Having problems with message search?
Agnet April 20/04
Making GM crops environmentally favoured
How is biotechnology developing?
Science fact: I am a biotech advocate
Duane Grant: a farmer proceeds with care
From GloFish to purple carnations
ANZAC forestry deal boosts competitiveness
Golden nematode; Regulated area
how to subscribe
Making GM crops environmentally favoured
April 19, 2004
Open i
David Walker
http://www.openi.co.uk/oi040419.htm
After nearly a decade of commercial use, genetically modified crops are very fully integrated into US agriculture. And one might have expected that, like air seeding, personal computers and other technology of the 1990's it would not be worthy of any special attention.
The US Department of Agriculture does, however, still question farmers in its Prospective Plantings survey on their intentions to seed genetical modified varieties of maize, soyabeans and cotton. As might be expected the process of adoption of this powerful technology is about complete. Only about 14 percent of soybeans and 24 percent of cotton acres are still seeded to traditionally bred varieties.
For maize, however, over half the US crop is still seeded to them. The reason for this partial adoption of the technology is, of course, because the traditional maize herbicide, atrazine, which has been used for decades, is particularly effective in controlling weeds.
Paradoxically, it was this "relative" ineffectiveness of herbicide resistant maize in an agronomic context that resulted in its approval for use in the UK. While the European ban on the use of atrazine after 2005 means that genetically modified maize is expected to become relatively more effective at that time, it will, therefore, become environmentally less acceptable.
It might seem that biotechnology can not win in this agronomically upside world where the better the job, the less acceptable it is.
Genetically modified oilseed rape and sugar beet have been rejected because they were relatively effective, but GM maize has been accepted because it was relatively ineffective. By doing this the UK government appears to have established the principle that genetically modified crops and their agronomy are preferred if they are grown in a manner that results in increased biodiversity. And one would suppose the same principal applies to conventional technology.
The agronomics of genetically modified varieties are particularly powerful. Hence, it should be a relatively simple task to adjust the manner in which they are grown to accommodate this second objective of biodiversity without impinging unduly on the first objective which is, of course, to provide an economic advantage by reducing unit costs of production.
Herbicides used with conventionally bred varieties are often only effective if used when weeds are at an early stage of development. Agronomically benign weed growth, which does not compete with a crop but has environmental value, can not be accommodated. There is, of course, very considerable flexibility in the application of glyphosate with genetically modified crops in terms of the stage at which weed growth can be controlled which allowa this accommodation of environmental objectives.
Further the relative impotence of conventional herbicides means they have to always be used to their full potential, whereas GM crop weed control regimes can be relaxed to accommodate environmental objectives.
The implications of this is that genetically modified varieties and their agronomy may quickly become the environmentally preferred option.
And further, under these circumstances, any government claiming to be sensitive to environmental issues will eventually need to effectively ban non-GM technology by banning the herbicides needed to support it. While the UK may have been very slow in approving the technology, it may yet get to beat the US to dumping the environmentally unfriendly conventionally bred varieties through phasing out the herbicides upon which they are dependent.
Quite where this would leave the organic movement is another matter. It does not, of course, use the herbicides that might be phased out. But it would have the challenge of maintaining its conservancy mantra while it was banning the use of environmentally favoured farming techniques.
How is biotechnology developing?
April 19, 2004
AgBiotech Buzz Volume 4 Number 2
http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3?StoryID=120
This month we've asked four leading biotechnology researchers to answer some questions about where biotechnology is and where it is going. Roger Beachy, President of the Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center in St. Louis, MO; Steven Strauss, Director of the Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative at Oregon State University; Perry Hackett, professor of Genetics and Cell Biology at the University of Minnesota and Chief Scientific Officer of Discovery Genomics Inc.; and Cecil Forsberg, professor of Microbiology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, agreed to participate.
What is the problem you are trying to address?
Beachy: To develop novel strategies to control virus diseases in crop plants; to develop novel methods to control gene expression in plants, and to apply them to engineer new pathways and/or produce novel biomaterials in transgenic plants.
Strauss: Ways to prevent gene release from transgenic trees into wild populations. We wish to develop methods that would drastically reduce, if not avoid entirely, releases into wild and cultivated poplars when these pose agronomic or ecological concerns.
