Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 9/04
GM maize could produce hepatitis B vaccine
GM Crops: The crushing cost of regulation
Commercial plant breeding - what is in the biotech pipeline
Cows ate GM maize and died!
House passes GE seed labeling bill
Pant pitches for Asian collective approach on GM food
Contamination, crop trials, and compatibility
"Ethics, patents and the poor"
U.S. grain industry, BIO urge U.S. government to expedite 'trace-amounts' policy for biotech products
Drought-tolerant biotech wheat being tested
USDA advisors explain poor biotech adoption in third world
Sweden gives green light for GM potatoes
Industry leader inducted into the Conservation Hall of Fame
Herbicide- and antibiotic-free selection of GM plants
Permit for biotech rice is denied in California
Indian children exposed to pesticides lose memory, maths skills: Greenpeace
Thwarting Russian wheat aphids—again
Lambda-cyhalothrin and an isomer gamma-cyhalothrin; tolerances for residues
how to subscribe
GM maize could produce hepatitis B vaccine
April 7, 2004
SciDev Net
Wagdy Sawahel
CAIRO -- Egyptian scientists have genetically engineered maize plants to produce a protein used to make the hepatitis B virus vaccine. They hope that their findings could eventually lead to the creation of an edible vaccine that could be locally produced and would dispense with the need for expensive vaccination programmes.
More than 2 billion people are infected with hepatitis B, and about 350 million of these are at high risk of serious illness and death from liver damage and liver cancer.
A vaccine against the disease is already available, but the Egyptian researchers say that edible vaccines produced by GM plants would be cheaper and would not need to be refrigerated.
A team of researchers led by Hania El-itriby, director of Cairo's Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute, developed GM maize plants that produce the protein known as HbsAg, which elicits an immune response against the hepatitis B virus and could be used as a vaccine.
The scientists are now attempting to increase the amount of the protein produced by the plants. They have not yet tested the effectiveness of the edible vaccine in animals and humans, but expect that tests will start early next year.
Reporting the results at an international conference on genetic engineering and biotechnology in Cairo last month, El-itriby said that producing a cheap, effective vaccine against the disease is vital, as many people are excluded from immunisation programmes because of the expense of the vaccines.
She added that her team's research is a step towards a cheap, edible vaccine for developing countries that would not require refrigerators for storage, or skilled medical personnel and needles to deliver the vaccine.
GM Crops: The crushing cost of regulation
April 8, 2004
IBRS
Willy De Greef
AgBioView via http://www.agbioworld.org/
The recent BioVision meeting in Alexandria (http://www.bibalex.org/ ) once again showcase the astonishing range of GM crops in the pipeline. Much emphasis was put on work done by public goods research institutions on crops and traits of interest to resource poor farmers and countries. A fascinating glimpse of the potential future was on offer, with proof of concept demonstrated for a range of disease resistant crops and, even more importantly, for improved abiotic stress tolerance.
Technically, we seem to be for abiotic stress where we were in 1986-1987 for Bt and for herbicide tolerance. We know it works in some species. We see early stage results in the contained environment and even in some early field trials, and Proof of Concept, that vast watershed which divided blue sky research from applied technology and product oriented projects is very close. Technically, we should be able to make a difference in the hands of the farmer with regard to drought tolerance between 2010 and 2015. I said, technically, because in practice, larger hurdles than the still daunting task of translating all that promise into stress tolerant tropical varieties of key staple crops loom, and they have to be addressed soon, if we are not to let those target dates slip. The hurdles come in two forms.
First is the need to agree rapidly on formats and experimental approaches for a rational environmental risk assessment of these crop-trait combinations. For insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, these issues were intensively debated and rapidly agreed upon in a dialogue between the technology developers and key regulators in the late eighties, and the remarkable safety record of GM crops in the field is a tribute to the quality of the work done in that period.
Today, the regulatory environment is far more complex and hostile. It is not certain that technology developers would be able to find the regulators as open and willing to help us analyse the issues an create a high quality and science based approach to risk assessment for the new classes of traits. A quite different issue is that the technology leaders for the current batch of traits are mostly public research institutions, most of which do not have much previous experience with the regulatory and biosafety environment in which their material will soon be evaluated.
