Tuesday, August 20, 2013

What is GMO?


What is GMO?


A small group of people who are members of Ghana's biosafety Committee have very recently decided to authorize testing of GMO crops in Ghana. There has been very little public debate. How can we know if this controversial decision is in the best interests of Ghanaian citizens? For us to make an informed decision, we need to know more about GMOs.

A GMO, a genetically modified organism, is a plant or animal in which DNA is taken from one species, and forced into the DNA of an entirely unrelated species. The two species are ones that could never breed in nature. There are even experiments such as inserting spider genes into goats, hoping the GMO goat will produce milk with spider silk proteins scientists can use to make bullet proof vests. And there are plenty more equally unusual combinations under experimentation.

There are two main genetic modifications that are common in commercial agriculture. One is plants that are modified so their genes carry insecticide to kill insect pests. Generally this is a gene from the bacteria Bt or Bacillus thuringiensis. There are different strains of Bt that kill various specific kinds of insects. And there are various Bt modified GMO commercial crops, cotton, rice, maize, soy, canola, alfalfa, and others. Bt works by paralyzing the gut of the insect, or in some cases causing the stomach to explode. Since the plant contains insecticide, the idea is that no additional insecticides should be necessary. That may be true for a few years. But the insects evolve to survive the poison, and the crops need more and stronger pesticides every year to control the insect pests.

The second main commercial modification of GMOs is plants that are resistant to herbicides. Most of these are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is marketed by Monsanto under the name Roundup. GMO crops that resist this herbicide are called Roundup Ready. Ideally the farmer will spray Roundup on the crop, which will kill the weeds and leave the crop growing untouched. That may be true for the first years, but weeds soon develop tolerance. And new weeds that have natural tolerance start growing, requiring more and stronger herbicides every year. In parts of the US this has become so serious that even large scale farms have had to return to weeding by hand. Glyphosate is now considered a biocide, something that kills all forms of life. Yet when Monsanto began selling it they claimed it is as safe as table salt. They still claim it is safe.

Both of these genetic modifications, the Bt crops and the herbicide tolerant crops are grown in vast commercial fields, one crop, grown the same year after year in the same fields. And year after year they require more and more toxic chemicals. And more of labourers contracted to grow these crops are exposed to highly toxic chemicals.

In true colonial fashion, Syngenta calls the combined area of the countries of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia, where farmers have been forced off their land for endless fields of GMO soybean monoculture, "The United Republic of Soybeans." Syngenta, Monsanto, and the other huge agribusiness corporations are now after the whole of Africa. In East Africa, Kenya is the main target country. For West Africa, Ghana is becoming one of their target points of entry.

In the United States a GMO crop can be sold as food without labelling. A GMO crop is considered safe if it is "substantially equivalent" to the commonly used crop. Substantially equivalent means the new GMO crop does not raise different questions of public health when it is compared to the conventional crop. Supposedly this is established by certain limited tests done by the manufacturer. Even then, the government goes by what the manufacturer says. There is no independent testing. If the manufacturer says the crop is substantially equivalent, it is legally considered substantially equivalent. Such is the power of the biotechnology corporations in the US.

In contrast, in Europe, a key guidelines for introducing bio-tech crops is the "precautionary principle". GMOs are generally not allowed unless testing proves safety. GMO labelling is mandatory.

The biotech companies have fought long and hard, with the help of the US government to convince Europe to accept "substantial equivalence" but have not yet succeeded. Which of these very different principles is best for Ghana? There are other things that should also concern Ghanaian citizens about GMO crops.

The genetic modification process creates new proteins that are absorbed into human and animal bodies by eating, breathing, drinking, and absorbed into the bodies of plants through earth, water, and air. Humans are exposed to these proteins. All proteins have potential implications for the immune system and potential allergic reactions. In the US food allergies have increased enormously since the introduction of GMOs into the diet. And other diseases such as cancers, that develop over time, are also dangers. Yet the agribusiness companies claim there is no problem because of substantial equivalence. Because they own the technology, biotech companies also have a major influence on how GMOs are tested. Not surprisingly, very few scientific test have been done on to determine the LONG TERM effects of GMOs on human health. The agribusiness companies forbid independent testing by contract. So GMO advocates will say "People have been eating GMO foods for years in the US. No one has died from it". This would be laughable if it was not so dangerous. It is very similar to the tobacco companies who said, for decades, that there was no evidence that smoking cigarettes was bad for health. It was difficult to disprove because the effects smoking on the lungs and heart take time to cause death, and vary from person to person.

