Having problems with message search?
Agnet Oct. 3/05
Farmers vote to grow GM canola
Monsanto strikes royalty deal for transgenic soybean seeds
Genetically engineered plants called no threat to human health
Government recommends a "no" and a "yes"
Soybean gets protein lift
Rise in oil price helps biotech
Johanns announces an additional $53.75 million to eradicate citrus canker
Pineapples have fingerprints, too
Genetically engineered livestock feeds derived from plants: assessment and safety
Seeking expert advice on regulating biotechnology-derived agricultural products
“Novelty” and plants with novel traits
EERC leads project to reduce health risks from pesticide exposure
how to subscribe
Farmers vote to grow GM canola
October 3, 2005
ABC
Farmers in the south of Western Australia were cited as moving a motion at a meeting in Esperance on Friday to have a local commercial-size trial of GM canola. But first they will need approval from their state branch and they will also need to tackle State Government and Esperance Shire moratoriums on growing GM crops.
WA Farmers president Trevor De Landgrafft was cited as saying farmers certainly need technology to take them into the future, adding, "Everyone's facing increased costs these days, everyone's looking for the next bit of technology that's going to make us a profit in the future. They want to have it demonstrated to them that these canolas have got advantages and further evaluate the other downsides of the technology."
Monsanto strikes royalty deal for transgenic soybean seeds
October 3, 2005
Valor Economico
http://www.valoronline.com.br/
After four months of negotiations with Brazilian soybean seeds producers, Monsanto has, according to this story, struck a deal concerning the payment of royalties of genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds. An umbrella royalty contract will be used for individual contracts signed by seed companies valid for the 2005/2006 harvest, that starts planting in October. For the next harvests, negotiations are to be resumed through the seeds industry association Abrasem and Monsanto. The deal points to royalties of R$0.88 per Kg of certified seeds, while the fixing of seed prices is free. Monsanto wants to charge a 2% royalty on the production value of non registered transgenic seeds, but an agreement for that has not been reached yet with the grains producers OCB and Associacao dos Cerealistas. Abrasem estimates 3 million bags of certified seeds for the current harvest, or 30% of the total soybeans planted. If confirmed, Monsanto stands to earn an estimated R$6O million in royalties.
Genetically engineered plants called no threat to human health
October 3, 2005
MedPage Today
Katrina Woznick
http://www.medpagetoday.com/
LONDON - Fear that genetically modified foods containing so-called antibiotic-resistance marker genes would increase antibiotic resistance in humans is unfounded, according to a literature review by British scientists. Known by some critics as ?Frankenstein foods,? genetically modified foods have been eyed as a potential risk to human health because they contain microbial DNA. In plant technology, antibiotic-resistance marker genes, bits of DNA, are coupled with a new desirable gene and the package is then injected into the plant?s cells, the British researchers explained in their report published in The Lancet. The marker gene is used to help track the successful (or failed) introduction of the new desirable gene, which is designed to boost the plant?s defences against environmental threats. Plants derived from these cells neither contain nor produce antibiotics, the researchers explained. Because only cells that contain the antibiotic-resistance marker can survive exposure to an antibiotic (in the lab), scientists can be sure the surviving plant also contains the injected advantageous gene. Critics? concerns are that antibiotic-resistant marker genes from these organisms will be passed from the plant to receptive bacteria and ultimately create mutated resistant microbes. But Stephen H. Gillespie, Ph.D., a professor of medical microbiology at University College London here, said there is no evidence to indicate these markers pose any significant risk. Any recombinant bacteria, he explained, would have to cross several major hurdles during the transfer process, be incorporated into a host, and then be transmitted. Even if the markers accomplished all that, their risk would be minimal at best, he said. ?The contribution that recombinant bacteria might make-should the enormous barriers to transfer be overcome-is so small that its effect would be completely overwhelmed by the effect of resistance that arises through inappropriate (antibiotic) prescribing in medical practice, transmission of mobile genetic elements between bacteria colonizing patients, and hospital environments,? Drs. Gillespie and Philippe B. Gay, also a professor at University College London, wrote. However, they warned that despite the lack of current evidence, the possibility remains. Scientists should look for alternatives and proceed with caution, they said. The authors came to this conclusion after conducting a review of their own personal files, searches