The second, and more intractable, issue is the cost of regulatory release and compliance, which is already the most important roadblock for public goods research projects in this field. Almost all regulatory compliance work for ag-biotech at the scale of commercial release and international trade is done in the regulatory affairs departments of the big technology companies. They have seen the costs of regulatory compliance soar over the past decade. The cost of obtaining regulatory clearance for, say, a new Bt maize event, grown in the U.S., Canada and Argentina, and registered in the main export markets of these countries for food and feed use, has been estimated by different companies as between 7 and 15 million $ and rising. On top of the very considerable financial burden this poses for the developers (a rule of thumb is that regulatory clearance of GM crops absorbs about half of the total product development investment), comes the certain knowledge that this is not the full picture.
As more countries set national regulations for GM crops and their products, technology developers have to keep registering their products in ever more markets. The Cartagena Protocol should, in principle, lead to a significant reduction of that burden, because it allows importing countries to accept new GM events without additional requirements. Unfortunately, it is rather the refusal of biosafety assessment data of exporters in favour of massive duplication of data gathering that seems to be the rule today. As a result, regulatory clearance has become a major component of life cycle management of GM crops.
The core biosafty assessment of a GM crop is only a fraction of the total regulatory cost. It has been estimated at between 800000$ and 2 million $ by various teams. The rest is mainly attributable to two factors: duplication and administrative burden.
In many countries, the duplication of biosafety assessments for regulatory submissions has become a sizable industry, which in many cases provides more jobs than actual product development. In many developing countries, in the absence of a biotechnology strategy, and in the absence of sufficient belief in the future of their own biotechnology programmes, authorities redirect donor funding for biotechnology towards me-to biosafety assessments, most of which are only intended to confirm in other hands what was already demonstrated in the core regulatory package.
A widely traded GM crop such as maize will have to be cleared in well over twenty markets now, from Argentina through China and the EU to Russia. Each of these jurisdictions requires applicants to follow their national regulatory pathways. Even though the actual technical questions, the elements of the risk assessment, are usually very similar, authorities have almost systematically attempted to differentiate their approaches by different regulatory file format requirements, distribution of authorising responsibility and approval procedures. A task such as translating regulatory files, which can run up to a thousand pages or more, into dozens of languages, is by itself a major challenge and a significant cost.
If we are to see some of the public goods research breakthroughs making it to resource poor farmers, these non-technical hurdles have to be addressed urgently. It is not likely that donor agencies which are currently paying for the research, will be willing to foot the bill for this massive undertaking. That leaves two options: cut the losses and forget about things like Golden Rice (not really an option…), or working to reform a system of regulatory review that has spiralled out of control. This reform is as much a priority for the biotechnology community as the continued scientific work. There are several avenues for rapid improvement.
The first is to tackle the duplication of data gathering requirements, document it as a source of waste of biosafety assessment money and therefore probably a negative biosafety impact. The default approach of any authority should be Mutual Acceptance of Data. Duplication of experiments (especially the baseless requirement in some countries to duplicate generation of compositional data for imported crops, based on trials in the receiving country) should be the exception, and based on a scientific rationale.
The second immediate need is to promote the use of a uniform set of application formats, and to accept a limited need for translation of technical files. This would increase biosafety. Translation of highly technical filings in widely different languages is a challenging task, and companies achieve it reliably only at massive cost. Public sector institutions are unlikely to have the resources for the necessary quality control, and may therefore be working with files that have different meanings for the applicant and the regulator, a recipe for disaster. A uniform format already exists. It is found in the different guidelines developed by OECD between 1986 and 1995, which are the technical basis for the annexes of almost every regulatory system in the world today.
A third burden which has to be challenged urgently is the “time limited permit”. This system, in which countries approve GM crops only for a limited period of time (e.g. in the EU for ten years), leads to a nightmare of complexity. Applications for product approval extensions have to start several years before the actual end of the approval period. During that time, which in the EU is typically 3-4 years, developers shoulder massive risks in their product development pipeline, since permit renewal cannot be taken for granted and large breeding and seed production programmes may well have to be abandoned at the last moment. The institutionalised inability of many regulatory authorities to respect their own official timelines for reviewing files adds to the uncertainty.
It is hard enough for herbicide tolerant and insect resistant crops to survive in this hostile regulatory environment. Applications such as Golden Rice, CMV resistant cassava or drought tolerant wheat can not possibly reach their potential under these constraints. We urgently need a strategic review of the regulatory maze in the light of the coming generation of public goods GM crops, in a setting where the actual science of the regulatory system can again be a major part of the discussion.
