 Your new post is loading...
[updated 17 April, 2013] These days I received an apparently easy request: “Do you have any recommendations for reading about the debate on GMOs? I think there is a lot of heat, but too little light in the discussion; I trust you can send me some…” To which I answered carelessly: “Sure, I will look into it, select a few references and post them…” I thought I’d have a quick look into my collection of bookmarks and references and post some of the links to satisfy the request. Obviously there would be too many individual studies and crop-specific or country-specific reports, but focusing only (i) on what was published in recent years, (ii) on sources where all this information was already aggregated (literature reviews, meta-analyses, authoritative statements, FAQs, etc.), and (iii) on academic or publicly funded sources should produce a fairly concise list, I thought. While not unmanageable, the list has become quite long. To get a rough idea of the current state of knowledge, it may be sufficient to peruse the first 1-2 (starred *) references under each heading, and to have a quick look at the abstracts and summaries of some of the others. (Given the controversy surrounding this topic I did not want to suggest just one or two sources, but show a bit the width of the scientific consensus, and to offer some titbits of related information.) ... http://ajstein.tumblr.com/post/40504136918/
Recently, Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: “Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?” Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. “I believe they should be given a voice,” she concluded, “not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.” ... It’s one thing to notice a potential danger and raise a few alarm bells to get scientists to investigate an issue — it’s a whole other to publicize and propagandize an unsubstantiated fear despite evidence against it. The former is important, as Kara suggests, and should occur. I have no problem with non-scientists raising honest concerns, if their goal is to have the concerns considered — so long as they’re actually willing to hear what the evidence has to say. The latter, on the other hand, is denialism. You see, once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them. When it was first suggested that vaccines might lead to autism, is was a legitimate question to ask. Kids seemed to develop autism around the same age they got their vaccines — and can you imagine if the vaccines were to blame? ... So, like they should, independent scientists investigated the concerns. They checked and double checked the safety testing. They ran and re-ran results, but they kept getting the same answer: whatever causes autism, it isn’t vaccines. A cumulative sigh of relief was uttered by doctors, nurses, scientists, parents and children around the world. Except that some people didn’t listen to the data. They called foul, saying every scientist that disagreed with them was under the thumb of Big Pharma and lying to the public. They released the results of unscientific, pet studies showing how they are right and everyone else is wrong. These anti-vaxers still won’t give up their beliefs, even though scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism. We see the same refusal to listen when it comes to climate change. It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists. They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed. They stick their fingers in their ears like children, shouting “I can’t hear you!” — and sadly, the same attitude is found throughout the anti-GMO platform... I’m not sure where Kara stands on the GM issue, but Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument shows in the comments. “I don’t need scientists to tell me that GMOs are not a good idea,” he says. There is an astounding level of cognitive dissonance in his statements. Though Chris brings up climate change, he misses his own point. For example, he calls out deniers, saying that “once enough peer-review science had been completed, still maintaining disproven beliefs would not be respectable, like in the case of global warming deniers”, then doesn’t even blink when he says “I would dislike GMOs whether the scientific community agreed they were bad or not. Likewise, I think we should not use Roundup, whether the scientific community agrees that it is dangerous or not.” [emphasis mine]. This is exactly the problem... As for the use of pesticides like glyphosate… that’s a much more complex and difficult question. It’s not as simple as “is this pesticide toxic” because the answer to that is undoubtedly yes. That’s what makes it a pesticide! If it wasn’t toxic, it wouldn’t kill anything. A better question is how toxic is this pesticide? Is it more or less toxic than another? Is it toxic to other species we’d like to keep around at the levels it’s used, including us? And what are the consequences — in terms of yield and meeting the demand for food and nutrition in an area — if it isn’t used? What are the alternative options? When it comes to RoundUp, those kinds of studies have been conducted and continue to be conducted. So far, glyphosate has passed the tests, at least as well as any other pesticide... That’s not to say that all future GMOs or pesticides will be perfect, or even that all current GMOs or pesticides are great or the best option for every farmer everywhere. Modified foods and pesticides raise a myriad of concerns outside questions of safety, including those about agricultural politics and environmental impact. These are legitimate questions that still are being answered. Monsanto and their sway over agricultural law and standard practices are definitely worth investigating. Our reliance on chemical pest control when there may be other options is worth investigating. But what keeps happening is that anti-GMO or chemiphobic interest groups choose to attack technology wholesale, claiming a supposed lack of safety and demanding outright bans instead of tackling the real issues. They keep saying things like ‘GM crops are untested’, when they’re not, and they do so while, without a second thought, supporting things like alternative medicines, even though only 1/3 of those have been tested for safety or efficacy and some of those are responsible for serious negative ecological impacts. They make bold statements that all synthetic pesticides are dangerous while blindly believing in natural ones that are just as (if not more) toxic. But of course, if you point out the horrendous double standard, you’re attacked and called an industry shill... To reply to Kara’s original question: no, you don’t need a body of scientific evidence to raise concerns, if that’s really the goal of what you’re doing. But you do need at least a shred that suggests such concerns are valid before you shout them as facts from the rooftops... And if those scientists weigh in with well-designed studies that don’t agree with your initial concerns, you should feel relieved, not betrayed. If scientists are in consensus on a topic, it’s because the evidence is strong. It’s because they’ve investigated and rigorously tested the possible hypotheses using different methods, and the same conclusions keep stubbornly arising. Scientists don’t come to consensus easily, so when they do, you should listen to them...