on PubMed, and references from relevant articles. In their review article, they described the many major obstacles these markers would have to overcome. For starters, conditions must be ideal for these antibiotic resistant markers to make the transition to a new bacterial host. The DNA must not be totally degraded, and there must be a physical encounter between the DNA fragments and the recipient host organism, Dr. Gillespie said. The outcomes for these antibiotic resistant markers ?in genetically modified plants depends on the gene flow in the resistance reservoirs connecting the fields where these plants grow and the bacteria that could be altered to resistance and be transferred to human beings,? the authors wrote. The environment in which these markers exist is also highly competitive, the authors explained. ?Antibiotic-resistance markers are only a small proportion of the overall DNA available for transformation,? they explained. The marker gene must also overcome the physiological disadvantage of acquiring a piece of foreign DNA-the gene with which the marker is coupled?probably in conditions where the new gene does not yet provide a selective advantage, the authors said. The authors noted that there is evidence that fragments of DNA, long enough to encode an antibiotic resistance mechanism, have been found in the gastrointestinal tracts of mice. Despite this evidence, there are so far no signs recombination is taking place in these environments. Still, Drs. Gillespie and Gay said they wouldn?t rule out the possibility. Should any new antibiotic-resistant organisms emerge, they would still face the human medical environment, including hospitals and antibiotic use, the authors said. ?Any contribution to antibiotic resistance made by genetically modified plants must be overwhelmed by the contribution made by antibiotic prescription in clinical practice,? the authors wrote. Particularly in hospitals where ?bacteria are exposed to a multiplicity of antibiotic agents and selection pressure is at its highest.? The authors concluded that ?plants modified genetically have tremendous potential to improve human nutrition.? Although the public health cost of these improvements has been questioned, they added, the evidence shows the risks remain very low. Primary The Lancet Infectious Diseases Source reference: Gay P, and Gillespie S.
Antibiotic resistance markers in genetically modified plants: a risk to
human health, The Lancet Infectious Diseases ; Oct. 2005; vol. 5,
p.637-646
Government recommends a "no" and a "yes"
October 3, 2005
Swisspolitics.com
http://www.swisspolitics.org/
The Switzerland government is, according to this story, advising voters to reject a people's initiative calling for a five-year moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Switzerland, but it is calling on the electorate to vote in favour of allowing shops at major railway stations and airports to open on Sundays. The two issues go to a nationwide vote on November 27. Economics Minister Joseph Deiss was cited as telling a news conference on Monday in Bern that a moratorium on GMOs in agriculture would be bad news for farmers and consumers and that the current law on the issue, which came into force last year, provided enough protection for people and the environment. The present legislation is aimed at strictly controlling GMOs. It forbids the keeping of genetically modified animals in agriculture for an indefinite period, whereas the initiative foresaw five years.
Soybean gets protein lift
October 3, 2005
Crop Biotech
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/
Soybeans are a highly nutritious, protein-rich food source. However, they have lower amounts of the amino acids methionine and cysteine, both of which are essential to human and animal growth and development. To supplant this deficiency, genes which express methionine and cyteine-rich proteins may be introduced into soybean. Zhiwu Li, of Kansas State University , and colleagues explore this option as they induce the ?High level expression of maize c-zein protein in transgenic soybean ( Glycine max. ).? Their work appears in the latest issue of Molecular Breeding. Researchers introduced the maize-derived, c-zein gene into the Jack soybean cultivar. C-zein produces a sulfur-rich protein, which also contains methionine and cysteine. Their techniques yielded three transgenic lines, two of which showed significant cysteine and methionine content upon protein extraction and assaying of the grown plants? seed flour. These two transgenic lines produced as much as 30% more cysteine, and 18.6% more methionine than the Jack cultivar. The two transgenic cultivars also stably passed the c-zein gene on to subsequent soybean generations. Subscribers to Molecular Breeding may download the complete article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11032-004-7658-6
Rise in oil price helps biotech
October 3, 2005
Frankfurter Allgemeine
Translated by Shelley Jambresic, Checkbiotech
http://www.faz.net/
DUSSELDORF - The current worldwide discussion about depletion and price increase of fossil fuels might, according to this story, enhance the acceptance towards plant biotechnology.