Hackett (answering as a University professor): [In our lab] we are looking at the best methods of using [a]...modified transposon* as a means of stably delivering therapeutic genes to chromosomes in mice and humans. This will allow us to find methods of doing human gene therapy without using viruses. We are also exploring how to use zebrafish as a model vertebrate system for identifying functions of genes in mammals. [*Transposons are pieces of DNA that have the ability to move from location to location within a genome and carry other DNA with them. Hackett's transposon has lost the ability to move on its own.]
Hackett (answering as Chief Scientific Officer): [At Discovery Genomics] We are conducting preclinical work to discover how efficient the Sleeping Beauty transposon system is in delivering genes into the livers of animals with genetic diseases. We are also trying to identify which genes are critical for blood vessel formation (angiogenesis.) Those candidate genes can then be used as targets for drugs or the basis of human therapeutics.
Forsberg: Because phosphorus in cereal grains and supplements is present as indigestible phytate, domestic livestock including pigs and poultry are unable to use phosphorus in cereal grains (including corn, barley, wheat etc.) As a result, these feeds enrich phosphorus concentration in excreted materials approximately four-fold. If this manure is spread heavily on land near freshwater systems it can leach into the water. Pollution caused by high phosphorus content of domestic animal manure is a problem in Europe, North America and South East Asia.
Why did you choose biotechnology to achieve your goal?
Beachy: The problems that are being addressed cannot be met by standard plant breeding technologies, and I concluded that biotechnology was the only way to achieve success.
Strauss: Sterility is very rare in the wild. We have studied other methods such as triploidy – having three sets of chromosomes instead of two – and they give very incomplete sterility and greatly constrain breeding options. Biotech methods can do it in any genotype and should be more far more efficient.
Hackett: We had no other choice to achieve our goals.
Forsberg: To enable pigs to digest all forms of cereal grain and supplement phosphorus we introduced a transgene into pigs by pronuclear microinjection of fertilized embryos. This has enabled the development of a new line of pigs trademarked the Enviropig. This line of pigs synthesizes phytase in the salivary glands. The enzyme converts practically all of the phytate into the form of phosphate that is readily absorbed from the small intestine removing the need to supplement and reducing phosphorus concentration in manure by at least 60 percent.
Has the debate over biotechnology affected your ability to do research?
Beachy: Our ability to conduct research has not been negatively impacted for the most part. However, the ability to make the transition from basic (research) work to biotechnology is limited by the challenges that must be overcome to commercialize successful discoveries. Some of these challenges are financial, while some are problems of perception and a modest to low potential for acceptance of certain products at the present time.
Strauss:> Not too much. There is less interest from most companies as they are unsure if they can use results commercially in the near term, but we continue to have sustained public grant support. So far field test rules are sane in comparison to the European Union where it's basically impossible to do field trials for any [GM] tree due to costly and crazy regulations, which also promote vandalism.
Hackett: We are heavily into GMOs. Nearly all of the debate is between ideologues and government and not very pertinent to reality. The debate on release of GMOs stopped some of my university research on transgenic fish, which resulted in my shifting to transgenic humans.
Forsberg: Yes, the social and ethical debate has affected our ability to develop this technology rapidly. Despite the obvious benefit of developing environmentally-friendly pigs, there are social and ethical stigmas associated with genetically modified animals. Consequently, we see limited industrial interest in this technology, probably due mainly to two reasons. First, because the Enviropig is the first domestic animal going through a regulatory approval process (in Canada) there is the concern for the high cost and the length of time to get regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory approval will be required for each country for which there is export. Secondly, industry is concerned that once regulatory approval is achieved, consumers may not purchase the pork because it is genetically modified. I suspect there is also a third concern by industry. If the Enviropig is approved and is for sale at the meat counter, some consumers may think all pork is genetically modified and will decrease their consumption of pork.
What is the way forward?
Beachy: Academic, and to lesser extent, private sector scientists must be more 'bullish' about the results of their basic studies and make known the potential for applications to the lay public. Plant biology is equally as important in the long run as the medical sciences, and we need to learn to communicate the message. Scientists also need to have a greater presence at public speaking opportunities and be more willing to work with and educate the lay press to enhance the chance of getting a positive message to the readership. We may need to find mechanisms to promote product development in the public sector and/or in small companies to reduce perception of biotechnology as a big company process. Lastly, scientists need to get engaged in the regulatory process and in policy forums to bring a sense of urgency for reform of the biosafety and commercialization track; hopefully, this will increase the likelihood of getting new products to market. I am very concerned that innovation and entrepreneurship will be markedly slowed by regulatory costs and other hurdles that are not scientifically based. We need to stem the rush to regulate.
