Abengoa Bioenergy has completed construction of a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol facility, located in Salamanca, Spain.

Companies across the United States are beginning construction of modern biorefineries to produce biofuels from cellulose. Within the next few years, ethanol made from a variety of cellulose feedstocks collected in different parts of the United States -- from corn stover and wheat straw in the Midwest, to sawdust and wood chips in New York, to sugar cane and bagasse in Louisiana -- will enter the marketplace.

These first few plants will help find ways to make ethanol from cellulose more efficiently and cheaply, enabling the industry to continue to expand and to meet the growing consumer demand for cleaner alternative fuels. In the meantime, biotech-based improvements in producing ethanol from corn can help to meet the current rapid growth in demand for biofuel. Through advances in industrial biotechnology, ethanol yields per bushel of corn have increased 20 percent since 2000, rising from 2.5 gallons per bushel to nearly 3.0 gallons per bushel today.

On a worldwide scale, a 2007 analysis by McKinsey & Co. shows that there is enough available cellulose feedstock to replace 50 percent of transportation fuels - 360 billion gallons - by the middle of this century without impacting availability of food (http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/). Meeting just 10 percent of world transportation fuel demand would replace Saudi Arabias the annual oil production.  










Document Number: 1153 
Myth: There are no biotech food products currently on the market.

Fact: Today, it is estimated that at least 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain ingredients and oils from biotech crops. The first biotech crop, a tomato improved through biotechnology, was sold in 1994. The first biotech commodity crops - an insect resistant variety of corn - were grown and sold in 1996. Today, the most popular biotech crops are corn, soybean, cotton and canola.










Document Number: 8890 

Myth: Biotech foods are unsafe to eat.

Fact: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that biotech foods and crops are as safe as their non-biotech counterparts. The American Medical Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have also declared biotech foods safe for human and animal consumption. In addition, since being introduced to U.S. markets in 1996, not a single person or animal has become sick from eating biotech foods. Other international groups that have concluded biotech foods and crops are safe are The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Council for Science, the French Food Agency, and the British Medical Association. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has also found several biotech varieties to be safe for human and animal consumption.

Related links:

American Dietetic Association
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-8223/PIIS0002822305021097.pdf
World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/biotech_en.pdf
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/GMFoods/$file/GM.pdf
United Nations
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/41714/index.html
French Food Agency
http://www.fas.usda.gov/scripts/gd.asp?ID=146107029
National Academy of Sciences
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html?onpi_newsdoc07272004
International Council for Science
http://www.icsu.org/1_icsuinscience/INIT_GMOrep_1.html









Document Number: 5371 

Myth: Biotech foods are not regulated or tested.

Fact: Biotech crops undergo intense regulatory scrutiny covering their growth in the fields to their delivery in the marketplace to ensure that they are safe for consumption and do not pose any environmental hazards. Biotech crops and their food products are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Testing of biotech crops before they are introduced to market generally takes about 6-12 years at a cost of $6-12 million.










Document Number: 9427 

Myth: Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry fed biotech feed products are not as safe as similar products from livestock and poultry fed conventionally produced feed.

Fact: Animal feed is often made from biotech crops, and the livestock and poultry that eat these feeds are nourished and healthy from eating biotech foods. The meat, milk and egg products from these farm animals are exactly the same as those from animals eating conventional feed products.

In fact, livestock and poultry can actually benefit from feeds made from biotech crops. Some biotech feeds are nutritionally enhanced with added nutrients that improve animal size, productivity and growth. Other biotech feeds can increase digestibility. Biotech feeds also have a positive impact on the environment. Livestock producers are challenged with identifying how to dispose of more than 160 million metric tons of manure annually. Animal manure, especially that of swine and poultry, is high in nitrogen and phosphorus, which can contribute to surface and groundwater pollution. Several biotech feeds decrease phosphorus and nitrogen excretion, total manure excretion and offensive odors.










Document Number: 3374 

Myth: Organic or conventional crops are more nutritious or safer than biotech crops.

Fact: Organic and conventionally grown foods are nutritionally comparable to biotech crops. In the future, biotech crops may be even more nutritious. Scientists are working to develop biotech crops that may actually be more nutritious and healthy than conventional and organic crops. For instance, rice has been developed with higher levels of Vitamin A, and future biotech soybeans may produce lower levels of saturated fats and trans fats in oils. Researchers are working to develop allergy-free peanuts and soybeans which will benefit up to seven million Americans who suffer from food allergies.










Document Number: 2762 

Myth: Biotech foods taste different than foods made from conventional crops.

Fact: Biotech foods taste exactly the same as regular foods and organic foods. Studies have shown that they do not taste any different, appear any different, nor affect the human body differently. They are also nutritionally equivalent to organic and conventionally grown crops.










Document Number: 1246 

Myth: The United States does not require labeling of biotech foods.