We should have similar concerns about GMOs. With alien proteins, not found in nature, they can generate secondary effects in the body. They may combine with other chemicals in the body to produce effects that may not show up for years, even into the next generation. It is common sense that if Bt genes in plants can kill insects, there is a substantial risk that if people eat enough food made from Bt crops, over time there can be health effects. We just do not know.

What we do already know is that Bt and chemical pesticides and herbicides damage the soil making it difficult to grow other crops. They affect the many other micro-organisms required to maintain healthy soil. The damage becomes worse over time and the land becomes barren.

Aside from major health issues, GMO seeds reduce biodiversity. GMO seeds are patented. The agribusiness companies, through monopolizing the land, GMO contamination of existing crops, buying up all traditional seed and hoarding it, and selling patented seed, eliminating seed diversity, leave the country with only GMO seeds and monoculture, farming only one crop year after year. The patents require people to buy new seed each year and buy the chemicals that are necessary to treat the patented crops driving farmers into debt.

Monoculture farming leaves crops vulnerable to plant disease pandemics that will wipe out the food and livelihood of entire regions. Seed diversity is the best protection against plant disease pandemics. It is already established that GMO patented seeds drastically reduce seed diversity in a country.

The agribusiness companies and the GMO advocates use "green washing" and "poor washing" to justify GMOs. Exploiting fears of a food crisis with increase in the world population, they claim that new GMO food crops will be more tolerant of drought, or salt, or flood. Supposedly they will have new nutritional components that will save lives suffering from nutrient deficiencies. Supposedly they will be more productive, improve small holder farmer incomes, and save people from hunger. So far none of these experimental crops have been very successful in performing as promised. None have been successful enough to be grown commercially. The agribusiness companies promote these so they can get the Bt and herbicide resistant seeds into a country. We grow more than enough crops to save people from hunger now. Hunger is due to affordability, access, and distribution of food. And the main problems farmers face are not productivity of seeds, but declining soil fertility, land degradation, erratic rainfall, transportation, access to credit and markets, storage, infrastructure and extension support.

Ghanaians need to decide, do we want GMO crops? And is a Biosafety Committee whose members are advocates of these crops, able and willing to protect the biosafety of Ghana? Ghana Web

US regulation misses some GM crops


US regulation misses some GM crops


Gaps in oversight of transgenic technologies allow scientists to test the waters for specialty varieties.


