Archive for 2014


USA – COEXISTENCE CAN WORK

Source: Farm Weekly, www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/gm-organics-can-coexist-farm-bureau/2692508.aspx

THE biggest farming group in the US has backed moves to promote coexistence between organic and biotech farmers.

American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman dismissed suggestions of widespread legal disputes between the two farming groups as “merely the product of an activist agenda”.

With a landmark legal argument over property rights hanging in the balance between an organic farmer and genetically modified (GM) canola grower in Western Australia, Mr Stallman said earlier this month the Farm Bureau’s members supported the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision on an “important” recommendation on biotechnology.

The USDA’s recommendation was contained in a report from the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) which aims to foster communication and collaboration to strengthen coexistence among farmers.

“We are disappointed by the implication from activist groups opposed to modern farming practices that there is widespread disagreement when it comes to coexistence and agricultural biotechnology,” Mr Stallman said.

“Frankly, that assertion does not hold up to scrutiny.”

Following dissent and division over GM crops continuing in Australia, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) hit back, using the recent annual ‘Science Meets Parliament’ week in Canberra to launch a new publication designed to deliver science-based information on GM crops, “to contribute to a more informed national discussion about agricultural technologies”.

ABCA says the publication, The Official Australian Reference Guide to Agricultural Biotechnology and GM Crops, provides a comprehensive overview of agricultural biotechnology in Australia and answers common questions about GM crops.

“The guide also presents information on coexistence in farming and the on-farm management practices and systems currently in place that maintain the integrity of both GM and non-GM crops,” ABCA said.


INT - FAO REPORT ON GM CROP TRADE

13 March 2014. Source: www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/216311/icode/

FAO survey shows 25 countries blocked imports after finding traces of GMOs.

The increased production of genetically modified crops around the globe has led to a higher number of incidents of low levels of GMOs being detected in traded food and feed, FAO said today.

The incidents have led to trade disruptions between countries with shipments of grain, cereal and other crops being blocked by importing countries and destroyed or returned to the country of origin.

The trace amounts of GM crops become mixed with non-GM food and feed crops by accident during field production (for example, a field trial of a GM crop grown near a field of a non-GM crop), processing, packing, storage and transportation.

There is no international agreement defining or quantifying “low level”, therefore the interpretation varies from country to country. In many countries it is interpreted as any level at which detection is possible i.e. very low trace levels while in other countries case-by-case decisions are taken on what level is acceptable.

The GM crop in question may be authorized for commercial use or sale in one or more countries but not yet authorized in an importing country. Therefore, if the importing country detects the unauthorized crop, it may be legally obliged to reject the shipment.

In the first survey of its kind, 75 out of 193 FAO member countries responded to questions on low levels of GM crops in international food and animal feed trade. The survey results will be discussed at a technical consultation organized by FAO to be held in Rome on 20 and 21 March to review the extent and pattern of trade disruptions caused by the contaminated shipments. The meeting will discuss trade issues related to low levels of GM crops, but will not debate pros and cons of GM crops.

The survey reveals:

  • respondents reported 198 incidents of low levels of GM crops mixed into non-GM crops between 2002 and 2012;
  • there was a jump in cases between 2009 and 2012, when 138 out of the 198 incidents were reported;
  • shipments with low levels of GM crops originated mainly from the US, Canada and China, although other countries also accidently shipped such crops;
  • once detected, most shipments were destroyed or returned to the exporting country;
  • the highest number of incidents involved linseed, rice, maize and papaya.

“The numbers of incidents are small relative to the millions of tonnes of food and feed traded every day,” said Renata Clarke, FAO Senior Food Safety Officer in charge of the survey.

“But because trade disruptions may be very costly and given the reported increase in the occurrence of these disruptions, FAO conducted this survey and is holding a technical consultation to try to start a dialogue between countries on the issue.”