There are not many policy platforms left where this is possible. That observation by itself is a sad reflection for how far we have lost contact with scientific and farming reality in the biotechnology debate. Much of the science based framework for risk assessment which proved itself so well in the field over the past decade was agreed upon in a Group of National Experts of OECD, working between 1983 and the mid-90s. Given the current political environment around biotech, the chances are slim that a similar group of experts could be brought together to do a reasonably politics-free job today. It is impossible to imagine this happening in the Cartagena Protocol, where science is systematically discredited as a source of decision making on safety.
The scientific community urgently has to ask policy makers about where they think they are heading with the current approach for biotechnology regulation. It is vastly inefficient in terms of biosafety assessment. It is also actively undermining the sustainability policies of the international community, and a major cause for the delays in reaching the global objectives for poverty eradication and for improvement of the sustainability of agriculture. Not being able to achieve food security and a reduction of the environmental footprint by lack of technological or other resources is one thing. Not being able to do so because we cannot get the policies set up to translate our proven capacities into decisive change is entirely unacceptable.
Commercial plant breeding - what is in the biotech pipeline
March 2004
Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 10(3): 209-223
Andrew Cockburn
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Of all of humankind's endeavours, agriculture has led to the most pressure on land, its resources and biodiversity. Over the past 50 years, the need to increase food production has resulted in the loss of one-fifth of the world's topsoil, one-fifth of its agricultural land and one-third of its forests. To slow down, and ideally reverse, this trend in the face of a predicted population increase of 50 per cent, a water shortage and climate change, new approaches will be needed.
In this context, crop biotechnology and genomics have a major contributory role to play in the sustainable improvement of crop and livestock productivity, human and animal health and the development of renewable resources such as fibres, plastics, biofuels and plant-made pharmaceuticals. Manifestly, this will require both political will and international agreement.
Cows ate GM maize and died!
April 8, 2004
Institute of Science in Society
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
If you are still in mood for even wackier stuff, you cannot beat out friend Mae-Wan's "Cows Ate GM Maize Died" from http://www.i-sis.org.uk :
Twelve diary cows died after being fed GM maize and silage. This happened on a farm in Woelfersheim in the state of Hesse, Germany. According to the report by Greenpeace Germany, 'common errors in feeding and infections had by and large been ruled out as the cause of deathî, and the farmer involved, Gottfried Glickner, a supporter of GM crops, now suspects that Syngentaís GM maize Bt 176 is to be blamed.
Bt 176 contains multiple complex traits, including insect resistance ñ conferred by a toxin from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. It was produced initially by the company Ciba-Giegy in 1994, and acquired subsequently by biotech giant Syngenta. Glickner has been growing Bt 176 increasingly in his fields since 1997, and in 2000 and 2001, switched over entirely to GM maize. Shortly thereafter, five of his cows died within four months in 2001, and another seven in 2002. The rate of milk production decreased in some of the remaining cows and others had to be slaughtered because of unknown illnesses.
If you still had not enough, enjoy this "Oscar-worthy piece of propaganda"
is at http://www.tappedintogreenpeace.org/ram/grains_of_truth0240.ram
House passes GE seed labeling bill
April 7, 2004
Associated Press
Lisa Rathke
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~2069756,00.html
MONTPELIER -- Bills that would require the labeling of genetically engineered seeds and protect farmers from nuisance lawsuits won, according to this story, preliminary approval in the Vermont House Wednesday.
Advocates, who have pushed for a ban on genetically seeds, were cited as saying the labeling bill was an important first step.
Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, was quoted as saying, "It's part of a compromise. It's important legislation, and it's well done."
The measure requires processors to label genetically engineered seeds and to report the sale of such seeds in Vermont.
Rep. Floyd Nease, D-Johnson, a member of the agriculture committee, was cited as saying the bill would help the Agriculture Agency examine the use of genetically engineered seeds in Vermont, adding, "The bill is not just a consumer right-to-know bill. The purpose of the bill is to gather accurate information."
Pant pitches for Asian collective approach on GM food
April 7, 2004
The Financial Express
NEW DELHI: Experts have, according to this story, urged the governments of Asian countries to develop a collective approach and coordination in view of the import regulations for genetically modified (GM) food becoming a contentious issue in global trade.
Inaugurating the second conference on biotechnology for Asian development in Capital on Wednesday, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission KC Pant was quoted as saying, "at present there are very few countries where production and import of GM crops are completely legalised. Various WTO committees like committees for sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and technical barriers to trade (TBT) are discussing issues like traceability and labelling, equivalence and precautionary principles. I believe that a collective thinking and coordination by Asian countries at these committees and other fora would be fruitful as GM food import has become a contentious issue."