Strauss: Make regulations “bio-sane” so safe forms of GMOs can be used without absurd levels of regulation and thus unacceptable risks for industries wishing to use them commercially.
Hackett: Part of the belonging to a free society is that we have to engage in open debate. I think the system is working even though I do believe there are a lot of people who are vested in the politics of the debate over biotechnology. I have a lot of faith in biotechnology and I believe the important things will be accepted in the end. It will just be a matter of time.
Forsberg: Phosphorus in manure from domestic animals is a major cause for eutrophication of freshwater systems because of leaching from farmers' fields that leads to poor water quality in North America, Europe and Asia. Therefore, we believe that within the next few years, transgenic domestic animals with environmentally friendly or other novel improved nutritional characteristics will become accepted and will have an important position in the industry, and will be well received by both farmers and consumers. The unknown is the length of time for this transition.
For more information, visit theDanforth Center; the Strauss Lab; Discovery Genomics; and the Forsberg Lab online.
Science fact: I am a biotech advocate
April 20, 2004
BioScience News and Advocate
Dean Kleckner
Having visited over 70 countries and New Zealand five times, I am a ‘New Zealand advocate’! A terrific country, filled with hard-working people and farmers that are proud of their clean, green image----as I am of my farm and my home state. And, I’m a believer in biotechnology.
The enemies of biotechnology want you to think that they’re fighting a heroic struggle against Frankenstein’s monster--something so horrible and unnatural that it shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
But they’re really living in some kind of Hollywood fantasyland. They understand almost nothing about agriculture, science, or common sense.
Farmers have been growing genetically modified crops for thousands of years. We’re the world’s first genetic engineers. Long before the folks in white lab jackets discovered DNA, our forefathers were breeding all kinds of plants to grow more, better and healthier food. To them, this was simple necessity. Today, however, we recognize that they were actually combining genes.
Everybody loves eating big, juicy tomatoes. Farmers have grown them for ages, but they’ve also developed them over time, through experimentation. The tomatoes we buy now originally derived from a plant that produced little red berries. They’re nothing like today’s tomatoes, which are the genetic creation of farmers. The same is true with New Zealand’s kiwi fruit--it hails from the inedible Chinese gooseberry.
Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh has pointed out that these
modern crops would survive in the wild ‘no longer than a domesticated
chihuahua would last in the company of wolves.’ Yet none of us would
consider the act of eating seedless grapes ‘unnatural.’
We should therefore appreciate biotechnology as the continuation of a historic process to improve crops through better breeding. And let’s be absolutely clear about something: Nobody anywhere has ever found so much as a single scrap of evidence showing biotech foods to be anything but perfectly safe to eat. They’ve been tested over and over by top scientists in government, industry, and universities--even by people hoping to expose problems. Yet the fact remains that they may be consumed without concern.
The benefits of biotechnology are fantastic: Because these crops do a better job of fending off pests and disease, they’ve delivered tremendous advantages to farmers and the consumers who eat them. We’ve boosted our yields, which lowers prices and makes it easier to feed a growing population. We’ve been able to reduce our use of herbicides and pesticides. Finally, we’re helping the environment, because biotech crops help combat soil erosion and remove incentives to turn wilderness into farmland.
This isn’t science fiction--it’s science fact. The best news of all is that agricultural biotechnology is in its infancy. In the near future, we’re going to see the development of plants that resist drought. Genetic enhancement also will allow us to grow heart-healthy food as well as crops that fight cancer and other menaces.
A few outspoken radical activists may call this ‘unnatural’--though I think it’s unnatural not to want to use the tools of biotechnology to help us grow better food, feed the world, and help conserve our environment.
