GMO CAN FEED WORLD

GMO foods can feed world

The recent announcement of the 2013 World Food Prize laureates (three scientists who furthered biotechnology developments) has piqued a renewed biotech debate.

Genetic selection of crops has existed since man first began to put crops under cultivation. Our early crop producers selected the best of their product to be held back for seed, and crossed those selections to enhance them further. Biotechnology allows us to speed up that process.

Iowa’s Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize winner, dedicated his career to feeding the hungry. He vigorously defended biotechnology as a way to develop new crop varieties even more rapidly in order to boost food production. He saw no evidence that genetically modified organisms were harmful to humans. He believed technological and research-based science is key to a safe food delivery system.

I believe Borlaug would be proud of the Food Prize laureates. As a fellow Iowan and crop producer, I know I am.

It never ceases to amaze me how past plant breeders were able to enhance farmers’ abilities to produce food for a hungry world. This progress moved incrementally forward and required years of tedious work and dedication. With strides continuing in biotechnology, producers now realize dramatic increases in yields.

As a producer, I have several goals and ambitions: make an honest and decent living off the land, while leaving the land in better shape for the next generation. There also is an innate sense of satisfaction knowing I am part of a system feeding a hungry world. It is shortsighted and ignorant to believe we can meet the needs without utilizing new techniques and advances in biotechnology.

One concern in this biotech debate is requiring mandatory labeling for all genetic events. Organic products are more labor intensive and command a higher price in the marketplace. It is to the producers’ advantage to label these products and offer the choice consumers demand. However, requiring all products to be labeled simply tells the consumer what he or she already knows. If the label does not say organic or non-GMO, then one should not assume that it is. Labeling everything else will require segregation of products (probably for each genetic event) and that likely will raise the price of all food products. To assume all consumers around the world can afford higher food costs is simply arrogant.

The bottom line: While we fritter away time debating this issue with our bellies full, there are people who do not know where their next meal is coming from. I support GMO products to help feed the world. The Gazatte.

EU GMO SOYBEAN

GMO Soybeans Are Speed Bump in EU Trade Deal

Scientists started working back in the 1990s to genetically engineer a soybean that’s oil would be free of artery-clogging trans fats, a product farmers think will appeal to consumers as well as food-makers and fast-food chains.

But even though federal regulators approved a soybean variety in 2010 developed by a unit of DuPont, the crop is still only being grown on limited acreage under strict rules to ensure it is kept separate from other soybeans.

The reason is at the heart of a major issue facing U.S. and European negotiators as they try to work out a trade deal, known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, that can get ratified by Congress.

DuPont has been unable to get the European Union’s approval for the new product, one of an array of genetically engineered crops that are stalled in an EU approval process, even though the company first applied for EU approval in 2007.

DuPont doesn’t plan to market the biotech seeds in Europe and doesn’t expect the cooking oil to sell there either, because of European resistance to many genetically engineered foods, which are produced from genetically modified organisms.

DuPont’s concern, and the concern of U.S. farmers, is that a soy shipment to Europe could be accidentally contaminated with traces of the new soybean, which goes by the trade name Plenish. So, until the EU approves the crop, sales and cultivation of the seeds will continue to be restricted in the United States.

Most of the soybeans now grown in the United States are genetically engineered. The EU allows importation from the United States of some GMO varieties it has approved already — so the concern is about contamination by unapproved beans such as Plenish.

Even a small amount of contamination could lead to a shutdown of soybean trade. Foreign countries don’t hesitate to block shipments of U.S. farm commodities if it’s possible they contain minute amounts of biotech products those nations haven’t approved. Japan and South Korea both imposed bans on U.S. wheat this spring, when stray plants of an unapproved biotech variety were discovered growing in Oregon.

“The problem is that Europe just delays and delays and delays” making decisions on applications, said Matt O’Mara, director of international affairs for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the trade group that represents biotech seed giants such as DuPont and Monsanto Co., which has developed a similar soybean to DuPont’s. “We want there to be a commitment to change this practice, and we believe TTIP is the most effective way to do it.” ROLLCALL

RUSSIA: GMO FOOD

Russians to proudly poison themselves with their own GM food

Russia is preparing to catch up with the world in the production of genetically modified food. Measures for the development of biotechnology and genetic engineering are laid out in the road map developed by the Ministry of Economic Development. Officials hope to reduce imported biotechnology and increase the presence of the Russian Federation in this promising market.