Contamination, crop trials, and compatibility
2003
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16: 595-604
D. Bruce
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
This paper examines the ethical and social questions that underlie the present UK discussion whether GM crops and organic agriculture can co-exist within a given region or are mutually exclusive. A European Commission report predicted practical difficulties in achieving sufficient separation distances to guarantee lower threshold levels proposed for GM material in organic produce.
Evidence of gene flow between some crops and their wild relatives has been a key issue in the recent Government consultation to consult on whether or not to authorize commercial planting of GM crops, following the results of the current UK farm scale trials. The admixture of imported Bt transgenes into landrace varieties of Mexican maize also presents difficulties. An ethical evaluation is made of the claim that organic growers should expect protection from adventitious traces of GM constructs in their products. To what extent - on either side of the debate - can any particular group in society set up agricultural standards for itself that may effectively restrain others from an otherwise just business? The assumptions behind notions like "purity" and "contamination" are examined, together with their underlying views of nature and human intervention. The 2001 UK Agriculture and Environmental Biotechnology Commission report is relevant to these issues. While the Government wishes to promote the UK biotechnology industry and is under pressure from US claims of trade restraint, a strong organic lobby demands purity from GM contamination. Does this adversarial framing of the issues reflect broader public opinion in the UK public consultation?
In arriving at policy decisions, the role of the virtue of tolerance is considered in post-modern and Christian ethical context.
"Ethics, patents and the poor"
April 6, 2004
BioVision Alexandria 2004
http://www.bibalex.org
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Scientists, researchers and scholars from all over the world continued their deliberations for the third day at the BioVision Alexandria 2004 Conference, held at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, 3-6 April. On this day, discussions concentrated on "Trade, Patents and Developing Countries", addressing matters of "timing, quality and focus of bio-safety research". Intellectuals worked on finding answers to questions like whether we should move from risk assessment to sustainability assessment? And what evidence base do we actually need to make sound decisions and defend them?.
In a special session on "Intellectual Property Rights", David McConnell, Co-Vice Chairman of European Action on Global Life Sciences and Professor at Smurfit Institute of Genetics at Trinity College, Ireland, spoke of the "genetic hazards resulting from biotechnology being limited compared to other kinds of technology". Professor McConnell pointed out the fact that for the past thirty years, neither genetic engineering research nor biotechnological experiments have caused deaths or accidents in developed or developing countries.
For more information, please visit the conference"s website:
www.bibalex.org/bioalex2004conf
U.S. grain industry, BIO urge U.S. government to expedite 'trace-amounts' policy for biotech products
April 8, 2004
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Washington -- The nation's two major grain industry organizations and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) for the first time have jointly urged three U.S. regulatory agencies to expedite the implementation of an overarching, science-based policy governing incidental, trace amounts – or so-called "adventitious presence" – of biotechnology-enhanced events in raw and processed grains and oilseeds, as well as food and feed. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA), BIO and 17 State and Regional Grain and Feed Associations affiliated with the NGFA said implementation of such a policy for biotech-enhanced commodities is "enormously important" and a "vital" precursor to the United States' providing international leadership to develop a harmonized global approach on the issue. The organizations' joint statement was precipitated by a request for comment from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on whether it should establish a separate component within its regulatory system to address the adventitious presence of biotech-enhanced commodities that have not yet received full regulatory approval for food or feed. APHIS also sought input on whether it should exempt "low-level" occurrences of such biotech-enhanced events in commercial crops, food, feed or seed.
The NGFA, NAEGA, BIO and the other organizations urged APHIS to work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in developing a unified policy approach governing the adventitious presence of biotech events that have been reviewed for food, feed and environmental safety, but have not completed the full regulatory-approval process. In so doing, the groups called on the three federal agencies to adopt a policy proposed by the White House Office of Science and Technology in August 2002.
"Such a policy must be solidly grounded in science, involve all agencies with regulatory responsibilities for biotechnology, and not compromise the safety of the U.S. food and feed supply or the environment," the groups said. The organizations also insisted that such an early safety assessment policy maintain stringent regulatory safeguards and be restricted to those biotech events (specific gene sequences) for which the sponsors seek regulatory approval for use in the general commodity stream for food and feed use. Biotech-enhanced plants intended for pharmaceutical or industrial uses would not be covered by this policy unless they are deregulated for general commodity use in food and feed. Under the U.S. government's current "coordinated framework" for regulating agricultural biotech-enhanced events, APHIS is responsible for issuing permits for field trials of biotech-enhanced plants, and grants "non-regulated status" to biotech crops if the agency determines they do not pose an adverse risk to other plants, wildlife or the environment. Meanwhile, FDA determines whether biotech-enhanced foods, feed and feed ingredients are safe for human and animal consumption. EPA registers biotech-enhanced events that express their own pesticides and determines whether such products pose unreasonable adverse effects upon the environment.