Ukraine’s Ministry of Agrarian Policy is to start a pilot project producing forage crops using genetic engineering, according to Mykola Prysyazhnyuk, Minister of Agricultural Policy and Food... However, in the near future Ukraine will only grow and use GMO feed in test mode in order to first evaluate the impact it could have on the environment and livestock.
"Today we have agreed that after the completion of the necessary legislation we will start the experimental sowing of GMO crops in a closed environment in order to understand the effectiveness and impact of genetic engineering for feed crops, which could be very important for our future agriculture. I would like to understand how the consumer market will respond to it," said Prysiazhnyuk.
Using experimental auctions carried out on apples in different European countries, this paper contributes to the assessment of consumer willingness to pay for the reduction of pesticides. We study several systems of good agricultural practices, possibly signalled to consumers, ranging from Integrated Pest Management [IPM] certifications to organic [ORG] production methods... In Europe, market prices of organic products are generally twice as high as prices of their regular counterparts. This gap is larger than the premium consumers are willing to pay, which is the main reason for the small market shares that are observed for organic products in Europe (generally below 5 per cent)... Contrary to the ORG case, market prices of IPM-certified products are more in line with the WTP we have elicited. Consequently, purchasing IPM-certified products could increase consumers’ surplus and lead more easily to mass consumption... Our results show that in countries where PDO [Protected Denomination of Origin] are familiar to consumers, they are valued for themselves (i.e. for origin rather than for control of pesticide use) and their value for consumers is often close to that of ORG products...
In the present study, zebrafish (Danio rerio) were fed casein/gelatin-based diets containing either 19 % Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)-maize or its parental non-Bt (nBt)-maize control for two generations (F0: sixty fish; F1: forty-two to seventy fish per treatment). The study focused on growth and reproductive performance, liver CuZn superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme activity, gene transcript levels targeting important cellular pathways in the liver and mid-intestine, histomorphological evaluation of the intestine, differential leucocyte counts, offspring larva swimming activity and global DNA methylation in offspring embryos. No significant effects were observed in the parental generation... Effects observed on gene biomarkers for oxidative stress and the cell cycle (apoptosis) may be related to the contamination of nBt-maize with fumonisin B1 and aflatoxin B1. In conclusion, it is suggested that Bt-maize is as safe and nutritious as its nBt control when fed to zebrafish for two generations.
The Belize Agricultural Health Authority (BAHA) issued a release on Friday, June 7th confirming the discovery of genetically modified soybean seeds in Northern Belize on May 24th... The Guardian understands that the soy seeds were modified to resist the herbicide, Helosate, which is used locally to control weeds. According to our sources, the seeds were locally produced. This, we understand, took place after some GMO soy was planted in the northern part of the country after seeds were smuggled into Belize and planted without the knowledge of BAHA...
The milled soybean seeds will be used for the production of animal feed which contains genetically modified soybeans. Belize currently imports animal feeds which contains genetically modified soybeans."
In a release by the Belize Grain Growers Association issued on May 29th, it states that GM technology should be embraced by Belize and is therefore advocating and working with the Government of Belize to establish necessary policies, protocols and legislation to facilitate research, rapid risk assessment and commercial cultivation of GM crops...