Friedrich Berschauer - the chairman of the Bayer Crop Science, a subgroup of Bayer, which is concentrating on pest management - was quoted as saying during a presentation of the Association of the Economy Journalism (Wirtschaftspublizistische Vereinigung) in Mannheim that, "Particularly the heavy price increase of rude oil heats up the dispute about renewable primary products and biofuels," and that the adoption of green biotechnology could clearly raise the efficiency of biofuels , which would decrease the need for subsidies and more acreage. "We will not get around the subject of renewable primary products, and a competence in plant biotechnology is a crucial competitive factor."
With a turnover of about 300 million Euro, the yet very small segment BioScience represents for the whole pest management of Bayer a rapidly growing business, with a yearly investment of 25 percent of sales being put towards research and development. However, so far the know-how can be marked outside Europe only, with a main focus on America . With a contingent of about 20 percent of around 30 billion Euro turnover of the pest management, Bayer CropScience is struggling with the Swiss Syngenta for the leading position on the world market. The manifested ambition of the company is a further expansion of its position as an innovative leader.
Johanns announces an additional $53.75 million to eradicate citrus canker
September 30, 2005
USDA
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/09/0413.xml
LAUREL , Miss. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today announced an additional $53.75 million in emergency funding to eradicate citrus canker in Florida . "This critical funding from USDA will help accelerate eradication activities and keep citrus canker from spreading in Florida", said Johanns. ?USDA is providing these funds to help Florida protect the health of the citrus industry, which has been placed at greater risk by a series of hurricanes that have spread the wind-borne disease.? Since October 1995, when citrus canker was first detected in Miami , the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) have been working to eradicate the disease. In total, USDA has provided more than $378.6 million in funding to support eradication activities. In addition, the President Bush?s fiscal year 2006 budget calls for $42.6 million in citrus canker funding. This latest infusion of emergency money will support tree removal and commercial grove surveillance. By August 2004, USDA and FDACS were making significant headway in eradication activities. Just a few months later, however, several hurricanes decimated Florida's citrus producing areas, causing significant canker spread and $500 million in damage to the Florida citrus industry. This pattern of increased hurricane activity has continued, and the effects became evident during the spring and summer 2005 growing season when 269 new citrus canker infections were detected in commercial citrus groves. Citrus canker is a rapidly spreading, highly contagious bacterial disease that causes fruit to drop prematurely. In addition, citrus canker lesions make infected fruit unmarketable. Because there is no chemical cure or treatment for citrus canker in Florida , the only way to eradicate the disease is to destroy all infected or exposed trees. Despite the damaging effects of recent hurricanes, the joint USDA-FDACS eradication program has continued to protect Florida's citrus market. No interstate markets have closed to shipments of Florida citrus from nonquarantine areas and no foreign markets have closed due to the presence of citrus canker. The program also remains highly successful in detecting infestations early and rapidly removing infected and exposed trees before the disease can spread. Accelerating eradication activities is essential to the health of Florida's citrus industry, which represents 77 percent of U.S. citrus production and provides, both directly and indirectly, 90,000 full-time jobs. Annually, the Florida citrus industry generates $9.1 billion, including $5 billion in wages.
Pineapples have fingerprints, too
October 3, 2005
ARS News Service
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
View this report online, plus any included photos or other images, at www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr
The DNA-based fingerprints enable scientists and breeders to discern the relatedness of pineapples that are candidates for creating superior new plants for tomorrow. For example, certain pineapple plants might be better able to resist attack by insects or diseases.