 


USA – GOVT REPORT ON GM CROP EXPERIENCE

February 2014

Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-march/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-by-us-farmers-has-increased-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx – .UyuR7v34alI

Summary: Genetically engineered (GE) crops (mainly corn, cotton, and soybeans) were planted on 169 million acres in 2013, about half of U.S. land used for crops. Their adoption has saved farmers time, reduced insecticide use, and enabled the use of less toxic herbicides. Research and development of new GE varieties continues to expand farmer choices.


AUS - GM CANOLA GROWER SURVEY

March 2014. Source: www.grdc.com.au/Resources/Publications/2014/03/GM-Canola-Impact-Survey

More than 1300 grower surveys were conducted to inform the GM Canola Impact Survey. The survey examined adoption patterns; agronomic, economic and environmental impacts; and changes in attitude to the concerns regarding co-existence of GM and non-GM canola production systems.

Key Findings 

  • When compared to Triazine Tolerant (TT) canola, growers utilising GM Canola achieved more effective weed control, reduced overall pesticide use and improved farming practices (such as enhanced conservation tillage), lower risk of herbicide resistance developing and a lower environmental foot print.
  • Effective weed control, in particular control of priority weeds such as herbicide tolerant annual ryegrass and wild radish were primary reasons why growers planted GM canola.
  • There was an increasing trend in the level of concern expressed by both GM and non GM canola growers in relation to the development of glyphosate herbicide resistance. In response GM canola growers adopted alternate weed control practices, including the adoption of an alternate knockdown herbicide (paraquat/diquat) and the use of the ‘double knock’ technique prior to planting GM canola.
  • Over the three year survey, there was no significant difference in canola yields reported between GM and non GM canola.
  • Overall GM canola growers were more likely to use conservation tillage practices than non GMcanola growers.
  • On average the cost of weed control using GM herbicide tolerant canola was higher than that of alternate non GM canola weed management programs.
  • The economic impacts of GM canola were variable due to the initial lack of access to GM canola varieties adapted to the major canola growing regions, the cost of access to the GM technology and grain marketing/ logistic issues.
  • Concerns relating to co-existence failed to materialize with the majority of GM canola and non GM canola growers reporting no impacts on their farming operations. The issue of coexistence has not influenced farmers’ choice in opting to grow GM canola or whether to increase the area of GM canola grown.
  • GM and non GM growers participating in the survey indicated that they would increase their adoption of GM canola in the future.
  • The major barrier to adoption of GM canola is the perceived lack of economic value derived from the Roundup Ready® canola technology package (i.e. the cost of access + the cost of weed control + yield + farm gate grain price + logistics costs) when compared to the established economic value of the alternate non GM weed control management system options.

AUS - ABCA LAUNCHES AGBIOTECH GUIDE

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) launched The Official Australian Reference Guide to Agricultural Biotechnology and GM Crops today in Canberra at the 14th Annual Science Meets Parliament.

The ABCA has developed the Guide to provide factual, science-based information to contribute to a more informed national discussion about agricultural technologies.

With a rapidly growing world population, a changing climate and growing pressure on natural resources such as water and arable land, agricultural biotechnology is increasingly seen as an important part of the solution to some of the world’s biggest challenges.

In 2013, more than 18 million farmers in 27 countries planted GM crops across 175 million hectares. Since their commercialisation 18 years ago, GM crops have been planted across an accumulated 1.6 billion hectares. Despite this widespread and rapid uptake, the technology continues to stimulate considerable community debate.

ABCA’s vision is that the Australian farming sector can, within a world class regulatory regime, access and adopt this technology to improve food security and deliver a competitive farming sector and sustainable environment. Credible, balanced information will help to deliver these outcomes by encouraging informed debate and soundly based decision-making.

The Official Australian Reference Guide to Agricultural Biotechnology and GM Crops provides a comprehensive overview of agricultural biotechnology in Australia and answers common questions about GM crops.

Importantly, the Guide also presents information on coexistence in farming and the on-farm management practices and systems currently in place that maintain the integrity of both GM and non-GM crops.