A vast majority of soy meal imported into the country for use in feed for livestock and the poultry industry is derived from GMO soybeans. Also persons in the agricultural field explain that the risk of cross contamination with local soybeans is virtually non existent since the crop is not widely grown. The production of GMO soybean is also argued to reduce the cost of soymeal production for poultry and livestock industries.
Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal toxin (Bt) rice will be commercialized as a main food source. Traditional safety assessments on genetically modified products pay little attention on gastrointestinal (GI) health. More data about GI health of Bt rice must be provided to dispel public' doubts about the potential effects on human health. We constructed an improved safety assessment animal model using a basic subchronic toxicity experiment, measuring a range of parameters... Significant differences were found between rice-fed groups and AIN93G-fed control groups in several parameters, whereas no differences were observed between genetically modified and non-genetically modified groups. No adverse effects were found on GI health resulting from genetically modified T2A-1 rice. In conclusion, this study may offer a systematic safety assessment model for GM material with respect to the effects on GI health.
Since 1996, farmers worldwide have planted more than a billion acres (400 million hectares) of genetically modified corn and cotton that produce insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt for short. Bt proteins, used for decades in sprays by organic farmers, kill some devastating pests but are considered environmentally friendly and harmless to people. However, some scientists feared that widespread use of these proteins in genetically modified crops would spur rapid evolution of resistance in pests... "When Bt crops were first introduced, the main question was how quickly would pests adapt and evolve resistance," said Tabashnik, head of the UA department of entomology who led the study. "And no one really knew, we were just guessing. Now, with a billion acres of these crops planted over the past 16 years, and with the data accumulated over that period, we have a better scientific understanding of how fast the insects evolve resistance and why." Analyzing data from 77 studies of 13 pest species in eight countries on five continents, the researchers found well-documented cases of field-evolved resistance to Bt crops in five major pests as of 2010, compared with only one such case in 2005. Three of the five cases are in the United States, where farmers have planted about half of the world's Bt crop acreage. Their report indicates that in the worst cases, resistance evolved in 2 to 3 years; but in the best cases, effectiveness of Bt crops has been sustained more than 15 years. According to the paper, both the best and worst outcomes correspond with predictions from evolutionary principles. "The factors we found to favor sustained efficacy of Bt crops are in line with what we would expect based on evolutionary theory," said Carrière, explaining that conditions are most favorable if resistance genes are initially rare in pest populations; inheritance of resistance is recessive -- meaning insects survive on Bt plants only if have two copies of a resistance gene, one from each parent -- and abundant refuges are present. Refuges consist of standard, non-Bt plants that pests can eat without ingesting Bt toxins... "Perhaps the most compelling evidence that refuges work comes from the pink bollworm, which evolved resistance rapidly to Bt cotton in India, but not in the U.S.," Tabashnik said. "Same pest, same crop, same Bt protein, but very different outcomes." He explained that in the southwestern U.S., scientists from the EPA, academia, industry and the USDA worked with growers to craft and implement an effective refuge strategy. In India, on the other hand, the refuge requirement was similar, but without the collaborative infrastructure, compliance was low... "These plants have been remarkably useful and in most cases, resistance has evolved slower than expected," Tabashnik said. "I see these crops as an increasingly important part of the future of agriculture. The progress made provides motivation to collect more data and to incorporate it in planning future crop deployments...
Confined field trials on Genetically Modified banana variety genetically engineered to resist a bacterial disease that has been decimating crops across Africa will begin in Kenya in 2014, a researcher said on Thursday. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Plant Biotechnologists Dr. Leena Tripathi told journalists in Nairobi that the research conducted so far in Uganda shows that the variety holds a lot of promise.
"We have proof of concept for bacteria wilt resistance and so another set of trials will be conducted in Kenya from 2014," Tripathi said during an Open Forum for Agricultural Biotechnology conference (OFAB) in Nairobi. The monthly event brings stakeholders in the agricultural sector to discuss the latest scientific developments. The inserted gene that is responsible for the resistance is common in a broad range of plant species.
The new variety is part of wider efforts to improve the East African Highland banana, a fruit so important to people across the East Africa region. But scientists said delays to a law regulating the commercial growing of GM food in the country means that it is not clear when the improved banana could be released o farmers.