Plant physiologist Paul H. Moore and horticulturist Francis T.P. Zee, of the ARS U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii , were part of the ARS research team whose studies yielded these DNA fingerprints. The work revealed that each pineapple plant that they sampled from the ARS-managed collection was genetically unique.
Moore leads the ARS Tropical Plant Physiology, Disease, and Production Unit at Aiea , near Honolulu on Oahu Island . On Hawaii Island , in the small city of Hilo , Zee is in charge of the Pacific Basin Tropical Plant Genetic Resources Research Unit and is curator of the genebank there. The researchers and their colleagues documented their findings in a 2004 issue of Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. Now, the scientists aim to identify about 1,000 additional, highly revealing lengths of pineapple DNA. These are needed to even further describe the scope of pineapple?s genepool.
The pineapple project is probably the most comprehensive analysis of
pineapple genetics yet reported that used a laboratory procedure known
as AFLP. An article in Agricultural Research magazine, the ARS monthly
journal, tells more, and is posted at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/oct05/fruit1005.htm
ARS is the U.S. Department of Agriculture?s chief scientific research agency.
Genetically engineered livestock feeds derived from plants: assessment and safety
August 23, 2005
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Office of Biotechnology
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/gen/feebete.shtml
Can GE livestock feed affect human food or health? Since genetically engineered (GE) crops were first approved for use, millions of livestock have eaten genetically engineered (GE) feed ingredients. Consumers may have the following questions. Do GE feed ingredients affect animal health and productivity? Does eating products from livestock that consume GE feed (for example, such as milk, meat, and eggs) affect human health? Do GE ingredients approved for livestock feed get into human food? Before we address the issue of GE or novel feed, let’s first look at how livestock feed is regulated in Canada and what defines a novel feed. What is livestock feed and how is it regulated? Livestock feeds are any substance or mixture of substances intended for consumption by livestock. This definition includes novel feeds. Only ingredients approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) may be used in livestock feed. The CFIA administers a national livestock feed program, under the authority of the federal Feeds Act and Feeds Regulations. Its aim is to verify the safety and effectiveness of all livestock feeds (including those made from GE ingredients) that are manufactured and sold in Canada , or imported. Safe, effective feeds contribute to healthy, productive livestock and safe animal products for consumers. What are novel feeds? Novel feeds are made from plants, micro-organisms, or animals—or their products or byproducts—that have not already been approved as livestock feed in Canada , or are listed in the Feeds Regulations but contain a novel trait. This factsheet deals with novel feeds made from plants, specifically novel feeds derived through genetic engineering. For more information on the meaning of “genetically engineered” (GE), “genetically modified” (GM), and “novel”, see the factsheet “Biotechnology? Modern Biotechnology? GM? GMO? GE? PNTs? What do these terms mean?”. What is a novel trait? A novel trait is an intentional genetic change that results in a feed that is not substantially equivalent in terms of use and safety to a similar feed, as described in the Feeds Regulations. The genetic change may be created by methods such as traditional breeding, mutagenesis, cell fusion, or recombinant DNA techniques. Novel feeds include: microbial products, such as preservative and nutritional inoculants for forage feeds, and fermentation products, plants with novel traits and plants with no history of use as feed, and products/by-products of biotechnology-derived animals. Who determines whether novel feeds are safe? Before a novel feed can be used in Canada , it must first be assessed by the CFIA’s Feed Section to determine its safety for the following: livestock, humans, through consumption of animal products or through exposure to the feed (for example, to workers or bystanders), and the environment. The developer of the feed must submit evidence to the CFIA that the novel feed is not harmful to livestock, to people consuming food, nor to workers or bystanders. How are novel feeds assessed? For novel feeds made from plants where a novel trait has been introduced, the assessment focuses on the safety of the introduced novel trait. The assessment first examines the gene and the protein that results from it, the plant itself, and then looks at what happens to the protein. The properties of novel feeds are often compared with those of existing plant crops, which are considered safe by a long history of safe use. This helps identify similarities and differences (molecular, compositional, nutritional, and toxicological) between conventional and novel plant crops. Scientists also assess whether or not a toxin or allergen has been unintentionally introduced. If the feed being developed is just for livestock, and is likely to be eaten only by livestock, then it requires approval from the CFIA Feed Section at the research and development stages, before