Joint Statement on Innovative Agricultural Production Technologies, particularly Plant Biotechnologies

13 April 2013

Source: US Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS)

www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdf

 Recognizing that agricultural production needs to substantially increase to meet global food, feed, fiber and energy demands in the face of population growth,

Understanding that innovative agricultural technologies need to continue to play a critical role in addressing these challenges, in contributing to increased food production in a sustainable way, and in mitigating the adverse effects of climate change,

Taking into account the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, which acknowledges that an increase in productivity will need to take place.

Emphasizing that regulatory approaches related to products derived from innovative agricultural technologies should be science-based, transparent, timely, no more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill legitimate objectives, and consistent with relevant international obligations, including the WTO agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and on Technical Barriers to Trade.

Our governments intend to work collaboratively to:

Promote the application of science-based, transparent and predictable regulatory approaches that foster innovation and ensure a safe and reliable global food supply, including the cultivation and use of agricultural products derived from innovative technologies;

Allow for the trade of such products, and minimize or remove unjustified barriers to trade where they exist;

Promote constructive dialogue on science based regulation and use of innovative agricultural technologies and;

With respect to plant biotechnology specifically:

• Promote the utilization of and the development of regulations consistent with Codex Alimentarius Commission Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology and the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants and its annexes;
• Encourage research and education efforts necessary to develop agricultural innovations that lead to new products and strategies that address the global challenges for production of abundant, safe and affordable food, feed, fiber, and energy in the 21st century;
• Noting the importance of timely and efficient regulatory systems, endeavor to work together to promote synchronization of authorizations by regulatory authorities, in particular for food, feed and processing purposes;
• Encourage biotechnology developers to submit timely dossiers to regulatory authorities to minimize asynchronous and asymmetric authorizations;
• Collaborate in the development of domestic, regional and international approaches to facilitate the global management of low level presence of recombinant-DNA plant material, authorized in one or more countries, but not in the country of import;
• Work cooperatively in international standard-setting bodies and in other international fora on issues related to plant biotechnology;
• Support science-based assessments of food, feed and environmental safety;
• Encourage the timely sharing of information including using global databases to house public information on product authorizations.

 Supporting Governments:

Australia
Brazil
Canada
Republic of Argentina Republic of Paraguay United States

Source: The Land – 05/04/2013

www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/monsanto-predicts-gm-rise/2652918.aspx?storypage=0

IN SPITE of a perception that plantings of genetically modified (GM) canola have stagnated at around 11 per cent of the national canola crop, Monsanto Australia managing director Daniel Kruithoff is confident the company can increase its market share to 30pc of the plant into the future.

GM plantings were at around 176,000ha last year, or 11pc of the national crop, and expectations are that this figure will remain relatively static this year, with many farmers preferring other, conventional, herbicide tolerant varieties.

However, Mr Kruithoff said he was positive that the increases in acreage being seen in WA would also begin to occur in Victoria and NSW as new varieties hit the market.

“It takes time and because of the moratorium on production, Roundup Ready (RR) varieties were behind, but we’re catching up and the new varieties available are exciting,” Mr Kruithoff said.

Mr Kruithoff said Monsanto understood the Australian market would not be like Canada, where over 90pc of the crop was GM, but added there were specific fits.

“It really depends on your location and your weed spectrum, we’re starting to see hot spots around the country where there’s really good uptake of this system,” he said.

Mr Kruithoff also said ability to deliver the product at harvest had an influence, with farmers in some areas not having a bulk handling terminal accepting GM nearby.

However, with more sites accepting GM, it will be easier to deliver the product.

His comments were backed up by Corowa, NSW, agronomist Andrew Bell, who said there were two new sites opened up in his local area in the southern Riverina and north-east Victoria last year, reflecting an increasing acreage of GM crop.

Mr Bell said the primary factor behind growers in his area using RR canola was to control resistant weeds with glyphosate in rotation with paraquat.

Mr Kruithoff said in spite of the other herbicide resistant options, such as triazine tolerant (TT) and Clearfield canola varieties, the GM lines could be useful, in particular when growers had group A and B chemical resistance weeds.

“That’s the difference between here and Canada, where RR was really the only option,” he said.

He said given feedback from the seed companies regarding new, agronomically improved varieties, he felt 30pc of the market was realistic.

“We’d expect growers to rotate their chemical groups with canola, using TT, RR and Clearfield lines,” Mr Kruithoff said.