Today, the share of Russia's participation in the rapidly developing but highly controversial biotechnology segment of the market is less than 0.1 percent. Meanwhile, analysts do not doubt the prospects of this trend. According to their projections, by 2025 the world market of GMOs will reach $2 trillion. According to Russian officials, by that time Russia will fully establish its own production of genetically-modified foods to get a larger piece of this pie.

According to the industry experts, today China provides the most serious funding for GMO research. Germany and France are also focusing on the development of biotechnology, and so do Italy and the United States, albeit to a lesser extent. Interestingly, even for Germany, whose government is "preaching" environmental values ​​and maintaining appropriate policies, the development of GMOs does not raise questions. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in Russia is still convinced of the disastrous effect of genetically modified foods on human health. Experts in the field of science and technology industry do not share these concerns.The road map for the development of biotechnology in the country is available on the official website of the government of the Russian Federation. The proposed measures include biopharmaceuticals, industrial biotechnology, agricultural and food biotechnology, forest biotechnology, bioenergy, environmental biotechnology and genetic engineering. The road map suggests that five years later, by 2018, the production of biotechnological products in Russia will reach the following volumes: in terms of consumption - 300 billion rubles compared to 128 billion in 2012, in terms of production - 200 million rubles against the current 26 billion, in terms of exports - 50 billion rubles compared to 1 billion rubles last year.

"Food industry representatives have long known that no sausage can be made without soy, it is impossible - it will be tasteless, ugly, and so on. So the future of humanity, of course, is in the increase of the production of food products, including through GMO," Vladimir Rudashevsky, deputy chairman of the RSPP Committee on industrial policy and the regulation of natural monopolies and the deputy chairman of the Committee  for Scientific and Technological Innovation and high technology told Pravda.Ru. "I think there is a lot of false information on how bad it is. We remember from history that at one time (100 years ago, probably) it was believed that it is impossible to use additives that are widely used now. 300 years ago people could not use pepper - it was thought that it was a deadly poison. This is not the first such experience for the mankind. There is a great deal of bias against everything new (especially with regard to food."

According to Rudashevsky, it is the development of GMOs that allows manufacturers to fully control food, which is nearly impossible in the current state of affairs. A biologist and scientific expert of Pravda.Ru Anton Evseev agrees with this opinion: "As for the stir caused by many media outlets about the danger of the GMPs (genetically modified plants), everyone who writes about it forgets one simple thing - genetic modification is a natural process that occurs in nature several times a day. In fact, people adopted the idea of ​​genetic modification from microorganisms. Symbiotic and parasitic bacteria and fungi as well as viruses are constantly introducing its DNA into crops. We then eat these natural GMO foods and nothing bad happens to us, we do not die and do not mutate. Moreover, if we look at the problem from this point of view, the process of artificial modification is much more secure than the natural one. We know exactly what scientists are introducing into the plant genome, but never know for sure what the bacteria "stuffs" the plants with. I think we can all agree that a controlled modification is always safer than uncontrolled. "

Russia's potential in the development of biotechnology is very significant. According to Vladimir Rudashevsky, these developments were started by Soviet scientists. To date, Russia has a very powerful biotechnology that, however, does not receive the support required for the development of the best examples of GMO products.

"Without developing our own market, we are giving in to the overseas markets, but here lies a great danger. GMOs coming from China and India, I think, are not as good as we would like, because that's where the technology for these products is poorly controlled. We cannot reject them, so the only way to stop it is to develop our own industry based on the principles of good faith, and we have a perfect scientific basis for this," noted Rudashevsky. He added that Pushchinsky State Science and Research Institute and the Institute of Nutrition used to be involved in this type of work.

According to the expert, the approved road map should attract foreign researchers who for one reason or another are not allowed to work on the development of biotechnology in their country. Provision of a platform for the new developments will help Russia to take a fundamentally new spot on the world stage. However, according to scientists, the creation of food through genetic modification is justified not only from the economic point of view.