the feeding trial, and before use/commercialization (release). However, if a novel feed is made from a crop that may potentially be used in human food or may be released into the environment, it will not be authorized for livestock feed until it is approved by the Feed Section and: the Plant Biosafety Office of the CFIA authorizes the plant for environmental release, and the Novel Foods Section of Health Canada provides notification that there is no objection to using it for human food. How do we know that a gene in a novel feed doesn’t pose a risk to animal or human health? Although the CFIA verifies the safety of novel feeds before they ever reach the marketplace, people may still wonder what happens to this DNA or genetic material once an animal eats it. It’s virtually impossible for an intact plant protein in feed to survive processing (including grinding and cooking) as well as an animal’s digestive system. Processing destroys the complex structure of proteins to some degree before the animal even eats the feed. Once an animal consumes the feed, the digestive process breaks proteins down even further so that they can be used by the animal. Scientific research to date has concluded that the normal processes of digestion in both ruminants (animals with more than one stomach) and non-ruminants appear to be more than adequate to prevent any intact proteins from being absorbed across the intestinal wall. To date, no transgenic proteins have been found in the milk, meat and eggs from animals that have consumed novel feeds. A discussion of such research can be found in the document Considerations for the Safety Assessment of Animal Feedstuffs Derived from Genetically Modified Plants, published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Fragments of plant DNA from conventionally-bred plants (that is, non-genetically engineered) have been detected in animal tissues and it is likely that fragments of transgenic DNA may be detected in tissues of animals fed GE plants. There is no evidence, however, that plant DNA—from genetically engineered or conventionally bred plants—integrates into the genetic material of the animal. What if a gene did survive intact? Even if genes did survive both processing and an animal’s digestive system (and there is no evidence to suggest they can), the human body doesn’t absorb intact genes. When we eat our food, our body breaks it down into its various components (peptides, sugars, etc.) The World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations have stated that the consumption of DNA from any source—including plants improved through biotechnology—is safe and does not pose a risk to human health. This conclusion is based on the long history of safe consumption of DNA. The CFIA and Health Canada continue to work together to assess the safety of livestock feeds for animals, people, and the environment.
Seeking expert advice on regulating biotechnology-derived agricultural products
August 23, 2005
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Office of Biotechnology
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/gen/experte.shtml
The science of biotechnology progresses rapidly, and the regulation of biotechnology-derived agricultural products has to keep pace with these scientific advances. To accomplish this, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) regulators and evaluators must continually update their scientific knowledge and expand their ability to respond to new developments. We routinely seek advice and comments from experts and then review and respond to the recommendations and opinions we receive. Seeking expert advice In addition to the information that developers provide when seeking approval to produce and market new agricultural or food products in Canada, the CFIA listens to and evaluates various points of view. We gather peer-reviewed scientific literature and keep up to date by reading scientific publications, doing literature reviews, and attending scientific conferences. We also gain other expert advice from the scientific community itself. We collect this advice by: holding discussions with recognized scientific experts commissioning research studies from academia or government scientists holding technical workshops with academia, industry, and agricultural or agronomic experts from Canada and other countries establishing advisory panels with a specific focus or mandate The CFIA routinely incorporates this and other expert scientific advice into its ever-evolving regulatory system. Responding to expert advice Along with other federal agencies and departments, we seek information from, and respond to, research carried out by expert bodies such as the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) and the Royal Society of Canada (RSC). In February 2000, for example, the Government of Canada asked the RSC to appoint an independent panel of experts to give advice as to how to maintain the safety of new biotechnology-derived food products. The resulting RSC report, Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada , made several recommendations to which the CFIA and other government departments responded by developing an action plan. This action plan, together with reports on our progress, is posted on Health Canada ’s Web site. A committee of independent experts, the CBAC was set up by the Government of Canada in 1999 to advise government agencies on biotechnology-related issues and to raise Canadians’ awareness