It took scientists 85 years to breed a commercial apple that could fend off apple scab, a devastating disease caused by the fungus Venturia inaequalis. In 1999, they finally produced a tasty variety that contained the Vf defence gene, bred in from an unappetizing relative. Instead of dousing orchards with fungicides 30 times a season, farmers could spray the resistant crop just twice.
But five years later, V. inaequalis had evolved and apples trees were becoming infected again. Breeders were back to square one. Even armed with modern breeding techniques and 15 known defence genes in the apple family, it would take another 40 years to breed a resistant strain conventionally, says Henk Schouten, a plant scientist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.
So instead, Schouten has joined a small but growing pool of academics and companies hoping to taking advantage of the latest approaches in genetic engineering, while avoiding the lengthy and expensive burden of government regulation. Because he wants to insert DNA only from related apple varieties, Schouten argues that his product should not be regulated in the same way as genetically modified (GM) crops that are engineered with bacterial or viral DNA. Other pioneers argue that the techniques they are using to modify plants are safer than old technologies, and therefore do not need regulation. In some cases, US regulators have agreed.
Since 2010, the US Department of Agricul­ture has told at least 10 groups that their GM products would not require regulation (see ‘ Cropping out regulation’) — removing a substantial financial barrier and speeding up development. That has encouraged academic labs and small companies to pursue speciality crops, such as apples, that have so far been ignored by biotechnology giants.
“There are any number of companies exploring new techniques to produce crops that don’t trigger regulatory oversight,” says Scott Thenell, managing director of Thenell & Associates, a consulting firm in Walnut Creek, California, that helps researchers to navigate GM-plant regulations. “And often, they are small or niche crops that can’t support the escalating costs of regulatory approval.”
The regulation of GM crops in the United States is based on laws that were not tailor-made for the technology. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the branch of the agriculture department responsible for overseeing GM crops, has so far stuck to a strict interpretation of a 1957 law designed to protect agriculture against plant pests that was co-opted in 1986 to regulate GM crops. At that time, GM crops were nearly always engineered using Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a bacterial pest that can insert DNA into plant genomes.
In 2011, APHIS regulators announced that a herbicide-tolerant Kentucky bluegrass would not fall under their purview, because the lawn-and-garden company developing it did not useAgrobacterium or any other plant-pest DNA to engineer the grass. The company, Scotts Miracle-Gro of Marysville, Ohio, instead used a gene gun to fire DNA-coated gold particles into plant cells. Some of that DNA is then incorporated into the genome.
For Greg Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group in Washington DC, the news highlighted the shortcomings of the US regulatory system for GM crops. “The whole system is a fiction,” he says.
And some are starting to test the regulation-free waters. Scotts Miracle-Gro, for its part, has said that its bluegrass was not meant to be commercialized, and was just a test case to see how APHIS would respond. That is not the case for other groups that have been told that their GM products would not be regulated. Some include academic researchers, who are eager to avoid field-trial permits and special containment measures, and who want to encourage corporate development of niche crops.
Dennis Gray, a developmental biologist at the University of Florida in Apopka, is trying to use genes from grape varieties to engineer a wine grape that is resistant to Pierce’s disease — a condition caused by a bacterium that has made it difficult to grow wine grapes in the state. He says that the lack of regulation is encouraging researchers like him to pursue such small-market crops. “Little agricultural labs just don’t have access to the infrastructure and the money needed to move these forward.”
Other emerging approaches may also escape regulation. Sally Mackenzie, a plant biologist at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, contacted APHIS about the high-yield offspring of a transgenic sorghum grass plant — even though these offspring no longer contain the engineered gene. Mackenzie thinks that the transgene triggered an epigenetic change: it altered the plant’s gene expression by changing the pattern of chemical groups added to its DNA rather than changing the DNA sequence itself. In 2012, APHIS regulators invited Mackenzie to the organization’s headquarters in Riverdale, Maryland, and questioned her about this hypothesis. APHIS eventually notified her that it would not regulate her plants — a decision that Mackenzie says has accelerated her research and may allow her to launch a company to develop her grass variety.
Agricultural giants Monsanto, based in St Louis, Missouri, and Syngenta, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, are vying to license the technology. “The first thing they asked me was, ‘Have you been through APHIS?’” says Mackenzie.
Other companies are gauging their prospects with different DNA-modification tools, such as zinc-finger nucleases — enzymes that precisely target a region of the plant genome. In 2010, APHIS told Dow AgroSciences of Indianapolis, Indiana, that it would not regulate a herbicide-tolerant maize (corn) made using zinc-finger nucleases. Dow spokesman Garry Hamlin says that the company has since dropped the maize project, but is working with outside researchers to develop other crops using similar technology.
Jennifer Kuzma, a policy analyst at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, says that a lack of regulation for the latest approaches could fuel public suspicions about GM crops. “One could argue that the technologies are more targeted and you’re doing things in a smarter way,” she says. “The flip side is that they are so powerful you can engineer multiple genes at one time.”
Not all companies are embracing the potential for freedom from regulation. Oliver Peoples, chief scientific officer at Metabolix, a plant-engineering company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says that he would rather be regulated by APHIS to earn the public’s trust. He notes that Agrobacteriuminserts genes more efficiently than the gene-gun method. Although zinc-fingers are appealing for their specificity and their ability to escape regulation, companies do not yet have much experience in working with the technique, or navigating the patents needed to use it.
Schouten, meanwhile, did not skirt regulation for his apples after all. In April 2012, APHIS told him that the agency would regulate his variety in spite of the fact that the genes he introduced came from other apples. This was because he used Agrobacterium to insert the genes — it did not matter to regulators that no trace of Agrobacterium DNA remained in his plants.
Schouten is perplexed. If he had used a gene gun, he would have inserted DNA haphazardly and in a manner more likely to damage other sites in the genome — yet this remains the unregulated method. “To me, this is a very strange system,” he says. NATURE