"Before we talk about the benefits of using GMPs often called GMOs, we must remember how selection occurs. For example, we want to create a frost resistant plum. As a result, poor breeders have to first make a few hundreds of crosses between different varieties with relatively high frost resistance. It is great if a dozen of them are good and in the second and third generation can show the same characteristics. But there is more to it. Then there is a long period when the growth and development of the selected varieties is carefully observed. Any change in genotype in principle destabilizes it, therefore the so-called frost-resistant plums may be more susceptible to disease, would require a certain type of soil, etc.," noted Anton Evseev.

Even if the new variety is developed, it has to be monitored for a long time to ensure that it does not degenerate in 4-5^th generations, as it often happens. The attempts to avoid this constitute a long and financially costly process. "But all of this can be avoided if the plant is injected with the desired gene. The monitoring period in this case is reduced, and the procedure is simplified. There is no destabilization of the genome, and the plant does not acquire negative qualities along with the positive ones. As a result, it is more efficient, and most importantly, less costly," concluded the biologist.

 Maria Snytkova, Pravda 

INDIA: MP COTTON BT

MP's cotton trend: enter Bt, exit all else

More than a decade after Bt cotton was approved for commercial cultivation in the country, Madhya Pradesh has almost shunned other seed varieties of cotton despite conflicting reports about falling yields and the reservations of the state government.

The area under Bt cultivation, which MP farmers first took up 11 years ago, rose rapidly in the initial years, though it now appears to have settled in the range of 6 lakh hectares. The figures are at odds with the state government's claims about making efforts to promote non-Bt cotton. The last state economic survey, in fact, does not even cite figures for non-Bt varieties.

MP has an organic farming policy in place and the BJP government is opposed to genetically modified crops. It has already banned field trials and has written to the Centre registering its protest against the proposed Agriculture Bio-security Bill and Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India.

But the ideological opposition has neither helped wean farmers away from Bt cotton, which activists usually slam for being toxic, nor seen affinity growing towards non-Bt varieties. Dr S K Rao of the Jawaharlal Nehru Agriculture University says farmers prefer Bt cotton seeds because they give higher yields and reduce input costs by cutting down on the use of pesticide.

Head of the directorate of research services, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Agriculture University, Gwalior, Dr H S Yadav says that the demand for nuclear and breeder seeds of non-Bt varieties is almost nil. "Occasionally, some farmer turns up and demands two or four kg," he says. He adds that though the area under cultivation has grown up, productivity has come down.

Jabalpur University was tasked by the state government to develop non-Bt varieties after sensing the onslaught of Bt cotton. It developed Jawahar Cotton-4 and Jawahar Cotton-5 varieties and got them registered with the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority, but has not succeeded in making them popular.

Agriculture Minister Ramkrishna Kusmaria, a votary of swadeshi, was at a loss to elaborate what benefits the state's organic policy has brought farmers while responding to a question in the assembly's recent session. In fact, the state government readily provided the acreage under Bt cotton but could not provide the details of cultivation of organic cotton in the state.

Under the centrally sponsored Mini-Mission-II of Technology Mission on Cotton, three exhibitions to demonstrate high-density planting systems are being set up in three districts to promote non-Bt cotton. The government is, however, keeping its fingers crossed on their success. Only 36 farmers in MP have registered for organic farming in 2013-14.

"The choice is between one Bt cotton variety and another," says Nilesh Desai of Hamara Beej Abhiyan and Beej Swaraj Abhiyan, MP, alleging that the non-Bt varieties have already gone out of the market because agriculture universities and bureaucrats toe the line of multinational seed companies.

The NGO had last year brought a report on a decade of Bt cotton in the state and insisted that use of pesticide had not reduced. The report argued that yields had already started to increase before Bt cotton arrived on the scene. In the first couple of years of Bt cotton, productivity increased but came down later, the report claimed.

Desai says there are as many as 40 varieties of Bt cotton seeds being sold by private companies in the state. Since farmers have stopped asking for non-Bt cotton seeds, companies have stopped producing them, he says, alleging that multinational companies are dictating terms to governments and bureaucrats.