Dean Kleckner Chairs Truth About Trade and Technology,
(www.truthabouttrade.org) a national grassroots advocacy group based in Des
Moines, IA formed by farmers in support of freer trade and advancements in
biotechnology. Mr. Kleckner is an Iowa farmer and a former President of the
American Farm Bureau Federation
Duane Grant: a farmer proceeds with care
April 19, 2004
AgBiotech Buzz Volume 4 Number 2
http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3?StoryID=121
As a young farmer from Idaho, Duane Grant vividly remembers his introduction to agricultural biotechnology. While touring Monsanto's research facilities in St. Louis, a company scientist showed him two tomato plants: one shriveled and dead; the other, thriving green and sporting big red tomatoes. The dead plant, grown conventionally, had succumbed to the effects of the weed killing herbicide Roundup®. The living plant was immune to the effects of the widely-used herbicide because a gene resistant to Roundup® had been inserted into the genome of that plant.
"As a farmer, weeds are public enemy number one. If you don't control weeds in your field, you simply won't have a harvest. So any technology that allows us to control weeds ensures we will have a harvest," Grant says. "And so as a young farmer that was an AHA! moment for me – becoming aware of this technology that could replace people walking through the fields manually pulling weeds out by hand."
Ever since that day in 1989, Grant has been an avid supporter of agricultural biotechnology.
"The ability to incorporate traits into plants and animals is probably the most powerful technology ever discovered and put to use by mankind in the field of food production," Grant says. "Biotech dwarfs earlier advances in food production."
Grant grows a variety of crops – including potatoes, sugar beets, wheat, malt barley and corn. Every decision the 42-year-old third-generation farmer makes about his 9,500 acre farm in Rupert, Idaho, is based on whether or not he can make a profit. He believes the reason U.S. agriculture is able to compete in the world market is because many growers are quick to adapt new technologies that help them do what they do better. Biotechnology is another adaptation that gives American farmers an edge, Grant says.
"Agriculture is an extremely competitive environment," he says. "If you don't pay attention to the competition, the competition will pass you up in a couple of years. And a couple of years after that, you'll be out of the business."
His belief that adding GM crops into the mix of products that farmers grow can improve agricultural production worldwide took him to Europe for seven weeks in 2003. The Eisenhower Foundation in Philadelphia awarded Grant a fellowship for the trip, where he met with almost 70 growers, wholesalers, suppliers, politicians and scientists in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Belgium.
"My purpose was to try to understand why Europeans react in such a negative manner to the introduction of biotechnology into their food supply," he says.
He discovered the “European reaction” depended on who you were talking to. For example, his peers in conventional farming very much wanted access to the technology, but were prohibited by law from growing GM crops. Organic farmers, on the other hand, were vehemently against the technology, labeling it ‘gene contamination.’
He says the buyers, sellers, traders and processors had an interesting way of dancing around the issue. This group needs to import large quantities of soybeans because the crop isn't widely produced in Europe. But most of the soybeans produced in the world are GM. So European buyers have adopted a don't ask, don't tell policy, Grant explains.
Grant claims they have reduced imports of such products from the U.S. because they are predominately GM and have increased imports from other countries, such as Brazil, where there is a higher chance that some of the soybeans aren't GM. Half of all soybeans grown in Brazil are GM and half are not. But the European importers/wholesalers are not asking if the soybeans they are buying are GM or not and they aren't testing the validity of growers' claims that what they are selling is in fact conventionally grown.
"The system has incorporated a level of disingenuousness in that what it represents to European consumers is not at all what's coming in," Grant says. "It serves the purpose of alleviating the concerns of European consumers."
Grant says different polls have shown that about 35 percent of European consumers are strongly opposed to purchasing GM products and about 50 percent would buy GM products if they are less expensive than their organic or conventional counterparts. The rest, he says, would go organic.
"There is very real resistance from European consumers to purchasing GM products," he says.
Grant recalls his first lunch foray in London. He walked over to a little restaurant that had on its front door stickers for the credit cards the business accepted and below those, a sticker that read: "This is a GM free zone."
"Putting that sticker on the door was a way for the owners to add value to what they were presenting to their customers," he says. "Resistance is not just thrown up by politicians in Europe. It is a reflection of European consumer preferences."
Though Americans may not feel as strongly about genetically modified products as their European counterparts, that doesn't mean GM is always accepted in this country. In 1998, Grant and other farmers were growing a GM potato resistant to the potato virus Y, which causes brown streaks to appear in the flesh of the potato. Growers have traditionally controlled the disease by spraying an extremely toxic pesticide two to four times during the summer to kill the aphids that transmit the virus. The pesticide is so toxic that people and animals are prohibited from going back into the field for two days after spraying because the fumes could kill them, Grant says.