Currently, there is no cure to the bacteria and therefore farmers are advised to remove the infected plant materials and bury them deep into the ground. "While cultural practices can be used to delay the introduction of the bacteria, use of the resistance varieties is the best way of the containing the disease," she said. "Since the bacteria survive in the soil for six months, the land should be left to fallow or be used to plant another crop," Dr. Tripathi said.
The IITA official said that confined field trials began in Uganda in October 2010 in order to evaluate the resistance to the bacteria as well as agronomic performance. "At least 12 transgenic lines showed complete resistance to the wilt over three generations" ...
She noted that the disease is spread by insect vectors moving from one infected plant to another. "Use of infected planting materials and farming equipment could also spread the bacteria," Dr. Tripathi said. The IITA official noted that farmers' yields are also threatened by pests such as nematodes and weevils as well as fungal and viral diseases. "However, bacterial wilt is responsible for the greatest damage by causing premature ripening of the fruit," she said. Uganda is the world's second largest producer but number one consumer of the food crop.
She said that banana is currently the fourth most important crop in Africa. "In fact a third of the world's 130 million tonnes annual production comes from the continent," she said. Experts have estimated that globally, total economic losses from the wilt were between 2 to 8 billion US dollars over the past decade. She noted that final product would be ready by the end of 2018. "However, the actual date of commercial release will depend on when the biosafety authorities will approve the product," the biotechnologist said...
Aquaculture, the fastest growing food-producing sector, now accounts for nearly 50 % of the world’s food fish... The global aquaculture production of food fish reached 62.7 million tonnes in 2011 and is continuously increasing with an estimated production of food fish of 66.5 million tonnes in 2012 (a 9.4 % increase in 1 year...) Aquaculture is not only important for sustainable protein-based food fish production but also for the aquaculture industry and economy worldwide.
Disease prevention is the key issue to maintain a sustainable development of aquaculture. Widespread use of antibiotics in aquaculture has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the accumulation of antibiotics in the environment, resulting in water and soil pollution. Thus, vaccination is the most effective and environmentally-friendly approach to combat diseases in aquaculture to manage fish health. Furthermore, when compared to >760 vaccines against human diseases, there are only about 30 fish vaccines commercially available, suggesting the urgent need for development and cost-effective production of fish vaccines for managing fish health, especially in the fast growing fish farming in Asia where profit is minimal and therefore given high priority.
Plant genetic engineering has made significant contributions to production of biotech crops for food, feed, valuable recombinant proteins etc. in the past three decades. The use of plants for vaccine production offers several advantages such as low cost, safety and easy scaling up. To date a large number of plant-derived vaccines, antibodies and therapeutic proteins have been produced for human health, of which a few have been made commercially available. However, the development of animal vaccines in plants, especially fish vaccines by genetic engineering, has not yet been addressed. Therefore, there is a need to exploit plant biotechnology for cost effective fish vaccine development in plants, in particular, edible crops for oral fish vaccines.
This review provides insight into (1) the current status of fish vaccine and vaccination in aquaculture, (2) plant biotechnology and edible crops for fish vaccines for oral administration, (3) regulatory constraints and (4) conclusions and future perspectives...
PhD Position: Our recent research on lettuce and watercress has identified significant genetic variation in these crops for traits associated with enhanced nutritional content linked to cancer prevention and also to increased shelf life. Both characteristics are important for the future development of these leafy crops...
In lettuce, we have identified several QTL for enhanced anti-oxidant capacity and have established the biochemical nature of this trait and developed a molecular marker for future selection. We now wish to extend this approach for enhanced shelf life, focussing on leaf cell developmental patterning and how cell production and expansion in leaves links to leaf quality and shelf-life. Our approach will be to utilise the new genomic and genetic resources in lettuce, linking traits to genes in a wide diverse collection of lettuce germplasm...
Stakeholders, including scientific researchers, government officials and industry leaders, will gather to discuss the role of biotechnology and regulatory policy in improving agriculture to continue feeding a growing world population... “Recent coverage in the national news media is reporting the very real possibility of the end of orange juice, due to citrus greening, an incurable plant disease that’s ravaging the Florida citrus industry,” McCutchen said. “But biotechnology has overcome that so-called incurable disease in a way traditional plant breeding cannot.” By moving genetic material from spinach to citrus, Dr. Erik Mirkov... has developed a citrus tree resistant to citrus greening... “And that’s just one example... Through the use of biotechnology, scientists have developed improved, transgenic varieties of apples, pineapples, potatoes, squash and other specialty crops with disease resistance and other favorable traits.” Fruits and vegetables are the next wave of transgenic food crops that will provide a way to help producers keep pace with world population growth.. “This conference will link those scientists working in biotechnology throughout North America with industry leaders and individuals in regulatory agencies to get these products to consumers so we don’t wake up to a morning some day without orange juice or other food products that keep us healthy.” ...