Bharatiya Kisan Sangh president Suresh Gurjar claims cultivation of Bt cotton in the Nimad region of MP has come down this year while agreeing that the use of desi varieties is almost over. "When Gujarat farmers could develop Bt varieties, why can't governments and universities follow suit?" he says. He alleges that agriculture research studies are generally commercial in nature and promote the interest of multinationals. INDIAN EXPRESS

Kazakhstan to harvest its first virus-free potatoes in September

Kazakhstan to harvest its first virus-free potatoes in September

Kazakhstan biotechnologists have cultivated a virus-resistant variety of potato namedAladdin using clonal propagation technology, Tengrinews.kz reports citing the project’s research advisor Darkhan Balpanov. 

According to the expert, the method helps protect potatoes from virus, bacterial, fungus and nematode diseases caused by penetration of small malicious organisms. The scientists cultivated the potatoes from micro-tubers with zero level of pathogens that took around 50 days to produce. Additional advantage of the technology lays in the variety's ability to grow in different climatic zones and natural conditions. “The product uses only clean varieties received through traditional GMO-free selection methods,” the scientist stressed.

The scientists insist that they will be able to grow $1 million worth of the virus-free seed potatoes in five years since the beginning of the project’s implementation. This project will provide farms with cheap high quality seeds. “The price of elite seed potatoes is 120 tenge ($0.8) per 1kg, while the price of imported seeds is 300 tenge ($2) per 1kg. In our case the self-cost will make 90 tenge ($0.6) per 1kg,” Balpanov said.

The first harvest of the Kazakhstan virus-resistant potatoes will be gathered in September 2013. It has been planted on the area of around 6 hectares. The scientists plan to harvest around 100 tons of the Aladdin potatoes. In 2014 they plan to collect up to 500 tons of the virus-free potatoes. In the other words, they expect the second harvest to be of commercial scale. 

Balpanov said that the Kazakhstan scientist were in talks with their colleagues from South Korea who were planning to grow batata in Kazakhstan. This culture is normally grows in tropical areas. However, according to Balpanov, it can also be grown in countries with continental climate like Kazakhstan.

Earlier Kazakhstan genetics bred carrots containing anti-tuberculosis vaccine. The scientists managed to inject TBC germ into the root crop and create a sort of an edible vaccine. TENGRINEWS

For more information see:http://en.tengrinews.kz/science/Kazakhstan-to-harvest-its-first-virus-free-potatoes-in-September-18636/
Use of the Tengrinews English materials must be accompanied by a hyperlink to en.Tengrinews.kz 

NO GM FIELD TRIALS: TEC FINAL REPORT (INDIA)

No GM field trials till regulation gaps are addressed, says TEC final report

The final report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has said that it will not be “advisable” to conduct more field trials till gaps in the regulatory system are addressed.

The report was much awaited as a representative of the Union Agriculture Ministry (R.S. Paroda) was added on the panel after the submission of its interim report in October last on the Court’s directions at the behest of the Ministry. The farm Ministry had objected to the absence of its representative on the panel.

However, Dr. Paroda has not signed the report and there is no clarity on whether he gave a “dissenting note” or his comments were annexed to the report. He attended the meetings but did not attend the signing of the report on June 30 in Chennai, The Hindu was told by a member of the panel. Dr. Paroda was not available for comment.

In its final report, the TEC has suggested that the members of the regulatory authority be free of conflict of interest, such a body be set up under the Ministry of Environment or Health. There should be a secretariat of dedicated scientists with area expertise.

Stakeholder participation, need, socioeconomic considerations, societal impact, and sustainability should be some of the dimensions to be incorporated in the risk assessment and this should be done at an early stage in the risk assessment process.

There is a need to include chronic and trans-generational toxicity testing.

The single largest number of applications for field trials to the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee is for Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis — a commonly occurring bacterium found in insect-rich habitats and soils) transgenic (including food crops such as rice and a range of vegetables).

The TEC pointed out that the safety of Bt transgenics with regard to chronic toxicity had not been established and this needs to be done before it can be considered safe. In this regard, the largest deployment of transgenics worldwide is in soybean, corn, cotton, and canola, all of which are used primarily for oil or feed. Nowhere are Bt transgenics bring widely consumed in large amounts for any major food crop that is directly used for human consumption. The TEC found no compelling reason for India to be the first to do so. THE HINDU

INDIA: GMO TEC

This Bill needs deep roots in transparency

The potentially lethal effects of GM crops require that there should be no secrecy around the regulatory processes that will govern them

Newspaper reports have confirmed the recent decision of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests to “put on hold” the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (GEAC) permitting of field trials of genetically modified crops such as rice, wheat, maize, castor and cotton. The decision to put on hold all approvals — including those granted by the committee — has been taken in view of ongoing public interest litigation before the Supreme Court on the bio-safety of field trials of GM crops.