and include them in discussions about biotechnology. The Committee held several consultations about food biotechnology that resulted in the report, Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and other Novel Foods in Canada . The recommendations in this report were guided by research, consultations, and feedback from key stakeholder groups and the public, as well as from the GM Food Steering Committee and other CBAC members. Research The CFIA has undertaken several research-related initiatives to strengthen its science-based regulatory system. These include commissioning several studies to build upon our existing knowledge of biotechnology and the potential impact of new agricultural products. Studies have been completed on the effects of Bt corn on insects, biodiversity, gene flow, and herbicide-resistance management for PNTs. For example, the CFIA, in co-operation with Environment Canada, has commissioned research into the potential risk of Bt corn on monarch butterflies. Results of this research became part of a body of work collected in the “Final Report on the Ecological Impact of Bt Corn Pollen on the Monarch Butterfly in Ontario ”. The research led to the conclusion that the risks to monarch butterflies from Bt corn pollen is less than 1/100 of 1 percent. You can find more information in the fact sheet, “Do Bt Crops Affect Monarch Butterflies?” Other research supported by the CFIA is described in our progress reports to the Royal Society of Canada, as noted above.
“Novelty” and plants with novel traits
August 23, 2005
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Office of Biotechnology
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/reg/novnoue.shtml
What does “novelty” mean? In common language, “novelty” refers to something previously unknown. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) uses this meaning when applying the word “novelty” specifically to some of the products it regulates, such as plants, livestock feeds, and plant and soil supplements. This fact sheet focuses on plants with novel traits. What are plants with novel traits (PNTs)? The CFIA defines a plant with a novel trait (PNT) as a new variety of a species that possesses one or more traits new to that species in Canada . A trait is considered to be novel when one of the following two options is true: the new trait is not present in stable, cultivated populations of the plant species in Canada , or the trait in the plant species is present at a level significantly outside the range of that trait in stable, cultivated populations of that plant species in Canada . These PNTs are assessed for safety for the environment. For more details see the factsheet “Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in Canada : Environmental Questions” and the CFIA’s Directive 94-08 (Dir94-08) Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants With Novel Traits. Are genetically engineered plants automatically considered to be PNTs? To date, in Canada , all genetically engineered plants have been considered to contain novel traits and, therefore, have been assessed for safety. However, the approach used by the CFIA does not mean that all PNTs are developed through genetic engineering. Novel traits can be developed through various techniques. Examples (other than genetic engineering) are mutagenesis, cell fusion, and traditional breeding. For more information, see the factsheet “Biotechnology? Modern Biotechnology? GM? GMO? GE? PNTs? What do these terms mean?” There are two reasons why the CFIA uses this approach. First, techniques that are not considered genetic engineering could lead to a product that is novel (previously unknown) from a safety perspective. For example, some plants created by means of mutagenesis have been considered to be PNTs and as such, have been assessed for environmental safety. This could also be the case with yet-to-be invented techniques. Second, a plant that has been developed using some other technique of biotechnology could have traits that are very well understood (previously known) from a safety perspective. When regulating new, or novel, plant traits, no other country uses as broad an interpretation of the word “novel” as Canada does. Are the reasons for considering a crop “novel” the same for all classes of plants that the CFIA regulates? No, the criteria for novelty are specific to the species (canola, corn, soy, and so on) and are defined in the appropriate directives, regulations or guidelines. However, the basic logic—focussing safety assessments on products with previously unknown traits—remains the same. Does the concept of “novelty” only apply PNTs? No, the CFIA regulates other novel agricultural products such as livestock feeds, and plant and soil supplements. An agricultural product may be considered “novel” if it has: a new trait(s) or characteristic(s), or a changed trait(s) or characteristic(s), or a new use In the case of livestock feeds and plant and soil supplements, products that have not yet been scheduled or registered in Canada are also considered “novel”. Does the concept of “novelty” apply only to the CFIA? No, the concept of novelty is very commonly used in regulation. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) endorses this approach and discussion of it can be found in OECD documents on the Novel Foods and Feeds section of its Web site. In Canada , the novelty approach is not only used by the CFIA but also by Health Canada , for food safety.