Download a copy here.


AUS – NEW GM COTTONS

2 March 2014. Source: Farm Weekly http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/cotton/gm-to-tackle-cotton-pests/2688466.aspx?storypage=0

THE COTTON industry is set to take the fight against heliothis pests to a new level in the 2015-16 season when the three-gene, insect-resistant Bollgard III lines of cotton are due for commercial release.

Bollgard III will take over from the highly successful, two-gene Bollgard II.

The introduction of genetically-modified, insect-resistant cottons – which started with Ingard in 1996 and Bollgard II in 2004 – is credited with reducing insecticide application rates in the industry by 80 percent.

Monsanto technical development team lead Tony May said the aim of taking the next step of introducing Bollgard III was to make sure the Bt technology would remain an effective tool for controlling heliothis well into the future.

 


AUS – GM RESEARCH IN HORTICULTURE

3 March 2014. Source: Horticulture Australia Limited

http://horticulture.com.au/news_events/news.asp?id=305

Biotechnology research being undertaken by Queensland University of Technology through HAL’s transformational R&D program has the potential to help the horticulture industry overcome common pest and disease issues facing vegetatively propagated crops, while helping to shift the public perception of genetically modified foods.

The research will focus on cisgenics and RNAi technologies leading to the development of marker-free genetic transformations systems in vegetatively propagated crops, which essentially means modifying the plant using genes from its own species. This method differs from traditional genetic modification which involves adding outside genetic material -often derived from bacteria – as markers into the plant DNA.

Initially, the target crops will be bananas and potatoes as they are among the top 10 crops in the world; however the platform technologies will have potential to be shared in other crops across the horticulture industry.

“Vegetative propagation, which is the process of producing a new sprout or plant by using a cutting from the parent plant, produces new plants which are essentially clones of the previous generation,” explained Professor James Dale, project leader and Director of the Centre for Tropical Crops and Biocommodities at the Queensland University of Technology.

“Being a clone, it’s impossible to make any genetic improvements along the way to help the plant cope with some of the common issues facing the wider industry such as the challenge of maximising nutrient uptake or helping to manage common pests and diseases with minimal pesticides and fungicides.

“This research will allow us to take an accepted variety of banana for example and correct the common problem such as disease while retaining the original variety.”

The researchers are quietly confident that the method will help shift negative public perceptions of genetically modified foods due to the fact that no outside genetic material is being introduced into the plant using the methods proposed.

Research will also be conducted into discovering techniques to provide stability of introduced genes across generations. This will ensure that the genetic improvements made to the original variety are carried on to the next generation.

“This has previously been a challenge due to what’s known as ‘gene silencing’ which is where other genes in the original DNA prevent the new and desired trait from being expressed in later generations,” Professor Dale explained.

Alok Kumar, Breeding and Biotechnology Portfolio Manager at HAL added, “This project aims to build capacity for the horticulture industry to be ready for future challenges. The outcomes of this project can only be realised in a long term, up to 2025, as a number of complex issues are targeted. However the potential to shift the industry as we know it makes it a truly transformational project.”


AUS - ABCA ANNOUNCES NEW CHAIRMAN

 

Ken Matthews AO welcomed as new Chairman of ABCA

The Board of Directors of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) formally welcomed Mr Ken Matthews AO as its new Chairman at its meeting today in Canberra.

Mr Matthews brings to this important role the intellect, leadership and expertise needed to ensure that the Council continues to provide scientific and balanced information to assist the public to understand the current and potential benefits of agricultural biotechnology for the nation’s farming sector.

Mr Matthews joins a strong team of biotechnology and industry leaders on the Board and supported by ABCA’s Patrons, The Hon John Anderson AO and Professor Adrienne Clarke AC.

A former Secretary of two Australian government departments (agriculture and transport), Mr Matthews has had a lengthy and distinguished career at the top of Australian public administration.