Iowa State Prof: Genetically Modified Food Is Harmless


Iowa State Prof: Genetically Modified Food Is Harmless

About half the states in America are considering laws requiring genetically modified foods be labeled. Ruth MacDonald said the labels are unnecessary.
An Iowa State University food science professor said there is no reason to label foods that contain genetically modified foods though half of all U.S. states are considering laws requiring them.
Ruth MacDonald, a chair in food science and human nutrition, said labeling would be an expensive hassle.
Genetically modified organisms or GMOS are plant foods that have been genetically mutated for desired traits such as resistance to herbicides used for weed control or apples that wouldn't turn brown, the Seattle Times reports.“This is a non-issue,” MacDonald told ISU News. “It is not a health concern.”
While MacDonald said there is no science to show that eating modified foods is harmful, critics often say ingesting foods made with genetically modified ingredients lead to health problems such as tumors, increased allergies and antibiotic resistance.
Opponents also say the modified foods haven't been studied enough and it would be hard to go back to using regular crops if any damage is ever found, the Seattle Times reported.
Proponents of modified foods have spent millions fighting against labeling legislation in various states according to the Times report.
“Everyone is saying, ‘What is the big deal? You just put the label on the package,’” MacDonald said. “It’s not the label. It is the verification, laws, oversight, regulation — all that is going to cost a fortune. There are more important food safety issues than GMOs that we should be concerned about.” ISU News

Ghana: GM Technology to fight aflatoxins in maize - lecturer

GM Technology to fight aflatoxins in maize - lecturer

A Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Science, Department of Biochemistry, Cell & Molecular Biology at the University of Ghana, Dr Yaa Difie Osei has indicated that the emergence of Genetically Modified (GM) Technology would go a long way to eliminate the cancer causing agents in maize called aflatoxins, in Ghana. Contamination of crops by aflatoxins has become a major dilemma for many countries and their governments as a result of the massive destruction it causes to crop production and in the end affecting the economy negatively. Quite recently the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that 25 per cent of the world's food crops were infected by cancer-causing aflatoxins hence having a toll on the economy.

Also the U.S Centre for Disease Control has stated that over 4.5 billion people in the developed world are exposed to aflatoxins. It is in this light that Dr Difie Osei stated that considering the fact that Genetically Modified food are scientifically generated, all these problems including afla-toxins were going to be eliminated and in the end improve on the yields.

“Yes it will check aflatoxins in maize,” she answered.

In recent times an innovative bio control technology has been developed by the United States Department of Agriculture-Agriculture Research Service (USDA-ARS) in collaboration with the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), depicting the seriousness that a lot of agencies attach to the aflatoxins menace. Ghanaweb

INDIA: GEAC approves trials to generate bio-safety data for GM crops


GEAC approves trials to generate bio-safety data for GM crops



The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) has approved experimental field trials for generating bio-safety data for Genetically Modified crops.
This was informed by Environment and Forest minister Jayanthi Natarajan in a written reply to a query in the Lok Sabha.
The minister said currently 79 applications covering 11 crops—cotton, rice, castor, maize, wheat, sugarcane, potato, brinjal, chickpea, mustard and sorghum—are pending with the GEAC. Out of the 79 applications, 24 are awaiting NoC from state governments and the remaining are yet to be considered by GEAC.
The minister said in view of the objections received from some state governments regarding GM crop field trials in their state, GEAC in its meeting held in July 2011 had decided to direct the applicants to obtain NoC from the state government in the first instance before issuance of the approval letter. PTI