But while he said new varieties to be released over the next couple of years would increase uptake, Mr Kruithoff said the real game-changer could be research into next generation traits.

“We’ve had some good research work, at a proof of concept level, into a double-stacked gene that would combine both RR and TT traits, which, from feedback from growers, is something they would really value.”

The other big innovation could come in terms of time of spraying.

One of the major gripes with current RR varieties is that spraying can only be done up to six-leaf stage, which does not give growers scope to control late ryegrass germinations.

Mr Kruithoff said work was being done to try to extend the application window.

“It’s the same story as with cotton, when we first introduced RR cotton there was a limited application window, and that is now increased,” he said.

The product was priced realistically, Mr Kruithoff said, in spite of technology fees to use the seed, which pushed per kilogram costs of GM seed above other lines.

“We think we have pricing at the right level, but we’ll wait and see – growers will vote with their wallets.”

At the other end of the production cycle, he said premiums for non-GM canola were coming back in.

“It’s probably back at around $10/t now, which is a lot less than what it was, so that also helps bring RR into the equation at sowing time.”

Source: The Land, 15 March 2013

www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/canola-plantings-to-drop/2650376.aspx?storypage=0

GENETICALLY modified (GM) canola plantings are likely to come back as part of an overall smaller canola plant this year.

Nick Goddard, executive director at the Australian Oilseeds Federation (AOF) said it was likely there would be less canola planted overall than last year’s bumper plant.

“We’re likely to lose a lot of those acres that were planted in drier areas, where canola is perceived as a risk, but looking on averages, it will still be a reasonable sized crop, providing there is an autumn break,” Mr Goddard said.

He said while GM Roundup Ready (RR) lines had a reasonable fit in Western Australian farming systems, on the east coast it was being used more sparingly.

“It’s used more tactically than as a widespread choice in NSW and Victoria, probably less so than the other two herbicide tolerant lines, the triazine tolerant (TT) and Clearfield varieties,” Mr Goddard said.

Rob Sonogan, senior consultant at Agrivision, an agronomy firm based in Swan Hill in Victoria’s Mallee, said RR was lagging behind TT and Clearfield varieties in his area.

“The TTs are certainly very popular, the only issue there is with potential residual problems for the following year’s crop, if there is a dry summer,” Mr Sonogan said.

Mr Sonogan said there was no ideological concerns about RR, but said a combination of relatively high costs, lower prices and limited delivery options meant it was not particular popular in the Mallee.

“It’s probably not that much dearer than other herbicide tolerant lines now, but there is still a reasonable discount to conventional canola lines and there can be additional freight costs, as there aren’t a lot of segregations there,” Mr Sonogan said.

“When you combine that with consistently lower yields for RR lines, there is no compelling reason to plant it.”

Mr Sonogan also said preserving the efficacy of glyphosate was another reason not to plant it.

“Glyphosate is so crucial to farming systems in the Mallee and Wimmera that farmers are making sure they don’t overuse it.”

In the Riverina, agronomist John Sykes, John Sykes Rural Consulting, Albury, said overall canola plantings will be back.

“There was a big canola plant last year, and rotationally, we’re limited in the paddocks we can choose,” Mr Sykes said.

…

Source: The Land, 10 March 2013.

www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/gm-crops-defended/2649312.aspx?storypage=0

PROFESSOR Wayne Parrott says those who oppose crop-biotechnology based on anti-science views should spend a day living in impoverished countries and experience first-hand what impact their activism is having on lives.

The University of Georgia Crop Science Professor was one of nine international experts who contributed to the damning, broad analysis of the now discredited Seralini rat-feeding study on GM corn that was released last year.

Speaking to Fairfax Agricultural Media, Professor Parrott said the research was the worst example of an attempt to discredit GMs that he had seen during his plant breeding career.

He said the French study was carefully orchestrated to be “as sensationalist as possible”, with a movie filmed during the experiment, accompanied by a dedicated book and media blitz.

Sensationalist photos were also used (of rats used in the experiments), even though they had to violate animal ethics guidelines to get the photos, he said.

Prof. Parrott said the most concerning and alarming aspect of the entire issue was the undermining of public confidence in biotechnology and government agencies charged with regulating it.

…

Another of the report’s authors, University of Canberra toxicology expert Andrew Bartholomaeus, said research papers like Seralini’s and the extremist activism that uses them, leads to disproportionate regulation of GM crops.