Fact: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a labeling policy that requires biotech foods to be labeled if the product is significantly changed nutritionally or uses material from a potential allergen. In other words, if a biotech product is nutritionally the same as a non-biotech product, there is no requirement for labels. However, if a biotech product uses a gene from a peanut, which is a known potential allergen, then it must be labeled. Today, the majority of biotech products in the marketplace are not labeled as such since they are nutritionally equivalent and are not derived from known allergens.










Document Number: 6494 

Myth: Biotech foods and crops have been rejected by consumers.

Fact: Biotech crops and their food products are accepted virtually worldwide. In fact, in 2005, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, biotech crops were grown on 222 million acres in 21 countries by 8.5 million farmers. In 1996, when the first biotech commodity crops were commercially grown, 7 million acres of biotech crops were grown worldwide. In May 2005, the one billionth acre of biotech crops was planted somewhere in the northern hemisphere. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the United States in 2006, 89 percent of soybeans grown were biotech; 83 percent of cotton is biotech and 61 percent of corn is biotech. The top five countries growing biotech crops in 2005 were the United States (123 million acres), Argentina (42 million acres), Brazil (23 million acres), Canada (14 million acres), and China (8 million acres).










Document Number: 2668 

Myth: The United States is the only country growing and consuming biotech crops.

Fact: In 2005, 21 countries planted biotech crops, and many more consumed them worldwide. The most recent suvye of the global impact of biotech crops for the nine-year period 1996-2004 estimates that the global net economic benefits to biotech crop farmers in 2004 was $6.5 billion. Sixty-three countries in all parts of the world have been involved in some phase of biotech plant research and development, from laboratory/greenhouse experiments, to field trials, to regulatory approval and commercial production.










Document Number: 4523 

Myth: The reasons why other countries ban biotech crops and foods is because they are unsafe.

Fact: There is widespread agreement among scientists on the safety of biotech crops and foods. Over 3,200 renowned scientists worldwide have signed a declaration in support of agricultural biotechnology (http://www.agbioworld.org) and its safety to humans, animals and the environment. Those countries that refuse biotech foods and crops do so because of political, cultural and socioeconomic reasons that are not based on any scientific evidence of the safety of agricultural biotechnology.










Document Number: 8391 

Myth: Biotechnology is only being applied to a few crop varieties.

Fact: While corn, soybean, cotton and canola are the most popular and widely grown biotech crops worldwide, at least 57 different plants have been the focus of biotech research over the last two decades. Of this number, eight different plants are in commercial production, and 13 different plants have received regulatory approval.










Document Number: 6618 

Myth: The "pipeline" of biotech plants products is dried up? there are no new products being developed and released.

Fact: Researchers worldwide are continually working to develop new biotech varieties of plants and crops that benefit farmers, consumers and the environment. In 2003, EPA approved the first biotech rootworm-resistant corn, which has the potential to save farmers $1 billion annually in crop losses and pesticide costs. In the near future, we can expect to see plants improved through biotechnology to express multiple traits, such as virus-tolerance and pest-tolerance. Studies are also being done with biotech plants that can tolerate or resist certain environmental stresses, such as drought. Consumers will soon see biotech crops that are nutrient-enhanced and even allergen-free, and oils from biotech crops that are healthier and contain fewer saturated fats and no trans fats after processing.










Document Number: 8308 

Myth: Biotech crops increase food allergies.

Fact: There is no evidence that biotech crops increase food allergies; in fact, researchers are working to develop biotech foods that are free of known allergens, such as peanuts. In fact, according to the FDA's labeling policy, biotech foods are required to be labeled if the product is significantly changed nutritionally or uses material from a potential allergen. Today, the majority of biotech products in the marketplace are not labeled since they are not derived from known allergens.










Document Number: 1306 

Myth: Using biotechnology to improve plants is not natural.

Fact: Since the Stone Age, farmers have been using breeding techniques to genetically modify crops to improve quality and yield. Modern biotechnology is the most recent in a long list of tools, including selective breeding, hybridization and crossbreeding. In fact, biotechnology is the most efficient and cost effective method available for plant breeders. The use of biotechnology in plants is simply another step in the evolution of plant breeding techniques. The techniques of modern biotechnology are adapted from genetic phenomenon scientists have found widely in natural populations.










Document Number: 9302 

Myth: Growing drugs in plants is dangerous - pretty soon there will be drugs in our cereal.

Fact: Today, consumers can easily purchase nutrient-enhanced foods, such as vitamin-fortified juices or cereals. Currently, there is research going into the development of nutrient-enhanced biotech crops and foods, but none are on the market yet. Consumers may have also heard of the idea of foods that have vaccines in them - such as oranges that deliver flu shots. These "edible vaccines" are still in the research phase and not on the commercial market yet. Research is also taking place that turns biotech plants into "factories" so they develop therapeutic proteins that can be used in the production of biotech drugs. Known as "plant-made pharmaceuticals," or PMPs, these biotech plants can efficiently and cost-effectively produce the proteins needed for biotech treatments, thereby increasing patient access to important medicines. Growth of plant-made pharmaceuticals is carefully monitored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and takes place under very strict confinement requirements that ensure that they do not commingle with crops that are used for food or feed. Additionally, farm equipment that is used for these types of plants cannot be used for any food or feed crops. Federal regulations are designed to prevent pharmaceutical-producing plants from crossing paths with crops used for food and feed production making it highly unlikely for "drugs" to appear in cereal.