The relentless parade of new technologies is unfolding on many fronts. Almost every advance is billed as a breakthrough, and the list of “next big things” grows ever longer. Not every emerging technology will alter the business or social landscape—but some truly do have the potential to disrupt the status quo, alter the way people live and work, and rearrange value pools. It is therefore critical that business and policy leaders understand which technologies will matter to them and prepare accordingly... In agriculture, analyzing plant genomes could lead to more advanced genetically modified (GM) crops and further optimize the process of farming by tailoring growing conditions and farming processes to a seed's genetic characteristics. Furthermore, it may be possible to create high-value substances such as biofuels by modifying simple organisms such as E. coli bacteria. Easy access to gene-sequencing machines could not only put powerful genetic technology in the hands of researchers and physicians, but could also create a global community of co-creators that might advance biotechnology in unforeseeable ways... Advanced genomics will also facilitate advances in agriculture. Farmers might be better able to optimize soil types, watering schedules, crop rotations, and other growing conditions based on a more complete understanding of crop genomes. It may also be possible to produce genetically modified crops that can grow in locations where soil conditions and access to water cannot be easily improved; crops that can thrive in colder, drier climates; or crops that generate a larger portion of their weight as food. Crops might also be modified to serve as better raw materials for the production of biofuels... In agriculture, next-generation genomics has the potential to both raise productivity in places where food is in short supply and conserve water. Advances in genetic modification of seeds could increase yields by making crops more drought- and pest-resistant. Genomics can also provide information that can be used to optimize crops for specific soils and climates and guide precision farming practices, such as "fertigation" (a process in which the exactly necessary amounts of water and fertilizer are delivered to crops). We assume potential increases of 5 to 10 percent from processes and 5 to 10 percent from new genetically modified seeds, leading to a potential economic impact of $100 billion to $200 billion per year in 2025...
|
This study examines the systematic evidence entailed in existing research on consumers' evaluation of biotechnology in food products. The extant literature related to this topic typically originates from a variety of research disciplines, but shares an underlying focus in dealing with the issue of public acceptance of biotechnology in food and its corresponding behavioural processes.
We develop a meta-study methodology to measure the envelope of an underlying construct that represents consumer evaluation of biotechnology in food products. The analysis combines information from 1673 survey questions out of 214 different studies. Findings from our mixed effects meta-model show that survey questions with positive (negative) connotations about biotechnology tend to be associated with positive (negative) measures of evaluation.
Stated benefits of biotechnologies in food do not produce any significant positive reaction. Price discounts, increased production and various perceived risks generate negative coefficients. The EU dummies appear insignificant, while previous meta-studies found significant negative evaluation among EU consumers. We show that survey questions related e.g. to risk and ethical concerns have been asked more often in EU surveys compared to non-EU countries.
Our study sheds further light on those aspects that appear the most influential ones in directing consumer evaluation of biotechnology in food products. Furthermore, we discuss potential strategies for future research- and policy design in relation to these technologies..