The former Risk Assessment General Manager at FSANZ said big commercial groups may actually gain an advantage, because they have the resources to comply with the regulatory requirements.

But the real victims are the humanitarian crop developers, he said, who have largely given up and moved onto other applications.

Consequently, hundreds of biotechnology crops that have been developed to help the poorest, most vulnerable people in the world, are sitting on shelves, because no one can afford to address the onerous and irrational regulatory requirements, he said.

“This is reprehensible,” he said.

“I have spoken with and have provided advice and assistance to scientists working on humanitarian biotechnology initiatives funded by large charitable trusts such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“These initiatives are developing solutions to address starvation, malnourishment and poor health of the most vulnerable people in the world.

“Publications such as that of Seralini, and the purposes to which they are put, undermine the enormous benefits that can come from nutritionally enhanced or pest resistant crops developed specifically for these vulnerable groups.”

Dr Bartholomaeus said the report’s nine authors decided to take action because they were “appalled” at the misinformation presented to the public supporting anti-GM “extremists”.

For the full article, follow the Source link above.

Can NZ afford to ignore GM?

Source: Central South Island Farmer, 06/03/13

www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/central-farmer/8389752/Can-NZ-afford-to-ignore-GM

Nuffield scholar Michael Tayler is questioning how much longer New Zealand can continue to turn its back on the opportunities genetic modification technology has to offer.

The Temuka cropping farmer spent last year travelling the world as part of his study looking at new technologies.

After meeting with countless farmers, scientists and agricultural leaders GM and the possibilities it offered came up again and again, he said.

“Before I left, I had no pre-conceived ideas about GM. I just wanted to look at what technologies might improve yields for arable farmers.”

He became convinced that New Zealand should at least keep an open mind to the benefits that GM technology offered.

He outlined his findings in his report, ‘New Technologies in Arable Farming’.

He accepts there is an argument for New Zealand becoming a niche producer, targeting high-end export markets but questions the viability of New Zealand positioning itself as a non-GM country long-term.

“Many surveys show that consumer attitudes to GM crops are softening, albeit slowly, and if that trend continues we may well be left producing for a shrinking market while our competitors embrace the new technologies, leaving us at a competitive disadvantage”

He was convinced New Zealand would one day grow GM crops, but it would need consumer acceptance for it to be done successfully.

“New Zealand shouldn’t blindly turn its back on it.

“We should at least have a look at it, but the key will be to get the public on board.”

Overseas surveys showed that attitudes towards GM food were becoming more favourable, he said.

There would be increasing pressure on agriculture to lift production in the wake of world food shortages brought about by a growing world population.

GM technology was one of the tools that farmers could use to feed these people.

He believed it was possible for GM, conventional and organic farming systems to co-exist.

If organic and conventional farming systems could operate side by side, GM and non-GM farms could do so too, he said.

“There is no doubt there will be challenges, but there is already co-existence of GM and non-GM in other countries.

He pointed to the development of genetically modified wheat that was aphid-resistant as an example of a crop that could benefit New Zealand farmers. Growing it could save thousands of dollars in insecticide costs, creating environmental benefits as well as financial ones.

New Zealand needed to have a mature, reasoned debate over the pros and cons of GM.

It was also time for another high level study into GM in New Zealand.

This last occurred in 2001 when a Royal Commission report was released, he said.

“We need to have a look at it because in 10-15 years time, the bulk of the food produced in the world may be genetically modified and if we haven’t at least researched what opportunities are available, we could be left behind.”

Ultimately the markets and the consumers would decide.

The easiest way to stop GM food would be for people to stop buying it, but demand was growing worldwide, he said.

GM was a huge area and not all of GM technology would be suitable for New Zealand farming systems.

But New Zealand farmers could cherry-pick the proven technology that is most appropriate and still maintain the country’s clean green brand integrity.

“I do understand it is an emotive topic but I believe everyone has the right to choose.

“I’m not saying we should jump into GM boots and all, it’s not the silver bullet for global food shortages, but there is some exciting stuff out there that’s happening with GM and the science will only get better.

“How long can we afford to ignore it?”

GM pioneer blasts scare tactics

Source: The West Australian 05/03/13

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/16295953/gm-pioneer-blasts-scare-tactics/

One of the pioneers of genetically modified crops in WA has hit out at a prime-time television advertising campaign that links GM foods to cancer, kidney and liver damage.