Document Number: 4595 

Myth: Biotech foods can't feed the world.

Fact: In actuality, biotech foods alone can't feed the world - poverty and starvation are issues rooted in socio-political problems. However when combined with other modern farming techniques, agricultural biotechnology can be an essential tool in increasing fiscal yields and helpful in combating hunger.










Document Number: 8496 

Myth: Biotech crops will cause "superweeds" to develop.

Fact: Biotech opponents have promoted the concept of "superweeds" which could supposedly form by taking on herbicide-resistant characteristics of biotech crops growing in the same field. These "superweeds" will supposedly grow out of control and be resistant to weed killers. In cases where gene flow can and does take place, the resulting weeds resistant to the herbicide used with the biotech crop remain controllable with many other herbicides and a variety of intercropping and cultivation techniques. Far from being unique, or even particularly problematic with crops improved through biotechnology, this is a well known phenomenon that farmers have a long history of managing successfully.










Document Number: 4187 

Myth: The only people who benefit from biotech plants are the agricultural companies who develop and sell the seeds. There's no real benefit to consumers and farmers.

Fact: Pest-resistant and herbicide-resistant biotech varieties reduce the need for pesticides and enable farmers to use low toxicity herbicides. Studies by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) (http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/biotech-us.php) found that in 2004, the eleven biotech crop varieties adopted by U.S. growers increased crop yields by 6.6 billion pounds, provided $2.3 billion in additional net returns for U.S. growers, and reduced pesticide applications by 62.0 million pounds. Both consumers and farmers have benefited from biotechnology -- the papaya industry was nearly wiped out in Hawaii in the early 1990s due to the papaya ring spot virus (PRV). Papayas are the second largest fruit crop in Hawaii; according to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, papaya sales were valued at $11.2 million in 2005. Biotechnology was used to develop papayas that are resistant to the devastating effects of this virus, which is spread by aphids and also via human contact. Infestation by the virus has destroyed the papaya crops in Brazil and Taiwan, and without biotechnology, Hawaii's papaya industry could have been wiped out, having a crippling effect on the local economy, and agriculture industry as a whole. In fact, control of PRV by biotech papayas in Hawaii has preserved the potential for organic growers to produce papaya with non-biotech varieties.










Document Number: 1913 

Myth: Biotech companies won't disclose where field trials of biotech crops are being grown because they are trying to hide things from the public.

Fact: The reality is, the location of fields that grow biotech plants have been threatened by vandalism, a sad fact recognized by USDA who protects this information as "confidential business information," a practice which is not unique to biotechnology, but practiced by any economic sector that involves new product development. Since 1986, at least 36 states have adopted laws specifically addressing crimes committed by "eco," or plant terrorists. While state laws vary widely, crimes such as theft of data, vandalism, and breaking and entering by these groups are recognized. Additionally, after Sept. 11, 2004, states have increasingly sought to strengthen or enact additional and stricter laws against plant activists engaging in terrorist activities. Currently, a bill has been introduced to the U.S. Senate (S.430) that would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance agricultural biosecurity in the United States through increased prevention, preparation and response planning.











Document Number: 9211

Myth: Growing more crops for both food and fuel will have negative environmental impacts, including increased fertilizer, water and land use -- which will come from conservation areas or from environmentally sensitive areas such as rainforests.

Mythmaker: "Three of our most fundamental needs - food, energy and a livable sustainable environment - are now in direct conflict." (David Tilman and Jason Hill, Pioneer Press, March 26, 2007)

Fact: Only 20 percent of the increase in U.S. crop productivity in the past 35 years has come from expansion of crop land. Further, biotech improvements to crop seeds have enabled farmers to adopt environmentally sensitive agricultural practices -- such as no-till cultivation -- that increase yields, while reducing the amount of water, fertilizer, and pesticide needed.

No-till cropping can help farmers maintain soil quality, comply with erosion guidelines, and reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, according to the report "Achieving Sustainable Production of Agricultural Biomass for Biorefinery Feedstock," published by the Biotechnology Industry Organization in November 2006. The report says, "Soil quality enhancement, runoff reduction, greenhouse gas amelioration and other environmental benefits can be achieved with careful attention to production practices."

With higher corn prices, farmers may find it profitable to adopt no-till cropping, a report from the Iowa State University CARD suggests. Conservation tillage practices, such as no-till, reduced soil erosion by nearly 1 billion tons and saved $3.5 billion in sedimentation treatment costs in 2005, according to the Conservation Technology Information Center (http://www.conservationinformation.org/Publications/BetterSoilBetterYields.pdf). Other benefits from no-till included significant fuel savings (3.9 gallons of fuel per acre), reduced pesticide run-off (70 percent) and less water runoff (69 percent).