When it comes to honey bees, more mates is better. A new study from North Carolina State University, the University of Maryland and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that genetic diversity is key to survival in honey bee colonies – a colony is less likely to survive if its queen has had a limited number of mates. “We wanted to determine whether a colony’s genetic diversity has an impact on its survival, and what that impact may be,” says Dr. David Tarpy, an associate professor of entomology at North Carolina State University and lead author of a paper describing the study. “We knew genetic diversity affected survival under controlled conditions, but wanted to see if it held true in the real world. And, if so, how much diversity is needed to significantly improve a colony’s odds of surviving.” ... The researchers found that colonies where the queen had mated at least seven times were 2.86 times more likely to survive the 10-month working season. Specifically, 48 percent of colonies with queens who had mated at least seven times were still alive at the end of the season. Only 17 percent of the less genetically diverse colonies survived. “ ... “This study confirms that genetic diversity is enormously important in honey bee populations,” Tarpy says. “And it also offers some guidance to beekeepers about breeding strategies that will help their colonies survive.” ... Original paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00114-013-1065-y
Teagasc [the Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority] hopes to begin planting out more than 5,000 potato plants in the next two weeks, in the second phase of its study into the environmental impact of blight-resistant genetically modified (GM) potatoes. The agricultural development body began the study last year by planting 48 GM and non-GM potato plants at its Oakpark crops research centre in Carlow. Its senior research officer Dr Ewen Mullins said he hoped planting would get under way later this week if the ground was not too dry. Some 5,274 plants will be planted across two acres. One-third are GM plants, one-third are non-GM and the final third are the organic Sarpo Mira variety. Sarpo Mira is known for its blight resistance, although the eating and processing quality of the plant are not as good as some commercial varieties... Teagasc has been criticised by some anti-GM campaigners for undertaking the project, which was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency last July. Dr Mullins said the study was being done because of the challenges facing potato growers. Potatoes are sprayed for blight up to 15 times per growing season but increased EU legislation will curtail the amount of crop protection products farmers can use... Dr Mullins said Teagasc was neither for nor against GM technology and it welcomed public debate on the issue... while it was being claimed the study was putting Ireland’s GM-free status in jeopardy, the State was not GM-free and was already importing almost one million tonnes of GM animal feed every year...
Pioneered in the 1950s, the sterile insect technique (SIT) has allowed farmers worldwide to reduce populations of pests that prey on their crops and livestock by releasing infertile males into the mix. While the method has been effective in many cases, pests remain a challenge for growers in terms of both orchard management and export market access. To address some of the pitfalls of using traditional SIT, U.K. company Oxitec is using germline transgenic technology, in search of a more efficient and cost-effective process. Oxitec scientist Neil Morrison says his company’s products could help the industry overcome two common SIT problems – difficulties in guaranteeing male-only insects and competitive impacts from irradiation. Releasing males is key because it is the female pests that lay eggs on fruit or bite people when it comes to human disease, but Morrison says it is hard to naturally develop sexing strains that allow for male-only release... “The irradiation process to sterilize the males is damaging to the fruit flies themselves, and so the insects are of less quality. This means you have to release more males to compensate for that deficit in quality.” ... Genetically modified sterile insects makes smaller projects more feasible, according to Morrison. Potential buyers could range from individual farmers to co-ops to governments. “We have developed a genetic means of producing large numbers of male-only fruit flies, and also a form of genetic sterility which allows us to avoid the irradiation process. The objective of that is really to produce better quality males,” he says... For agriculture, the company currently has product strains for Mediterranean fruit fly, Olive fruit fly, Mexican fruit fly, Diamondback moth and Pink bollworm. The scientist emphasizes these insects have been strategically selected due to the years involved in develop each one. “We’ve essentially used the same technology in these species and that really tells us that we can transfer this technology quite readily to new tephritid fruit fly species. “Generating the strains and characterizing them in the lab and doing different performance tests in the lab might take three years or so...” Morrison says the company’s lead product is the dengue-carrying Aedes Aegypti mosquito, with development trials that have reached the commercial testing phase. “Dengue is the fastest growing insect borne disease in the world as far as I know, so there’s hundreds of millions of cases every year of new deaths. “We have conducted field trials with our genetically sterile mosquito strain in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean, and also in Brazil. “In both arenas we’ve targeted the mosquito population in small urban areas, and achieved between 80-95% suppression of the wild population.”
Panama's researchers have played a key role in creating a rapidly growing salmon that may soon become the world's first commercially sold genetically modified (GM) animal. The US's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ruled the consumption of GM salmon to be as safe as conventional Atlantic salmon, and is now analyzing public comments on its environmental impact as the final part of the approval process. If the FDA permits the transgenic salmon to be imported for human consumption... the research station in Panama that is studying the GM salmon would switch to growing it for the US market. This would have trickle-down benefits for local firms and ensure further research into GM salmon and how best to grow it, according to Henry Clifford, vice-president of marketing and sales at AquaBounty Technologies, the US biotechnology company that developed the fish, dubbed AquAdvantage salmon, which grows twice as fast as wild salmon.
The project is based in Panama because of the country's long-standing policy support for aquaculture and GM organisms, says Clifford. He adds that all employees at the Panama research site are local researchers and that one of the reasons the company decided to establish its facility there was because of its "large pool of experienced biologists and production managers with many years of successful experience managing aquaculture operations".