The Safe Food Foundation campaign targets Liberal Party and WA Nationals support for GM crops in what is believed to be a world-first in food safety election lobbying.

Cunderdin farmer David Fulwood said there was no credible research to suggest GM crops were unsafe.

Mr Fulwood harvested WA’s first commercial-sized trial of GM canola in late 2009 and since then has become even more convinced of its value to grain growers as a crop and agronomic tool.

“Farmers are up against it anyway and the last thing we need is to have this taken away because of an emotional campaign,” he said.

“The current genes are only the start of good things to come for producers and consumers as well. The benefits of will be huge in terms of feeding hungry people and feeding them nutritionally.”

SFF director Scott Kinnear defended the TV campaign, which shows laboratory rats deformed by tumours and endorses a vote for Labor or the Greens based on their anti-GM policies.

“It is premature to grow GM crops in WA because they haven’t been proved to be safe to reasonable standards,” Mr Kinnear.

Mr Kinnear, an agricultural scientist specialising in biochemistry, acknowledged the claims in the TV campaign were based on a study attacked by other scientists.

Large parts of the Seralini study, published in respected US science journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, have been rebutted by food regulation agencies.

Mr Kinnear said Seralini was a long-term feeding study whereas regulatory agencies continued to rely on short-term feeding studies.

Only two GM crops can be grown in WA – cotton on the Ord River and canola.

Premier Colin Barnett said while there were no plans to extend GM approvals, it was important to embrace scientific advances.

“While there is no proposal to go beyond that (canola and cotton) at this stage, many farmers are advocating other GM applications,” Mr Barnett said.

“At the moment we’re sticking with GM canola and I think there’s nearly 100,000ha being grown.”

Mr Fulwood said any commercial planting of GM wheat in WA was a “long way off” and might not happen at all depending on market signals.

“Farmers follow market signals closely and if the market signals it doesn’t want GM wheat obviously we’ll respect that,” he said.

Source: www.isaaa.org

ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Executive Summary. Global Status of Commercialised GM Crops: 2012

A record 170.3 million hectares of GM crops were grown globally in 2012, at an annual growth rate of six per cent, up 10.3 million from 160 million hectares in 2011.

Of the 28 countries which planted GM crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries. This compares with 19 developing and 10 industrial in 2011. Thus there are three times as many developing countries growing GM crops as there are industrial countries.

More than half the world’s population, 60 per cent or ~4 billion people, live in the 28 countries planting GM crops.

Two new countries, Sudan (Bt cotton) and Cuba (Bt maize) planted GM crops for the first time in 2012. Germany and Sweden could not plant the GM potato, Amflora because it ceased to be marketed; Poland discontinued planting Bt maize because of regulation inconsistencies in the interpretation of the law on planting approval between the EU and Poland; the EU maintains that all necessary approvals are already in place for planting whereas Poland does not. In 2012, Sudan became the fourth country in Africa, after South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to commercialize a GM crop – GM Bt cotton. A total of 20,000 hectares were planted in both rainfed areas and irrigated schemes. About 10,000 farmers were the initial beneficiaries who have an average of about 1-2.5 hectares of land. In a landmark event Cuba joined the group of countries planting GM crops in 2012. For the first time, farmers in Cuba grew 3,000 hectares of hybrid Bt maize in a “regulated commercialization” initiative in which farmers seek permission to grow GM maize commercially. The initiative is part of an ecologically sustainable pesticide-free program featuring GM maize hybrids and mycorrhizal additives. The Bt maize, with resistance to the major pest, fall armyworm, was developed by the Havana-based Institute for Genetic Engineering and GMnology (CIGB).

In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew GM crops – notably, over 90 per cent, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries.

For the first time, developing countries grew more, 52 per cent of global GM crops in 2012 than industrial countries at 48 per cent.

While 28 countries planted commercialized GM crops in 2012, an additional 31 countries totalling 59 have granted regulatory approvals for GM crops for import, food and feed use and for release into the environment since 1996. A total of 2,497 regulatory approvals involving 25 GM crops and 319 GM events have been issued by competent authorities in 59 countries, of which 1,129 are for food use (direct use or processing), 813 are for feed use (direct use or processing) and 555 are for planting or release into the environment. Of the 59 countries with regulatory approvals, USA has the most number of events approved (196), followed by Japan (182), Canada (131), Mexico (122), Australia (92), South Korea (86), New Zealand (81), European Union (67 including approvals that have expired or under renewal process), Philippines (64), Taiwan (52) and South Africa (49).