Monsanto developed a GM potato able to withstand the virus and Grant started growing the crop. However, Grant notes that fast food giant McDonald's, responding to pressure from activists, said they wouldn't buy the GM potatoes because they believed using GM potatoes for their French fries could damage their brand name.
"Since McDonald's is the largest maker of French fries globally, that effectively killed this technology," Grant says. "Now we are back to using the toxic pesticides again. It is one of the saddest stories in the evolution of biotechnology applications in agriculture."
Even though Grant is a vocal supporter of biotechnology and has sat on many committees that deal with biotech issues, he believes farmers need to proceed with care when using these methods.
"Since it is so powerful, we have to be cautious about how we use the technology. We need regulatory oversight and active public participation," he says. "But wholesale prohibition as practiced in Europe is strictly unacceptable."
From GloFish to purple carnations
April 19, 2004
AgBiotech Buzz Volume 4 Number 2
http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3?StoryID=119
The first genetically engineered pet made a splash in December when Yorktown Technologies introduced GloFish® – a fish that glows fluorescent under black light – into the market. Intense interest in the fish prompted the Austin, Tex.-based company to speed GloFish® to a limited market before Christmas in advance of nationwide marketing that began in January.
The introduction of the inch-long fish with bright red markings that glow under black, fluorescent and halogen light spawned a debate over whether GM household pets represent an appropriate use of biotechnology. It also pointed to uncertainties in the current regulatory system. While the FDA opened the door for marketing GloFish® by ruling that it would not regulate the fish because they were not intended for human consumption, California banned the sale of the fish, and national pet store chains Petco and Petsmart also decided against stocking GloFish®. The interest in the novelty fish and the controversy surrounding it highlight the fact that the use of the technology is rapidly expanding from traditional agricultural applications in commodity crops such as soybeans and cotton to applications that would have been unimaginable only a decade ago.
Academic and industry researchers are currently employing biotechnology to develop products that range in use from pharmaceutical-producing sugar cane and rice, to cows and pigs that produce heart-healthy omega 3 fatty acids, to perfectly-shaped Christmas trees that hang on to their needles. In light of the profusion of research into new applications of the technology, this month we survey some of the more intriguing avenues of biotechnology research and development.
Surprisingly, GloFish® didn’t start out as a trendy pet. They were developed in Singapore as a means to monitor water pollution. Researchers inserted a gene that causes coral to glow into the zebra danios fish. The idea was the fish would serve as a “canary in a coal mine” by glowing when they hit polluted waters. The problem with using the fish to monitor water pollution was that once the fish started to glow, they didn’t stop. As a result, they didn’t monitor water pollution in quite the way the original researchers had hoped. Even so, Yorktown Technologies decided that the fish had a place in fish enthusiasts’ tanks.
Researchers are also looking at plants to serve as sentinels of chemical and biological exposure. Scientists at Pennsylvania State University are working on developing GM plants that can detect harmful chemical and biological agents. The research, which is in its infancy, is being funded by a $3.5 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – an agency of the Department of Defense.
The Penn State researchers are studying how plants detect and respond to a variety of environmental stimuli including microbes, insects, chemicals and hormones. They are studying how a small flowering plant from the mustard family known as Arabidopsis responds to its environment through a set of proteins known as receptor-like kinases. By using biotechnology to link portions of these receptors to proteins that can cause visual responses such as glowing green, the team is hoping to create a variety of plant sentinels that can detect things such as chemical warfare agents, unexploded ordinance, and biological agents like anthrax.
The research may even prove useful for ordinary agriculture. Sentinel plants could be created to sense insect infestations, diseases, poor soil conditions, or early drought conditions. By engineering plants that can tell farmers when such conditions exist, farmers could very precisely combat those problems.
Much of the work in agricultural biotechnology still concerns creating crops that resist pests, diseases and adverse environmental conditions. By creating crops resistant to pests, farmers may not have to rely as much on chemical pesticides, and yields of important crops could be increased in areas where food security is threatened. Indian scientists are working on creating saline-resistant and drought-resistant rice and wheat. Researchers at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in New Delhi are working to introduce genes for saline resistance from a variety of plants into wheat and rice in an effort to create crops that can withstand the higher salinity of soil that comes from the regular cultivation of land.