Mr Matthews brings to the role of Chairman of ABCA a wealth of experience in industry, technology and agricultural policy as well as policy on matters that affect regional Australia. His time at the helm of the Department of Agriculture also saw the development of the regulatory framework for agricultural biotechnology.

ABCA’s aim to encourage informed debate on biotechnology through the dissemination of credible, balanced, science-based information will greatly benefit from Mr Matthews’ extensive experience.

In 2005, Mr Matthews was appointed Officer of the Order of Australia. He is also an elected fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (FTSE) and of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia and the Australian Institute of Management.

The ABCA Board of Directors also thanked and acknowledged outgoing Chairman, Mr Claude Gauchat, who was the Council’s inaugural Chairman and played a crucial role in the establishment of this important organisation of the nation’s agricultural and biotechnology sectors.

 


INT - GM CROP AREA STILL RISING

INT – GM CROP AREA STILL RISING

14 February 2014. Source: www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/default.asp

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) today released their annual GM crop area statistics which indicates more than 18 million farmers in 27 countries planted GM crops in 2013 across 175.2 million hectares, a three per cent increase from 2012.

Key points from the ISAAA brief include:

  • More than half the world’s population, 60 per cent or approximately four billion people, live in the 27 countries planting GM crops.
  • For the second consecutive year developing countries planted more GM crops (54 per cent of the global area) than industrial countries.
  • The five dominant GM crop-growing countries were the USA (70 million hectares or 40 per cent of the global total), Brazil (40 million), Argentina (24 million), India (11 million) and Canada (11 million).
  • Brazil, continues to be the engine of GM crop growth globally, increasing its hectarage more than any other country in the world – a record 3.7 million hectare increase, equivalent to an impressive year-over-year increase of 10 per cent. In 2013, Brazil commercially planted its first stacked soybean with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance on 2.2 million hectares, and EMBRAPA, Brazil’s agricultural R&D organization, has gained approval to commercialise its home-grown GM virus resistant bean, planned for 2015.
  • Africa continued to make progress with Burkina Faso and Sudan increasing their Bt cotton hectarage substantially. Encouragingly an additional seven African countries (Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda) have conducted field trials on a broad range (cotton and maize to bananas and cowpeas) of “new” GM crops, including several orphan crops such as sweet potato.
  • Five EU countries planted a record 148,013 hectares of Gm insect resistant maize, up 15 per cent from 2012. Spain was by far the largest adopter followed by Portugal, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
  • Stacked traits (GM crops with more than one modification, for example herbicide tolerance and insect resistance) occupied 27 per cent of the global 175 million hectares.
  • The four dominant GM crops remain soybean, corn, cotton and canola, with sugar beet, lucerne, papaya, squash in the USA and papaya, poplar, tomato and sweet pepper in China representing a small component of the overall GM hectarage.
  • 2013 marked the first-ever commercial plantings of drought-tolerant GM maize in the USA.
  • Bangladesh approved a GM crop (Bt eggplant) for planting for the first time in 2013, and two other developing countries, Panama and Indonesia, also approved cultivation of GM crops in 2013 for commercialisation in 2014.

According to ISAAA, “The most compelling and credible testimony to biotech [GM] crops is that during the 18 year period 1996 to 2013, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, elected to make more than 100 million independent decisions to plant and replant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.6 billion hectares. This is an area equivalent to >150 per cent the size of the total land mass of the US or China which is an enormous area. There is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology – biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits.”

Future predictions by ISAAA

In 2013, as expected, growth continued to plateau for the principal GM crops in industrial countries and in mature GM crop markets in developing countries where adoption rates are sustained at an optimal rate of approximately 90 per cent.

In the scientific community associated with biotechnology, there is cautious optimism that GM crops, including both staple and orphan crops, will be increasingly adopted by society, particularly by the developing countries, where the task of feeding its own people is formidable.