Global value of GM seed alone was ~US$15 billion in 2012. A 2011 study estimated that the cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new GM crop/trait is ~US$135 million. In 2012, the global market value of GM crops, estimated by Cropnosis, was US$14.84 billion, (up from US$13.35 billion in 2011); this represents 23 per cent of the US$64.62 billion global crop protection market in 2012, and 35 per cent of the ~US$34 billion commercial seed market. The estimated global farm-gate revenues of the harvested commercial “end product” (the GM grain and other harvested products) is more than ten times greater than the value of the GM seed alone.

Several new developing countries are expected to plant GM crops before 2015 led by Asia, and there is cautious optimism that Africa will be well-represented: the first GM based drought tolerant maize planned for release in North America in 2013 and in Africa by ~2017; the first stacked soybean tolerant to herbicide and insect resistant will be planted in Brazil in 2013; subject to regulatory approval, Golden Rice could be released in the Philippines in 2013/2014; drought tolerant sugarcane is a possible candidate in Indonesia, and GM maize in China with a potential of ~30 million hectares and for the future GM rice which has an enormous potential to benefit up to 1 billion poor people in rice households in Asia alone. GM crops, whilst not a panacea, have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the 2015 MDG goal of cutting poverty in half, by optimizing crop productivity, which can be expedited by public-private sector partnerships, such as the WEMA project, supported in poor developing countries by the new generation of philanthropic foundations, such as the Gates and Buffet foundations. Observers are cautiously optimistic about the future with more modest annual gains predicted because of the already high rate of adoption in all the principal crops in mature markets in both developing and industrial countries.

18 February 2013. Source: WA Farmers

https://wafarmers.org.au/media-release/305-continue-with-gm-park

The Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc.) (WAFarmers) is calling for the continued use of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, as part of its 2013 Western Australian State Election Policy.

WAFarmers President, Dale Park, said WAFarmers’ Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) policy has, for a number of years, supported the technology through the appropriate use of GM crops governed by industry-agreed protocols relating to storage, transport and buffer zones.

“WAFarmers continues to work with the broader industry to ensure that ‘co-existence’ is more than a word which is constrained by a multitude of interpretations,” Mr Park said.

“The use of GM is still a very polarising topic, and unfortunately, this sometimes removes the opportunity for a debate around buffer zones, tolerance levels and market acceptance based on facts, reason and level-headed discussion.”

As the State’s farmers continue to adopt GM technology, WAFarmers has attempted to engage a range of parties to establish a broad dialogue on co-existence.

“Our discussions with other parties, regarding GM use, have drawn a range of responses, however few of them with enough discussion on this topic to reach a satisfactory solution to all parties.

“WAFarmers want a commitment for any State Government to allow the State’s farmers the choice on GM crops and continue to legislate for their use,” Mr Park concluded.

THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FARMERS FEDERATION (INC.) (WAFARMERS) GM POLICY

WAFarmers supports the lifting of the current State Government moratorium on the commercial release of GM canola.

WAFarmers supports future research and development into GM crops and pastures.

WAFarmers supports Australian and State Government tolerance levels of 0.9 per cent in crops and 0.5 per cent in seeds.

WAFarmers supports the OGTR and its charter to protect the health and safety of Australians and the Australian environment.

WAFarmers supports further development of protocols for the commercialisation of GM grains in the WA grains industry including intellectual property rights, contamination, segregation, licensing, protection of individual growers and legal liability issues.

Food science expert: Genetically modified crops are overregulated

17 February 2013, University of Illinois

Source: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/uoia-fse021113.php

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — It has been almost 20 years since the first genetically modified foods showed up in produce aisles throughout the United States and the rest of the world, but controversy continues to surround the products and their regulation.

Bruce Chassy, a professor emeritus of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, believes that after thousands of research studies and worldwide planting, “genetically modified foods pose no special risks to consumers or the environment” and are overregulated.

Chassy will elaborate on this conclusion at the 2013 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston on Feb. 17. During his talk, “Regulating the Safety of Foods and Feeds Derived From Genetically Modified Crops,” Chassy will share his view that the overregulation of GM crops actually hurts the environment, reduces global health and burdens the consumer.

Farmers have witnessed the advantages of GM crops firsthand through increases in their yields and profit, and decreases in their labor, energy consumption, pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions, Chassy said.