The NGFA, NAEGA, BIO and other groups noted that trace amounts of biotech-enhanced events in commodity crops that have not completed the regulatory review process can result from a plant's natural physiology (pollen flow) or inadvertent mixing during harvest and transportation. But they noted that the U.S. regulatory system imposes a zero tolerance on the presence of such unapproved biotech-enhanced events in food and feed, regardless of the risk level.
"This 'zero-tolerance' policy exposes grain handlers, food processors and feed manufacturers to the risk that any presence in general commodity crops of biotech-enhanced events that have not been approved for food and feed under the U.S. regulatory process could render such crops adulterated and subject to seizure under federal law," the groups said. Such risks are even more complex for agricultural exporters, which confront a lag time in biotech approvals by foreign governments, they said. Further, the groups subsequently noted that this policy is inconsistent with other food regulations that have established thresholds for trace amounts of unexpected materials.
The NGFA, NAEGA, BIO and other organizations said that once such a policy is established, the U.S. government "must vigorously promote global adoption" of compatible regulatory systems that meet the same standards for being science-based and transparent. "A U.S. policy on adventitious presence is a key element in a much-needed comprehensive and harmonized global approval system for regulation of agricultural products of modern biotechnology," the groups said.
Drought-tolerant biotech wheat being tested
April 8,2004
USAgNet
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Last month, the International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center (CIMMYT) took a modest but historic step in the development of drought tolerant wheat, when a small trial plot was sown to genetically modified (transgenic) wheat in a screen house at the Center's headquarters in Texcoco, Mexico. This is the first time that transgenic wheat has been planted under field-like conditions in Mexico, and rigorous biosafety procedures are being followed.
Drought is arguably the world's most important agricultural production problem. In developing countries, millions of hectares of wheat are grown in areas that often experience drought, and the problem is projected to worsen with climate change. A plant's ability to withstand dry conditions at critical periods in its growth can make the difference between food and famine for poor households. Developing drought-tolerant wheat and maize varieties that perform well under diverse conditions is a top priority at CIMMYT, where innovative research is pursued to meet this complex and difficult challenge.
CIMMYT researchers have well-founded hopes that the wheat they are testing will withstand serious droughts. This wheat carries the DREB1A gene from the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. The gene has been shown to confer tolerance to drought, low temperatures, and salinity in Arabidopsis, a plant species related to wild mustard.
Previous experiments with DREB wheat grown in pots in CIMMYT's biosafety greenhouse provided very encouraging results. The new screenhouse trial will enable researchers to see whether the DREB wheat responds similarly under more "natural" conditions.
USDA advisors explain poor biotech adoption in third world
March 15, 2004
Pesticide Toxic Chemical News
Stephen Clapp
Via AgBioView at www.agbioworld.org
Inadequate regulation or over-regulation -- not restrictive patents -- is hindering adoption of public sector biotechnology products in developing countries, a Cornell University professor told USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture last week. "In many ways, it's a very simple subject," Anatole Krattinger told the AC21 panel, which is charged with preparing a report for Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman early next year (see PTCN, Dec. 15, Page 6). "You have a good seed, and the farmer knows how to grow it. However, there are so many actors between the original innovation and delivery to the farmer's field."
Krattinger, who teaches part-time at Cornell and spends the remainder of his working hours as a consultant, said technology transfer to the Third World is driven by the absorptive capacity of developing countries and their biosafety regimes. "University scientists often become de facto regulators and policymakers," he said. Krattinger said intellectual property is not on his list of obstacles. "IP licensing or cross-licensing is an expense, not a problem," he said. "Very little technology transfer to the marketplace is driven or pulled by IP."
The Swiss-born consultant said technology transfer is best served by a critical mass of farmers who want it, general applicability, and shared or complementary market interests. "In either case, IP is not the stumbling block," he said. "It's just a management problem. IP rights are stepping stones, not stumbling blocks."
Krattinger said he and his colleagues had identified 40-odd patents for bioengineered vitamin A-rich "golden rice," but none in the developing world. Developing countries are not using the technology despite an estimated $6 billion in annual health benefits. "We have shifted our emphasis from North to South [developing countries]," Krattinger reported. "Companies will donate their technology, but you have to bring in partners in the South. In the South, you need demand, market structure and divisibility of technology" among beneficiaries. He noted that small farmers in Argentina get more benefit from using Roundup Ready soybeans than do large farmers.