Over 35 million hectares of conventional maize is grown annually in China to feed its 500 million pigs (approximately 50 per cent of the global swine herd) and 13 billion chickens, ducks and other poultry which need feed. A GM phytase maize, which confers increased phosphate uptake in animals is reported to increase the efficiency of meat production – was approved for biosafety in China on 27 November 2009 and is expected to be deployed in the near future. Other maize producing countries in Asia, including Indonesia and Vietnam, have field tested herbicide tolerant/insect resistant maize and are likely to commercialise in the near-term, possibly by 2015.

Subject to regulation, another very important product for Asia is Golden Rice which should be ready for release to farmers by 2016 in the Philippines. Bangladesh has also assigned high priority to the product.

In the Americas the increased adoption of GM drought tolerant maize and transfer of this technology to selected countries in Africa will be important, as well as the adoption of the virus resistant bean developed in Brazil and scheduled for deployment in 2015. The stacked soybean launched in 2013 is expected to reach high adoption rates in Brazil and some neighbouring countries in the near-term.

In Africa there are three countries, South Africa, Burkina Faso and Sudan already successfully commercialising GM crops and the hope is that several of the seven additional countries currently field-testing GM crops will graduate to commercialisation. The early predominant products that will likely feature are the well-tested GM cotton and maize, and subject to regulatory approval, the very important drought tolerant maize scheduled for 2017. Hopefully, one of several orphan crops such as the insect resistant cowpea will also be made available in the near-term so that farmers can benefit from them as early as possible.


INT - THE PROMISE OF GMOs

GMOs – A plateful of promises

January 2014. Source: www.ift.org/food-technology/past-issues/2014/january/features/gmos-a-plateful-of-promises.aspx?page=viewall

Although controversial, genetically modified crops are safe, efficacious, and necessary to meet future food needs and preferences.

Genetically modified (GM) crops, foods, ingredients, and feeds produced from them have been very much in the news. In the United States, voters have gone to the polls in California and Washington to reject initiatives that would have required mandatory warning labels on foods containing even traces of GM crop-derived materials. Connecticut passed a GM labeling bill that will not take effect until five other states adopt similar legislation; such legislative actions are pending in about 20 other states.

Campaigns for labeling initiatives use emotional claims, sensational graphics, and indignation-producing statistics to claim that GM crops are not sufficiently regulated by the government and are unsafe to eat and to release in the environment. Photos of lumpy rats taken by doctor-turned-researcher Giles Séralini have circulated widely, and are commonly cited as proof that GM corn is unsafe. Oprah, Dr. Oz, leading chefs, and assorted celebrities have spoken out against GM crops. The net result is that GMOs are now lumped together in the consumer’s mind with other foods that have been vilified rightly or wrongly, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), trans fats, and artificial colorings and preservatives.

What Are GM Crops? 
A major problem surrounding GM crops is that most people don’t understand what GM crops really are, and what they do know is often misinformation, which circulates widely in social media as well as in the mainstream media. The purveyors of GM crops and foods derived from them have totally failed to educate consumers, and the information vacuum has been filled by rumors, opinions, misinformation, and marketing opportunities for some products by sowing fear and distrust in GM foods.

GM crops are simply those varieties produced through the introduction of pieces of DNA to give them traits otherwise not possible. The technology has been used to make crops resistant to certain insects or herbicides, and/or protect them from viral diseases. Newer crops increasingly focus on traits of value to consumers, such as soybeans with oil that does not need hydrogenation, and thus does not lead to the production of trans fats, or potatoes that do not produce acrylamide when fried.

GM corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, and cotton are the leading crops planted in the United States. GM papaya, squash, sweet corn, and alfalfa are also planted. GM rice, tomato, and potato varieties have been approved, but are not currently on the market.

In the United States, GM crops are reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for feed and food safety prior to marketing. There is a period of review and consultation, and once satisfied, the FDA advises developers that they have no further safety questions about new GM varieties, at which point the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) approves the crop for marketing, as long as their own review and consultation reaches the same conclusion about environmental safety. For some traits, such as insect resistance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also involved.