Despite these benefits, various regulatory agencies require newly developed GM crops to be put to the test with rigorous safety evaluations that include molecular characterization, toxicological evaluation, allergenicity assessments, compositional analysis and feeding studies. This extensive testing takes five to 10 years and costs tens of millions of dollars, and Chassy argues that this process “wastes resources and diverts attention from real food safety issues.”

“With more than half of the world’s population now living in countries that have adopted GM crops, it might be appropriate to reduce the regulatory scrutiny of GM crops to a level that is commensurate with science-based risk assessment,” Chassy said.

During his talk, Chassy will chronicle the scientific tests used in pre-market safety assessments of GM foods and elaborate on the evidence from thousands of research studies and expansive GM plantings that he says show these crops do not present risks to consumers or the environment. The overregulation of GM foods is a response not to scientific evidence, Chassy said, but to a global campaign that disseminates misinformation and fear about these food sources.

3 January 2013, Oxford Farming Conference

Source: www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.

As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely.

So I guess you’ll be wondering – what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

When I first heard about Monsanto’s GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get – here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.

These fears spread like wildfire, and within a few years GM was essentially banned in Europe, and our worries were exported by NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Africa, India and the rest of Asia, where GM is still banned today. This was the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with.

This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.

…

What really threw me were some of the comments underneath my final anti-GM Guardian article. In particular one critic said to me: so you’re opposed to GM on the basis that it is marketed by big corporations. Are you also opposed to the wheel because because it is marketed by the big auto companies?

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

…

And this is the challenge that faces us today: we are going to have to feed 9.5 billion hopefully much less poor people by 2050 on about the same land area as we use today, using limited fertiliser, water and pesticides and in the context of a rapidly-changing climate.

The full 51 minute presentation can be seen at: www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

Source: The Guardian

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/02/genetic-modification-breakthrough-golden-rice

After 30 years, is a GM food breakthrough finally here?

Golden rice, a new strain that boosts vitamin A levels and reduces blindness in developing countries, is about to be sown in the Philippines – and is the new battleground crop.

Scientists say they have seen the future of genetically modified foods and have concluded that it is orange or, more precisely, golden. In a few months, golden rice – normal rice that has been genetically modified to provide vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in the developing world – will be given to farmers in the Philippines for planting in paddy fields.

Thirty years after scientists first revealed they had created the world’s first GM crop, hopes that their potential to ease global malnutrition problems may be realised at last. Bangladesh and Indonesia have indicated they are ready to accept golden rice in the wake of the Philippines’ decision, and other nations, including India, have also said that they are considering planting it.

“Vitamin A deficiency is deadly,” said Adrian Dubock, a member of the Golden Rice project. “It affects children’s immune systems and kills around two million every year in developing countries. It is also a major cause of blindness in the third world. Boosting levels of vitamin A in rice provides a simple, straightforward way to put that right.”

Recent tests have revealed that a substantial amount of vitamin A can be obtained by eating only 60g of cooked golden rice. “This has enormous potential,” said Dubock.

But scientists’ satisfaction over the Golden Rice project has been tempered by the fact that it has taken an extraordinarily long time for the GM crop to be approved. Golden rice was first developed in 1999, but its development and cultivation has been opposed vehemently by campaigners who have flatly refused to accept that it could deliver enough vitamin A, and who have also argued that the crop’s introduction in the developing world would make farmers increasingly dependent on western industry. The crop has become the cause célèbre of the anti-GM movement, which sees golden rice as a tool of global capitalism.

This view is rejected by the scientists involved. “We have developed this in conjunction with organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a way of alleviating a real health problem in the developing world,” says Dubock. “No one is going to make money out of it. The companies involved in developing some of the technologies have waived their licences just to get this off the ground.”

This view is shared by Mark Lynas, an environmental campaigner and one of the founders of the anti-GM crop movement. He has publicly apologised for opposing the planting of GM crops in Britain. “The first generation of GM crops were suspect, I believed then, but the case for continued opposition to new generations – which provide life-saving vitamins for starving people – is no longer justifiable. You cannot call yourself a humanitarian and be opposed to GM crops today.”

Golden rice was created by Peter Beyer, professor for cell biology at Freiburg University in Germany, and Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences in Switzerland, in the late 1990s. They inserted genes for a chemical known as beta-carotene into the DNA of normal rice. In this way they modified the rice genes so that the plants started to make beta-carotene, a rich orange-coloured pigment that is also a key precursor chemical used by the body to make vitamin A.