Indian scientists associated with the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) have launched field trials of a GM pigeon pea that is resistant to an insect pest known as legume pod borer. Despite heavy use of pesticides, the pod borer is responsible for 50 percent of all Indian crop losses attributed to pests. The Indian scientists employed a Bacillus thuringiensis gene to create the resistant pigeon peas they are now testing. In addition to developing crops with resistance to pests, scientists are working on developing resistance to viruses as well. In Kenya, researchers are developing a sweet potato resistant to sweet potato feathery mottle virus. The virus accounts for 80 percent of the yield loss experienced by the Kenyan subsistence farmers who rely on the crop.
In the United States, researchers at the University of Hawaii are trying to create a pineapple with resistance to nematodes and mealybugs by introducing rice genes into pineapple. The researchers recently garnered federal approval to conduct open air trials of the pineapple which is also designed to flower uniformly. Synchronized pineapple flowering could cut down on labor because the fields wouldn’t need to be picked repeatedly.
Engineering disease resistance and growth qualities into crops provides benefits to farmers such as a lessened reliance on pesticides and better coordination of harvests. While benefits to farmers are important, much work is also going into developing foods with direct benefits to consumers.
For example, scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and DuPont Crop Genetics have developed corn with six times the vitamin E of conventional corn. Vitamin E is a powerful antioxidant that protects cells from damage by free radicals. Heart disease, diabetes, cataracts and cancer are all linked to free radical damage. In addition, corn with high levels of vitamin E is resistant to spoilage and products made with such corn or oil from such corn will have a longer shelf life. The vitamin E corn still needs to be successfully tested in animal feed applications first, then in human food applications before it will be available. The researchers estimate it will be five to seven years before the product is commercially available.
Similarly, researchers at Harvard Medical School are using biotechnology to try to get land animals to produce omega-3 fatty acids – the heart-healthy oils naturally found in fish. Omega-3 fatty acids improve circulation and may dampen inflammation and fight cancer. Currently meat and dairy products contain high levels of omega-3 fatty acids only if they are fed fishmeal – a costly proposition that uses a scarce marine resource.
In a first step toward creating animals that make their own omega-3 oils, the Harvard team inserted a gene from a nematode worm into mice. The gene encodes an enzyme called omega-3 fatty acid saturase which transforms omega-6 fatty acids into omega-3 fatty acids. The animals made their own omega-3 fatty acids from their naturally occurring omega-6 oils. The researchers intend to attempt the same feat in chickens soon.
In addition to developing foods that have health benefits, researchers are using plants as factories for creating pharmaceuticals and drug compounds. Ventria Bioscience is developing rice to produce two enzymes used in oral rehydration products to treat severe diarrhea: lactoferrin and lysozyme. The company has received an endorsement from the California Rice Commission to plant the rice, however the California Department of Agriculture has denied the application to plant the rice because the U.S. Department of Agriculture has yet to issue a permit to the company. Ventria says it has yet to apply for the federal permit. The company says 65 acres of lactoferrin rice produces enough enzyme to treat 650,000 children with diarrhea. The same acreage of lysozyme rice would yield lysozyme enough to treat 6.5 million patients.
Researchers from Texas A&M University and proCANE LLC are also developing sugarcane to produce pharmaceutical proteins. The researchers will splice the desired gene into sugarcane transforming it to produce both sugar and recombinant proteins which could be used to treat diseases ranging from diabetes to hemophilia. Using sugarcane to produce recombinant proteins could significantly increase the capacity to make these pharmaceuticals and reduce the risk of transmitting pathogens from animals to humans. Most recombinant proteins are made in either bacteria or mammalian cell cultures, which is very expensive.
In addition to using plants as protein factories, researchers are creating plants that produce industrial chemicals as well. Russian researchers at the Institute of General Genetics in Moscow have created a transgenic tobacco plant that produces spider silk, and Nexia Biotechnologies in Quebec has genetically modified goats to produce spider silk proteins in their milk.
Researchers have tried a number of different methods to synthesize spider silk because it is five times stronger than steel and more elastic than Kevlar. Spider silk has potential for use in everything from medical sutures to components of space exploration vehicles making a cheap source of the fibers a highly desired goal.