The project is already bringing new technologies and knowledge to Panama, the company claims. "Ever since the project began in 2009, R&D professionals from the local Panamanian authorities have been intimately involved in the oversight of our project," says Clifford. "So there is a process in which AquaBounty is transferring technology and know-how to local Panamanian scientists, researchers and other professionals." If the FDA approves the salmon's import, AquaBounty will request Panama's permission to convert the research facility into a production one — but it is likely to continue R&D activities, too. "For example, we might work with the local feed manufacturer to develop better feed formulations for our salmon," says Clifford. The company also expects local firms to benefit. "As aquaculture projects develop in Panama, there are tangible trickle-down economic benefits for ancillary support businesses such as feed mill and packing plants," says Clifford. In a draft environmental assessment published in December 2012, the FDA stated that "food from AquAdvantage salmon is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon, and that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from [the fish]". It also said there was no significant threat to the environment when the fish are grown in landlocked tanks... Giovanni Lauri, director of the Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama (ARAP), tells SciDev.Net that the FDA's approval could boost investment in the country from firms looking to use transgenic animals for food. "Panama is open to this kind of research as long as companies meet the requirements stated by our laws" regarding food security and environmental impact, he adds. For Lauri, AquaBounty's work also shows that food produced in half the time — as the GM salmon grows twice as fast — could help to tackle hunger and overfishing. To minimise the risk of potential environmental harm, the GM salmon are all sterile females and are only reared in the company's land-based production facilities... in the highlands of west Panama. And at ARAP's request, all the fish that AquaBounty produces must at present be culled. But there are fears that if the transgenic salmon ever got into natural waterways it could breed with existing fish... Luisa Araúz, a lawyer at the Environmental Advocacy Centre in Panama, an NGO... has been investigating... "We want the authorities to be vigilant," she tells SciDev.Net... Clifford says that FDA approval "would signal to the world, and to other developers and researchers of genetically modified animals, as well as the regulatory authorities charged with overseeing them, that when properly and responsibly implemented and managed to minimise the risks, this technology is safe for the consumer and safe for the environment...
Mycotoxin contamination levels in maize kernels are controlled by a complex set of factors including insect pressure, fungal inoculum potential and environmental conditions that are difficult to predict. Methods are becoming available to control mycotoxin-producing fungi in pre-harvest crops, including Bt expression, biocontrol and host plant resistance.
Initial reports in the US and other countries have associated Bt expression with reduced fumonisin, DON, and zearalenone contamination, and to a lesser extent reduced aflatoxin contamination in harvested maize kernels. However, subsequent field results have been inconsistent, confirming that fumonisin contamination can be reduced by Bt expression, but the effect on aflatoxin is, at present, inconclusive.
New maize hybrids have been introduced with increased spectra of insect control and higher levels of Bt expression that may provide important tools for mycotoxin reduction and increased yield due to reduced insect feeding, particularly if used together with biocontrol and host plant resistance.
Food security is becoming a crucial concern worldwide. In this study, we focus on wheat – a staple crop in China – as a model to review its history, status quo and future scenarios, with regard to key production technologies and management practices for wheat production and associated food security issues since the new era in China: the post-1949 era. First, the dominant technologies and management practices over the past 60 years are reviewed. Secondly, we outline several key innovative technologies and their theoretical bases over the last decade, including (i) prohibiting excessively early senescence at a later growth stage to maintain viable leaves with higher photosynthetic capacity, (ii) postponing top dressing nitrogen application to balance carbon and nitrogen nutrition, and (iii) achieving both high yield and better grain quality mainly by increasing soil productivity and balancing the ratio of nutrient elements. Finally, concerns such as water shortages and excessive application of chemical fertilizers are presented. Nevertheless, under high negative conditions, including global warming, rapid population growth, decreasing amounts of arable land, increasing competition with cash crops and severe environmental pollution, we conclude that domestic food production will be able to meet Chinese demand in the mid to long term, because increasingly innovative technologies and improved management practices have been and may continue to be applied appropriately.