By 2000 the plant was ready for trials. However, it took another five years before test fields were grown, such was the resistance to the idea of introducing GM plants in many countries. These trials showed golden rice could stimulate vitamin A uptake but at a low level. New research was launched to create varieties that would provide enhanced amounts of the vitamins.

“All the time, opponents to golden rice insisted, year after year, that it would not be able to produce vitamin A in those who ate it,” said Beyer, golden rice’s co-creator. “For example, it was alleged by Greenpeace that people would have to eat several kilograms of the stuff to get any benefit.”

Two studies, both published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, demolished this claim. The first, in 2009, was based on a group of healthy adult volunteers in the US and showed that golden rice’s beta-carotene was easily taken up into the bloodstream. The second trial was carried out by American and Chinese researchers and published last year. It was carried out on Chinese children, aged between six and eight, and showed that a bowl of cooked golden rice, between 100g and 150g, could provide 60% of the recommended intake of vitamin A for young people. The study also revealed that golden rice is better than spinach at providing vitamin A.

“Given that normal rice has no vitamin A to speak of, that shows the importance of what has been achieved,” said Dubock.

Source:  www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/21/1217927109.abstract.

An international team of researchers has succeeded in genetically modifying wheat seeds to prevent gluten production in subsequent plants. The researchers focused their work on an enzyme that activates the group of genes responsible for the production of gluten. Using genetic engineering techniques, they managed to suppress the enzyme by 85.6 percent which then reduced by 76.4 percent the production of gluten in wheat seeds.

The team, with researchers from China, Germany and the United States, says that flour made from the altered seeds appears to be suitable for making bread, and that the next level of their work will determine if these grains can be used in foods for people suffering from celiac disease.

Source: www.capitalpress.com/content/mw-GM-potatoes-013113-art

KENNEWICK, Wash. — A University of Idaho researcher says he’s optimistic efforts to develop GM potatoes will resurface.

Joseph Guenthner, a UI professor in Moscow, Idaho, said he believes it’s possible the organic industry or environmental organizations may one day accept GM potatoes developed using traits from other potato plants.

Efforts to develop GM potatoes date back to the 1980s, Guenthner said. Efforts failed due to export market concerns or political pressure by groups like Greenpeace, he said.

“Four decades of scientific and economic activity and we don’t have a commercial GM product on the market now,” he said.

Simplot continues to be involved in developing genetically modified potatoes, Guenthner said.

“It’s not just Simplot who is working on GM potatoes,” Guenthner said. “There are people at universities and other agribusinesses who are developing products I think would be great for producers and consumers.”

He and a graduate student surveyed industry representatives for the company to determine the likelihood GM potatoes would find acceptance in the marketplace.

His study determined there was potentially more support for GM potatoes using traits from other potato plants than using traits from other species.

Farmers are most interested in traits that increase yields and water and nutrient efficiency, but consumers are interested in traits that improve nutrition and have cancer-fighting properties.

The study also found more potential acceptance if processors have strict guidelines for growing and handling GM potatoes. That includes fields and equipment designated for GM use only, planting and harvesting GM crops last and delivering potatoes directly to the buyer from the field to avoid mixing them with non-GM potatoes in storage.

Trucks carrying GM potatoes would be tarped to avoid potential potatoes falling off and mixing with non-GM potatoes.

Two other scenarios were also considered. In one, growers would make their own decisions on keeping GM and non-GM potatoes separate. The third scenario had elements of both of the others.

Guentner noted that the stricter scenarios held a potential for a range of less than 1 percent to 2 percent contamination. His goal is for less than 2 percent contamination. Most foreign markets are tolerant of up to 5 percent contamination.

U.S certified organic programs have a tolerance of roughly 5 percent contamination.

In a related story:

Source: www.examiner.com/article/basf-stops-seeking-approval-for-gm-potato-europe-but-continues-business-us

On Tuesday, BASF the German chemical company, said that it has given up seeking approval for GM potatoes in Europe after concerted opposition from consumers, farmers and lawmakers. Environmental activists have destroyed GM crops on fields in Europe because they believe that they might harm health and erode biological diversity. BASF said that, “…continued investment cannot be justified due to uncertainty in the regulatory environment and threats [over the destruction of crops].”

BASF will continue its GM crop business in the United States, however, and has even added GM corn as one of its target crops even though the company has stopped its research and development activities into nutritionally enhanced corn in the US “as part of a continuous review of the project portfolio.”