EERC leads project to reduce health risks from pesticide exposure
October 3, 2005
The Energy Environmental Research Center (EERC) at the University of North Dakota (UND) announced today that it has been awarded $496,000 to initiate and lead a program to determine the health risks caused by exposure to pesticides. This is the first phase of a planned multiyear $9 million program. The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recent medical literature suggests that exposure to pesticides is associated with a number of health problems including neurologic dysfunction. Exposure to pesticides has been linked to an increased risk of developing neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis. An estimated 18 new cases of pesticide-related illnesses occur each year for every 100,000 workers in the United States . The EERC-led program will provide a better overall understanding of how people are exposed to pesticides and the impacts of pesticide exposure on human health. The first step in this program will involve investigating a correlation between the occurrence of neurological diseases and pesticide use in our region. Next, researchers will evaluate the transport and potential neurological effects of pesticides and their by-products. Finally, strategies will be developed to reduce the risk of pesticide exposure for at-risk populations. “Activities are already under way to develop the information needed to correlate health data and pesticide data, as well as to evaluate potential pesticide exposure pathways,” said EERC Senior Research Advisor and Technical Manager Edward Steadman. The northern Great Plains region represents a unique opportunity to investigate the links between pesticide use and neurodegenerative diseases. Most areas of the United States are exposed to a wide range of pollutants from industrial sources, making the task of discerning the health effects of pesticides more difficult to quantify. Previous research at the EERC has demonstrated that pesticides are more prevalent relative to other airborne organic pollutants in North Dakota and, therefore, it will be easier to differentiate the effects of pesticides from other pollutants. Program partners include UND’s School of Medicine and Health Sciences, College of Nursing , and Psychology Department. Additionally, key contributions are being made through collaborative arrangements with the North Dakota State University Extension Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service, and the North Dakota Department of Health Division of Vital Records. “This program will build on the EERC’s role as a national leader in environmental issues and the UND Medical School ’s expertise in neurodegenerative diseases,” said EERC Director Gerald Groenewold. “It will provide a foundation for the development of a national center that establishes UND as a leader in the study of pesticide impacts on human health.”
Agnet is produced by the Food Safety Network at the University of Guelph, and is supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, AGCare, the Agricultural Adaptation Council (CanAdapt Program), CropLife Canada, National Pork Board, ConAgra Foods, Inc, Monsanto Canada, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Ltd.,Food Safety Security at Kansas State University, Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food , Canadian Animal Health Institute, Council for Biotechnology Information, Syngenta Seeds, Inc USA, Pfizer Animal Health, National Food Processor's Association, Potash and Phosphate Institute, Ag-West Bio Inc., Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Feedlot Health Management Services, Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Inc., Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Molecular Plant Breeding CRC, Tyson, Southern Crop Production Association, Canadian Grain Commission, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Tactix Government Consulting, Inc., Oregon State University Dept of Forest Science, Global Public Affairs and Agri Business Group, Inc. The Food Safety Network's national toll-free line for obtaining food safety information: 1-866-50-FSNET (1-866-503-7638).
The Food Safety Network presents a unique opportunity to bring together all those associated with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of the food supply. To provide financial support to the Food Safety Network, please visit http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/donation.html. For information on collaboration or fee-for-service opportunities, please contact Dr. Doug Powell: dpowell@...
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://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet-archives.htm
Send Email