Krattinger listed key challenges to biotechnology transfer:
* Inadequate legislation for technology and variety protection
* Cost of biosafety regulation
* Difficult access to new technologies
* Public sector pricing subsidies, including tax incentives and disincentives
* Complex variety notification, registration and seed certification procedures
* Inadequate water and power infrastructure.
Observing that assembly of a biotech product is easy but transfer is difficult, Krattinger said private companies are able to manage a product development plan, but public sector institutions such as universities "need to work with more partners and acknowledge the market-driven environment." He lamented a total lack of U.S. legislation encouraging technology transfer to developing countries. "I believe the situation will dramatically change when countries like Brazil, India, South Africa and China take the lead" in demanding biotech crops, Krattinger said. "That will happen five years from now--I hope!"
Suitable partners lacking
In the first in a series of presentations on public versus private biotech research, June Blalock, a scientist with USDA's Agricultural Research Service, acknowledged difficulty in finding partners for commercializing bioengineered small-market crops. She cited daunting biosafety regulations and liability issues, noting that regulatory approval is a "predictable but costly process."
"How do we turn our research results into marketable products if we don't have a partner?" Blalock asked. While niche market crops would seem to present opportunities for small companies, "what's missing is the availability of capital for the entrepreneur," Blalock said. "IP rights are usually not the prime reason things are not shared. And liability concerns translate into real money."
Blalock reported that some seed companies are bypassing opportunities to develop transgenic crop varieties because advances such as targeted genetics enable them to use conventional tools and technologies to achieve the same ends.
Noting that only two biotech crops developed by the public sector have been commercialized--virus-resistant squash and papaya--Michael Schechtman, designated federal official for the AC21 committee, said USDA research agencies plan to hold a national expert workshop on development of small-market biotech crops.
Randy Woodson, a Purdue University scientist, cited "the overwhelming cost of regulatory approval" as the principle obstacle to translating university biotech research into marketable products. "That's why we don't develop pesticides and drugs in universities," he added. Woodson noted that indemnification of a university against liability litigation is a non-negotiable demand of administrators. Reporting that funding streams haven't followed biotech research trends into minor crops and niche markets, he said state legislatures are mostly interested in supporting projects that further economic development. Stressing a need to form public-private partnerships to bring biotech products to market, Woodson suggested creation of a publicly funded effort resembling the IR-4 program, which helps producers develop data to register minor-use pesticides such as those used on strawberries and lettuce. "Commercial companies focus on major commodities and market share," Woodson said. "Niche markets, minor crops and developing country opportunities can be ignored in the current environment. Minor crop producers were funding biotech research until it became clear the companies weren't interested."
Sweden gives green light for GM potatoes
April 8, 2004
Agence France Presse English
STOCKHOLM - The Swedish Board of Agriculture on Thursday was cited as giving the green light for producing genetically modified potatoes for industrial use, but said that the EU had to accept the proposal before it could be put into effect.
Gabriella Cahlin, head of the Board's plant growth division, was quoted as telling AFP that, "We have thoroughly tested this (potato), and we've said that it is safe. We've sent the proposal on to the EU."
While the starch content in an average potato consists of 85 percent amylopectin and 15 percent amylose, the GM potato that Sweden has been testing since 1994 contains 98 percent amylopectin and only 2 percent amylose.
"This makes the potato much more advantageous for industry use, like for paper treatment," Cahlin said, adding that biproducts from the potatoes could be used for animal feed or fertilizer, but that they would not be used for human consumption.
"For animal feed, these potatoes are the equivalent of other starch potatoes," she said.
Cahlin also insisted that there is very little danger of cross-fertilization with non-GM potatoes.
Industry leader inducted into the Conservation Hall of Fame
April 8, 2004
Soil Conservation Council of Canada
Indian Head, Sask.: A Saskatchewan educator, farmer and former Executive Director of the Soil Conservation Council of Canada has been inducted into the Conservation Hall of Fame.
Glen Hass was named as this year's inductee for his dedication and leadership in supporting soil conservation in Canada. The honour was presented to Hass during the Soil Conservation Council of Canada (SCCC) annual meeting in Victoria, B.C., on March 24. The SCCC works to improve the understanding and awareness of soil conservation issues and practices in Canada.
"Glen has worked tirelessly to improve and promote the Soil Conservation Council of Canada," says Stephen Broad, Past President of the SCCC. "He had the insight to perceive that we must let the world know about soil conservation and the role the Soil Conservation Council of Canada plays in carrying out that vision."