Many uses for biotechnology are designed to solve global food problems and enhance human health. However, like GloFish®, some applications of the technology are more ornamental. Researchers in Maine are working with tree growers to develop the perfectly-shaped, disease-resistant, faster-growing Christmas trees. And Florigene Limited in Australia has developed purple GM carnations which it is now seeking approval from the Australian government to grow.
These are novel applications that provide possibilities, but this novelty may also pose challenges to our regulatory system. A clear, comprehensive and predictable system allows developers to bring exciting new applications to market and helps maintain consumer confidence in new ag-biotech products.
For more information, please visit GloFish; Pennsylvania State University; the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology; the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics; the University of Hawaii; the USDA; the DuPont Crops Genetics; the Harvard Medical School; Ventria Bioscience; Texas A&M University; Ventria Bioscience; and the Nexia Biotechnologies online.
ANZAC forestry deal boosts competitiveness
April 20, 2004
CSIRO Australia Ref #2004/65
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=prforests
In a move designed to substantially improve the competitiveness of Australia and New Zealand's forestry industries, the leading forest products R&D agencies in both countries have agreed to enter into joint venture arrangements from 1 July this year.
The announcement of the joint venture – between Australia's CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products (CFFP) and New Zealand's Forest Research (FR) – was made today at the inaugural Trans-Tasman Forum between the Australian Plantation Industry and Paper Products Industry Council (A3P) and the New Zealand Forest Industries Council.
CFFP's Chief, Dr Paul Cotterill, and FR's Chief Executive, Bryce Heard, said the deal would deliver many of the advantages associated with a full merger of both organisations.
"It will enhance the ability of both nations' forestry industries to develop world-class products and services by making the most of the R&D and science investment synergies existing between the operations of CSIRO and Forest Research," Dr Cotterill said.
Mr Heard said the prospect of being able to contact a single forestry R&D entity in the region was welcomed by many of Forest Research and CSIRO's customers.
"The timing of the deal is regarded as crucial, particularly given the rapid rate at which the world forestry and forest products industry is consolidating through mergers and acquisitions," he said.
"This partnership will create an organisation of real depth, breadth and scale for forestry and paper industries research and development. The goal is to strengthen capacity and increase technology transfer to both forest industry and pulp and paper clients. The joint venture's enhanced ability to build expert teams and tackle complex problems is an important factor in enabling the sector to remain globally competitive," Mr Heard said.
CSIRO's Chief Executive, Dr Geoff Garrett, said the joint venture would enable both organisations to more seriously engage with both their regional and major international customers as a strategic R&D partner.
"Partnerships are a critical element of our strategic plan and essential for growth, helping us focus our scientific investment and grow our impact and relevance to the nation." Dr Garrett said.
The advantages expected to accrue to the sector in both countries include: reduced costs of production and processing, higher-value product options, the creation of new jobs in regional centres and a marked improvement in the ability to compete against imported products and on export markets.
The unincorporated joint venture will integrate around half of CSIRO Forestry and Forest Product's activities with one third of Forest Research's activities creating four dedicated science units in the following areas:
Pulp, paper and packaging - Optimising processes and products
Wood and fibre quality - Linking quality to value
Wood and wood products - Ensuring the place of wood in a modern market
Tree improvement and germplasm - Breeding better forests for maximum returns.
This will create a team of approximately 180 staff to be located at five sites in both Australia and New Zealand with expected revenues of A$27 million.
The deal follows a long history of collaboration between CSIRO and Forest Research. Most recently, both organisations became joint shareholders in the New Zealand Wood Quality Initiative Ltd, which aims to enhance the value of wood produced by radiata pine plantations throughout Australasia.
An international search is underway for a CEO for the joint venture and the operating title will be announced shortly.
Golden nematode; Regulated area
April 20, 2004
Federal Register: (Volume 69, Number 76)
[Page 21039-21040]
[DOCID:fr20ap04-2]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Docket No. 03-082-2
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with one change, an interim rule that amended the golden nematode regulations by adding a field in Steuben County, NY, to the list of generally infested regulated areas. In this document, we are making an editorial change in order to correct a reference in the regulations. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the artificial spread of golden nematode to noninfested areas of the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Vedpal Malik, Agriculturalist, Invasive Species and Pest Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6774.
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