The functioning of the regulatory regime for genetically modified organisms (GMO) in India throws up many difficult questions, not least among them, how to ensure effective transparency.

Though transparency in the functioning of any regulatory agency is critical, there are additional complications when it comes to GMOs. A regulator who is supervising the distribution of spectrum, or the functioning of the telephone industry, or one who is regulating the quality of a consumer product, can always recant, call back the product, reallocate spectrum, and set right any errors that might have been committed. However, with GMOs, there can be no recall once they have been “let loose” in the ecosystem. Mistakes relating to GMOs could have lethal and irreversible consequences on our health and the environment.

It is, therefore, important that the regulatory processes related to GMOs are scientifically rigorous, free of political or financial bias, without conflict of interest, and subject to vigorous public scrutiny.

Moratorium

Unfortunately, the current system for regulating the introduction of GMOs in India has been adjudged to be very unsatisfactory. A Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up by the Supreme Court, submitted its interim report dated October 7, 2012. It recommended the suspension of all GMO field trials until, inter alia, a panel of scientists, qualified in evaluation of the biosafety data of GM crops, has been engaged for the scrutiny and analysis of the same, and the conflict of interest in the regulatory body has been removed. “Based on the current overall status of food safety evaluation of Bt transgenics, including the data on Bt cotton and Bt brinjal examined by the TEC and in accordance with the precautionary principle,” the TEC has recommended “a ten year moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenics in all food crops (those used directly for human consumption).”

Toxicity

These findings were reportedly disputed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and by some others — what else could have been expected? At their insistence, the TEC has been given an additional member and asked to submit its final report to the Supreme Court. Whatever be the end result, the TEC’s devastating findings in the interim report cannot be wished away. Therefore, given the poor scientific rigour, the prevailing conflicts of interest, and inappropriate processes, it is all the more essential that everything must be open and subject to full public scrutiny.

Based on an appeal by Greenpeace to the Central Information Commission (CIC), asking for information from the Department of Biotechnology and the GEAC, on the toxicity and allergenicity of products being allowed to proceed to field trials, the CIC, while allowing the appeal, has held that “it goes without saying that toxicity and allergenicity of any product to be put on large scale field trial is a matter of overriding public interest.”

Thereby, the CIC had effectively rejected the plea of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), the third party supplying such information, that the same should not be given out as it involves commercial confidence and trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The CIC rightly pointed out that under the RTI Act, this protection was inoperative when “larger public interest” warrants disclosure.

These developments suggested that even while the official regulatory processes left much to be desired, at least the public was in a position to monitor the situation on its own and challenge any unscientific, biased, or reckless decisions of regulators. Therefore, imagine the rage and horror of the common Indian when she discovered that Section 28(1) of the recently introduced Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2013 proposes to remove information relating to GMOs from under the purview of the RTI Act.

As a State subject

Though there are many other reasons for which this Bill must be condemned, surely this effort to shroud all GMO-related information in secrecy must be the most condemnable and dangerous. Considering the Supreme Court has more than once held that the right to information is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and considering all legitimate exemptions and exclusions have been listed by Parliament in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, such efforts to circumvent the law must at the very least be considered unconstitutional and should be opposed at all levels.

It would be surprising if any of the political parties (apart from the ruling party at the Centre) would like to support this Bill. Apart from its attempt to weasel out from under the RTI Act, as far as GMOs are concerned, Section 35 of the BRAI Bill appears to reduce State governments to a mere advisory role, despite agriculture being a State subject. In fact, given the critical hazards associated with GMOs, both to human health and the environment, and the poor state of the regulatory mechanism, each State ought to have been vested with veto power as to the introduction of GMOs. For, once a GMO is introduced, wittingly or unwittingly, it is impossible to ensure that it does not spread far and wide; it certainly is no respecter of State boundaries.

All in all, this is a disaster of a Bill that must be resolutely opposed. THE HINDU