10 January 2013. Source: Science Daily

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130110075358.htm

Research Revisiting the Safety of GM Weevil-Resistant Peas in Mice Contradicts Previous Risk Assessment Findings

Researchers at the Medical University of Vienna have conducted feeding trials with mice to investigate the allergenicity of genetically modified (GM) weevil-resistant peas. Development of the peas was discontinued in 2005 when a risk assessment conducted by the CSIRO and Australian National University showed negative reactions in mice to the peas (Prescott et al 2005).

Field peas are an important rotation crop, which can be devastated by pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) infestation. Unlike peas, beans are not attacked by pea weevils as they contain a protein called α-amylase inhibitor (αAI) that causes the weevils feeding on beans to starve before they cause any damage.

The MedUni Vienna-team investigated immune responses in mice fed several varieties of beans, non-transgenic peas and the transgenic peas, expressing the bean or the transgenic versions of the α-amylase inhibitor. The mice showed similar levels of immune response no matter which food they consumed.

Dr. Michelle Epstein, the lead researcher said, “We observed that the immune response in mice was the same no matter whether the inhibitor came from beans, where it naturally occurs, or from peas genetically modified to express the inhibitor and even in non-transgenic peas.” “These results demonstrate that αAI transgenic peas are no more allergenic than beans or non-transgenic peas in mice” Dr. Epstein added.

The Prescott study is regularly cited by those on both sides of the GM debate as an example of either the inherent dangers of genetically modified foods or the effectiveness of pre-market studies in identifying potential risk factors. Rodent studies for genetically modified organism (GMO) safety have recently been in the news. Seralini et al. showed untoward effects in rats fed GM corn but these studies were fraught with problems and add to the controversy of using rodents to study GMO safety (see EFSA report).

“The study is important because it illustrates the significance of repeating experiments in independent laboratories” Dr. Epstein said. “It is also vital that investigators are aware of potential unexpected crossreactive allergic responses upon the consumption of plant products, as we found in the non-transgenic peas.” Dr. Epstein questions the utility of rodents for evaluating biotech crops and points out that the MUV results highlight the importance of a careful case-by-case evaluation of GM crops, and the role science can play in decision-making around the introduction of GMOs into the food system.

This research was conducted at the Medical University of Vienna as part of the European Commission Framework 7-funded GMSAFOOD project.

AUS – ANTI-GM LEGAL THREATS

Threats prompt GM rethink

Source: The Land, by Colin Bettles

12 December, 2012

http://beta.theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/cropping/general-news/threats-prompt-gm-rethink/2638189.aspx?storypage=0

LITIGATION threats are forcing biotechnology campaigner Bill Crabtree to rethink his approach to the controversial topic, and call for greater backing and public advocacy from leading farm lobby groups.

Mr Crabtree is one of several individuals and organisations to have received defamation threats from the Safe Food Foundation (SFF) and scientist Dr Judy Carman in recent months.

The threats are in relation to varying claims, seeking differing levels of financial damages and potential legal costs, however, each case is underpinned by escalating common conflict between the different camps over genetically modified (GM) cropping technology.

In 2005, the West Australian government funded $92,000 to the Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER) in Adelaide to conduct animal feeding trials of GM canola, headed by Dr Carman.

Dr Carman has been criticised by Mr Crabtree and other outspoken biotechnology campaigners for failing to publicly report or publish the results of the IHER study in peer reviewed scientific journals, despite repeated requests.

The issue flared up again in September when Dr Carman was linked to claims GM wheat may cause a strain of liver damage that especially endangers the lives of young children.

The claims were contained in a media statement from the SFF which quoted Dr Carman as an expert scientific opinion.

The SFF and its director Scott Kinnear are also central to another high profile anti-GM campaign, over the alleged contamination of Kojonup organic farmer Steve Marsh’s wheat crop from GM canola growing on the farm of his neighbours, Mick and Zanthe Baxter.

Mr Marsh is being represented in his legal challenge by Slater and Gordon Lawyers with backing from Mr Kinnear’s organisation and other anti-GM groups.

Speaking to Fairfax Agricultural Media, Mr Kinnear confirmed having sent letters threatening defamation against various groups and individuals.

But he said, “I do not have any comment as to the precise nature of who and what they contained”.

For the complete article, see: http://beta.theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/cropping/general-news/threats-prompt-gm-rethink/2638189.aspx?storypage=0