There have been 165 FDA pre-market consultations to date, covering 19 species. Because of the nature of the global market, the FDA counterparts in all major importing countries also conduct independent safety reviews before approving importation of the GM crop, so there is substantial redundancy in the safety assessment process.

Ingredients derived from soybean, canola, and corn (i.e., oils, starch, protein fractions, lecithin, mono- and di-glycerides, HFCS, tocopherols, and others) are used in many food products, as is sugar from sugar beet. It is estimated that at least 70% of processed food products in the United States have ingredients derived from GM crops (Cornell CES, 2003). It is, however, important to note that these ingredients are chemically identical to their counterparts isolated from non-GM crop plants and seldom contain DNA or protein associated with the GM trait. In the European Union, food products containing more than 0.9% of any of the above-mentioned food ingredients must be labeled as GM food.

The first GM crops were planted in 1994, and statistics have been collected since 1996. The impact of GM technology on global agriculture during the past 17 years has been substantial. Approximately 10% of the world’s agricultural fields are now planted with GM crops. Last year alone, more than 17 million farmers in about 30 countries planted GM crops on over 420 million acres. The cumulative area planted over the past 17 years is equivalent to the size of the United States and Mexico, meaning that there is an abundance of information on how these crops have done in the real world. The dire consequences (e.g., the cancer epidemics predicted by Greenpeace) have not materialized.

GM crops have increased harvests by decreasing losses to pests, decreased input and labor costs, reduced the impact from agrichemical use, helped conserve soil and water resources, and conferred a number of environmental and sustainability gains (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013). One of the major unanticipated benefits has been a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, equivalent to taking 22 million cars off the roads, which is roughly 36% of the cars registered in Great Britain (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013). Repeated claims that planting of GM crops would lead to catastrophic environmental disasters have not materialized.

From a food technology perspective, GM technology to improve color, flavor, nutrition, and other consumer-desirable traits is only now beginning to reach the marketplace. Improved low-polyunsaturated vegetable oils suitable for thermal processing and oils that are high in omega-3 fatty acids are two examples. There is a concerted push by the soybean industry to plant high-oleic soybeans on 25–30% of U.S. acreage by 2023. For the first time in history, oil comparable in quality to that of olive oil will be abundant at an affordable price.

It is worth noting here that national and international expert panels around the globe have repeatedly concluded that it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to meet the food and agricultural needs of future generations without the use of all available technologies (Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Foods Systems, 2013).

To read more

Mother Nature as Genetic Engineer

Regulating the Safety of GM Crops

What’s All the Fuss About?

What Can the Food Industry Do?

Why Are There No Human Feeding Studies?

 

 


AUS - TAS GM BAN TO STAY

TASMANIA’S GM CROP BAN INDEFINITE

On 9 January 2014, the Tasmanian Government announced that it would be maintaining the moratorium on the commercial release of GMOs to the Tasmanian environment indefinitely.

In late 2013, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) sought public submissions and undertook a review of the moratorium on GMOs in Tasmania. The review attracted 160 public submissions.

The moratorium will continue to include exemptions for non-commercial scientific trials of GM crops and a panel of scientists will report to the Government yearly on advances in the field.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association says the government’s statement on the state’s GMO moratorium is “at best confusing and at worst potentially disastrous for future investment and jobs growth in the state.”

CropLife Australia says the decision “bodes poorly for both the profitability and sustainability of Tasmanian agriculture.”

The Minister’s Position Statement on Gene Technology and Tasmanian Primary Industries can be found here.


AUS – HEALTHY OIL CANOLA TRIAL APPROVED

DHA omega-3 canola trials approved

13 November 2013. Source: www.nuseed.com.au/Assets/1571/1/NuseedstatementreOGTRDIRdecisionNov2013.pdf

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) today gave Nuseed a licence to conduct field trials of a genetically modified (GM) canola, currently under development, which contains healthy long-chain omega-3 oils.