A strong communicator with a keen sense of humour, Hass first came to the attention of the SCCC in 1995 when the organization was facing a critical stage in development. Hass jumped on board and helped organize the first national conference. He then became the Executive Director of the SCCC helping to establish the vision, mandate and mission for the group. Hass believed in building a strong provincial network of soil conservation groups that could work together to enhance awareness of climate change and the effects it had on agriculture.
"Glen helped build our group into the only voice for soil conservation in Canada," says Broad. "The Soil Conservation Council of Canada is now looked to as the leading source of information by others because they have become the country-wide voice of producers."
Hass attended the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon where he completed degrees in Agriculture and Education. He went on to receive a Master's degree in Continuing Education and taught at Aden Bowman Collegiate in Saskatoon. He later became an associate professor of extension programming in the area of agriculture and rural development at the University of Saskatchewan. He retired from teaching in 1993 and has since been consulting in the agricultural industry through his firm, Organizational Management Services. Hass, also a former farmer, and his wife, Elaine, own land south east of Saskatoon.
The Conservation Hall of Fame, located in the Sir John Carling Building in Ottawa, recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to soil and water conservation. National Soil Conservation Week runs April 18 to 24, 2004.
Herbicide- and antibiotic-free selection of GM plants
April 9, 2004
Crop Biotech
Torgny Näsholm and his colleagues developed a method which relies on transforming plants with a gene called dao1 which encodes D-amino acid oxidase (DAAO). DAAO catalyses the oxidative deamination of a range of D-amino acids, and the selection strategy is based on the toxicity of different D-amino acids and their metabolites to plants.
Although the current research reported in the April issue of Nature Biotechnology describes work carried out in Arabidopsis, Näsholm is optimistic that this selection method will prove feasible for use in agriculturally important species.
Visit the website of the Plant Science Research in Sweden at http://www.upsc.nu. For more information about the research, contact Torgny Näsholm at: torgny.nasholm@...
Permit for biotech rice is denied in California
April 9, 2004
Knight-Ridder Tribune
Judy Silber, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.
In a decision that could affect a growing debate over the planting of genetically engineered rice in California, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has, according to this story, ruled against a company's bid to grow its crops in this state.
Citing concerns about the potential for mix-ups between the biotech rice and commercial varieties, USDA denied a permit that would have allowed Sacramento-based Ventria BioScience to plant rice genetically engineered for the production of pharmaceuticals.
But a Ventria spokesperson was cited as saying the denial is likely to be only a small setback for its quest to plant in California up to 120 acres of rice, adding, "We're working with the USDA on all of our issue. This is fairly standard that they ask a lot of questions. Our job is to go back and answer them."
A representative from the USDA could not be reached for comment.
Indian children exposed to pesticides lose memory, maths skills: Greenpeace
April 9, 2004
Agence France Presse
AHMEDABAD, India - Indian children living in villages who are exposed to dangerously high levels of pesticides have poor memories and impaired analytical and motor skills, environmental group Greenpeace warned Friday.
Greenpeace drew these conclusions after studying the impact of pesticide on 898 children between the ages of four and five and nine and 13 in 18 villages in six different states.
"The 898 children from diverse backgrounds who constituted our random sample did not have anything in common except that they were exposed to pesticides," Kavitha Kuruganti, principal investigator of the Greenpeace study, told AFP.
"Many of them were unable to perform even simple play-based exercises like catching a ball or assembling a jigsaw puzzle," she added.
The study also showed that children in a control group not exposed to pesticides performed 80 percent better than children exposed to the chemicals.
"There was some degree of variation in the mental disorder among the children in the sample group but the difference was insignificant," said Greenpeace campaigner Divya Raghunandan.
"However, between the control group and pesticide-exposed group, the difference in the children's mental capabilities was stark."
Greenpeace surveyed children from India's six cotton-cultivating states of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharastra and Gujarat.
"We selected children from the hotspots of pesticide usage. Generally, in cotton-cultivating areas, pesticides are used most indiscriminately," said Raghunandan.
According to her, on average farmers in the northern breadbasket state of Punjab spray their cotton and wheat crops 15 to 30 times a day.
"The extent of the use of pesticide is really very high in India. Farmers do no just use one pesticide but several to protect their crops which is very hazardous," said Raghunandan.
India is the largest producer of pesticides in Asia and ranks as the 12th largest in the world. It produces 90,000 tonnes of pesticides annually.