This GM long-chain omega-3 canola contains a single construct of seven genes involved in the biosynthesis of omega-3 fatty acids, designed to enhance the plant’s oil profile. The gene transfer is from one plant, microalgae, to another plant, canola.

The aim of this new canola is to provide a sustainable, renewable long-chain omega-3 oil product as an alternative to using finite wild fish stocks, which are under increasing pressure as demand grows for the oil’s health benefits.

The project’s partners are Nuseed (a wholly owned subsidiary of Nufarm Limited), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).

The OGTR’s approval will allow this GM long-chain omega-3 canola to be assessed to evaluate agronomic performance, oil content and genetic stability under field conditions in both current and potential commercial canola growing areas of Australia.

The application proposes a commencement date of 1 March 2014, for a period of up to five years.

This trial approval from the OGTR is a significant milestone in what has been, and still is, a long process for the project team to develop a unique and sustainable source of increasingly scarce long-chain omega-3 oil.

 


UK – PLANT MODIFIED TO PRODUCE HEALTHY OIL

GM plants produce heart-healthy oil commonly found in fish

January 2014. Source: www.rothamsted.ac.uk/news/single-diatom-accumulates-epa-and-dha-high-value-omega-3 and www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/01/02/Genetically-modified-plants-yield-same-heart-healthy-oil-found-in-fish/UPI-83861388695867/#ixzz2paAi9TkZ

British researchers say they’ve been able to genetically modify a biofuel crop to produce components of fish oils beneficial for cardiovascular health.

The flesh of oily fish such as mackerel and salmon are good sources of omega-3 fatty acids, known to reduce the risk of heart disease, but supplies are limited and unsustainable at current fishing levels, they say.

Looking to create an alternative, sustainable source, scientists at Britain’s Rothamsted Research took seven genes that algae use to produce these fatty acids and inserted them into the genome of the plant Camelina sativa.

The seeds of the modified plant yielded oil that, when purified, contained around 12 per cent of the fatty acid EPA and 14 per cent DHA, the same proportions as in fish oil, they said.

According to the news story, the Camelina plant oil could be available commercially within a decade.


CANADA – GM SALMON UPDATE

Approval received to produce GM salmon eggs in Canada for commercial purposes

November 2013. Source: www.aquabounty.com/documents/press/2013/20131125.pdf

AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. (AIM: ABTX), a biotechnology company focused on enhancing productivity in the aquaculture market and a majority owned subsidiary of Intrexon Corporation (NYSE: XON), announces that Environment Canada, the agency of the Government of Canada with responsibility for regulating environmental policies and issues, has decided that AquAdvantage® Salmon (“AAS”) is not harmful to the environment or human health when produced in contained facilities.

The publication of the Significant New Activity Notice (http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-11-23/html/notice-avis-eng.html#d106) recognizes that our hatchery, which produces sterile, all-female eggs, is no longer solely a research facility but can produce eggs on a commercial scale without harm to the environment or human health.

“We are pleased to note that, after a rigorous examination of our hatchery facility and the Standard Operating Procedures used to produce AAS eggs, Environment Canada is satisfied that we can responsibly produce our sterile, all-female eggs on a commercial scale”, said Ron Stotish, AquaBounty CEO.

“This is a significant milestone in our efforts to make AquAdvantage® Salmon available for commercial production. However, our eggs and fish will not be available for sale until they are approved by the relevant national regulatory bodies. When these approvals are in place, we look forward to demonstrating the value of AAS for a land-based and environmentally-sustainable production system.”

Environment Canada made its conclusion following a risk assessment conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada involving a panel of independent scientific experts knowledgeable in the fields of transgenics and fish containment technology.

The publication describes conditions that would be regarded as Significant New Activities (SNAcs) with regard to AquAdvantage® Salmon and the measures Environment Canada would expect to evaluate if those activities were proposed. AquaBounty confirms that, currently, all anticipated activities fall well within the scope of the approval given by Environment Canada.