Environmental groups have warned such widespread use of pesticides has not only contaminated food but even ground water in India.
"We will use this study to fight the fertiliser and pesticides industry at two levels," said Raghunandan.
"On one hand, confront them with their liabilities. On the other hand, motivate farmers throughout the country to reject pesticides and declare themselves organic."
So far, only the northeastern states of Sikkim and Mizoram have taken to organic cultivation and given up fertilisers, said Greenpeace.
The environmental watchdog also accused global pesticide makers of adopting "double standards" by dumping dangerous pesticides in the Indian market which they would not do in their home markets of Europe or United States.
Thwarting Russian wheat aphids—again
April 8, 2004
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Past Agricultural Research Service work to control Russian wheat aphids may pay off again, this time against a new biotype of the insect.
Russian wheat aphids are major pests of cereal crops. The original biotype has cost American wheat and barley farmers billions of dollars in losses since first appearing in the United States in 1986.
The new biotype, first spotted in Colorado last year, overcomes the genetic defenses of many wheat and barley lines developed to combat the original aphid. These lines were developed at the ARS Wheat, Peanut and Other Field Crops Research Unit in Stillwater, Okla., and at the Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research Unit in Aberdeen, Idaho.
In Stillwater, entomologist James Webster and geneticists Cheryl Baker and Dolores Mornhinweg reacted to the discovery of the first aphid biotype by screening 30,000 wheat and 24,000 barley germplasm accessions for resistance traits for incorporation into new crop lines. Most of that germplasm was obtained from the Aberdeen unit's National Small Grains Collection.
That work led to identification of more than 300 resistant wheat germplasm lines and 40 promising barley germplasm lines.
Now, the new biotype has led Baker and Mornhinweg to re-examine breeding lines they developed during the first crisis. Mornhinweg tested about one-third of the barley lines found to be resistant to the original aphid and discovered they were resistant to the new type. Also, four breeding lines of winter barley and three feed barleys set to be released within the next few years show resistance to both aphid biotypes.
Baker has found strong candidates among the advanced wheat lines, including a promising one derived from a wheat-rye line she received from a South African scientist.
Read more about the research in the April issue of Agricultural Research magazine, available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr04/aphid0404.htm
ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific research agency.
Lambda-cyhalothrin and an isomer gamma-cyhalothrin; tolerances for residues
April 8, 2004
Federal Register: (Volume 69, Number 68)
[Page 18480-18489]
[DOCID:fr08ap04-9]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-2004-0025; FRL-7353-4]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is amending 40 CFR part 180 by promulgating a new tolerance expression for the isomer form of gamma-cyhalothrin. Gamma-cyhalothrin is the isolated active isomer of lambda-cyhalothrin under 40 CFR 180.438. Pytech Chemicals GmbH, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268, requested this change in tolerance expression in support of the registration of a pesticide formulation enriched with the gamma isomer of lambda-cyhalothrin. DATES: This regulation is effective April 8, 2004. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0025, must be received on or before June 7, 2004. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William G. Sproat, Jr.,Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8587; e-mail address: sproat.william@....
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph and is sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Plants Program at the University of Guelph, Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), AGCare, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, ConAgra Foods Inc., Meat Livestock Australia, Pioneer Hi-Bred Limited (Canada), Monsanto Canada, National Pork Board, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. USA, JIFSAN, CropLife Canada, Canadian Animal Health Institute, Burger King Corporation, Southern Crop Protection Association, Ag-West Biotech Inc., Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Syngenta Crop Protection, Feedlot Health Management Services, Institute of Environmental Science Research Limited , National Food Processors Association, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., CanAmera Foods, Global Public Affairs, and Agri Business Group, Inc.
To subscribe to the html version of Agnet (subscription is free), send mail to:
listserv@...
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
subscribe agnet-L firstname lastname
i.e. subscribe agnet-L Doug Powell
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to subscribe to the text version of agnet)
To unsubscribe to the html version of Agnet, send mail to:
listserv@...
leave subject line blank
in the body of the message type:
signoff agnet-L
(replace agnet-L with agnettext to unsubscribe to the text version of agnet)
For more information about the Agnet research program, please contact:
Dr. Douglas Powell
Associate Professor
dept. of plant agriculture
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ont.
N1G 2W1
tel: 519-824-4120 x54280
cell: 519-835-3015
fax: 519-763-8933
dpowell@...
http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca
The Food Safety Network's bilingual toll-free line for obtaining food safety
information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638)
archived at "http://131.104.232.9/agnet-archives.htm
Send Email