Other management models for transgenic crops than the European one (which allows only the big companies to enter the market) are possible. In general any scientific advance brings a benefit to society that improves the living standards and eliminates social inequalities. Consider for instance the mechanization, which has improved working conditions and lower costs involving access to goods by a greater section of the population, or how the internet and computers have allowed access to all sorts of information or to communicate easily. In Europe we are now in a debate on the use of plant biotechnology, the demonized transgenic plants. The problem is that you cannot set up a debate in conditions when most of the information circulating on the subject is inaccurate or false. For starters, we should remember that transgenic technology – i.e. inserting a piece of DNA from one organism into another – already is part of our lives, since this technology is used for many drugs, cotton clothing, Euro bills, enzymes that are used in various industries or in detergents. However, when it comes to GM crops and making this technology available to farmers it is when all misgivings arise, sometimes justified and sometimes not. One of the arguments of those who advocate the prohibition of GMOs is that they are in the hands of a few companies and that we lose control of our food. Well, actually most of the seeds used in agriculture are already in the hands of these companies, and they sell GMOs on top of that. The paradox is that by wanting to stop them makes it easier for them to succeed. European anti-GMO policy arbitrarily applies the precautionary principle demanding more controls and tests. This increases both the cost of the product and it eliminates the possibility that a small or public can compete, leaving in the race only large multinationals. However, because the European model does not work does not mean that we cannot see how alternatives have been applied in other parts of the world and recognize that there is debate and it is used each year more because the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Other models of transgenic crop management Argentina is one of the leading producers of genetically modified soybeans. Being outside the international patent system, it was using Monsanto seeds without paying royalties, until they came to an agreement, but still paying much less. Why has it succeeded? Because by lowering production costs, the technology benefitted mainly small and medium producers who have seen increased profitability of their land. What did the government do? Place a rate of 30% on exports to ensure (besides corruption) the distribution of the profit generated. The Indian model is similar for cotton, since the greatest benefit occurs among small and medium producers (the story of suicides because of transgenics is urban legend.) The soy “fever” spread to Brazil in a curious way. Lula da Silva came to power with a manifesto that included a rejection of GMOs. However, during his tenure Brazil became the second largest producer of these crops. What brought the change? Basically farmers in Rio Grande do Sul, who obtained GM seeds from Argentina, planted in Brazil and then smuggled their soybeans into Argentina to sell them. He spoke with them and saw that the best thing for the region was to authorize them. As the strategy was working but was in the hands of foreign companies, he decided to make a strong public commitment for the national agricultural company EMBRAPA to create varieties that solved specific problems and so has been launched a transgenic virus-resistant bean variety. This model has been followed by Cuba, which in 2012 has joined the list of countries planting biotech, along with Sudan, which has developed own GM maize varieties for their farmers, and by Nigeria, which has also developed a pest-resistant bean. The next to follow this path is Indonesia, which has begun field trials with drought-tolerant and herbicide-tolerant sugarcane. So the debate is open and the theme is multifaceted, but total refusal to use this technology only leads to injury to farmers and ultimately society as a whole. We cannot take a stationary position, but have to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff in the debate. Other models of GM crop management than the European (allowing market entry only to big companies) are possible. In these models, the advantages are maximized versus drawbacks. Our country and our citizens have a big stake in this debate. [Slightly edited machine translation from http://www.mundoobrero.es/pl.php?id=2823
This paper assesses the global economic implications of the proposed strict documentation requirements on traded shipments of potentially genetically modified (GM) commodities under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Using a spatial equilibrium model with 80 maize and 53 soybean trading countries, we show that information requirements would have a significant effect on the world market for maize and soybeans, distorting trade and generating welfare losses for all Protocol members and for non-members that produce GM maize and/or soybeans. While non-GM producers in Protocol member countries would benefit, the regulation would negatively impact consumers and producers in many developing countries...
Genetically modified pineapple grown in Costa Rico by Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. Inc. gained the approval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this year. However, according to a statement from Del Monte officials April 26, the new pineapple variety — dubbed Rosé — is “in a testing phase.” “The USDA’s decision does not mean that Rosé is in commercial distribution; it is in a testing phase. Del Monte intends to continue to test Rosé and will communicate more details when appropriate,” according to the statement from Dennis Christou, vice president of marketing in North America for the Coral Gables, Fla., produce company. “Del Monte Fresh Produce has a very active research and development program designed to explore new varieties and new agricultural techniques. The results of these research projects may or may not lead to commercialization depending on many factors including regulatory approvals by the relevant governmental authorities where and when applicable.” ...
New guidance from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) provides... a clear framework to evaluate the potential adverse effects of living genetically modified (GM) animals on the environment, including those on human and animal health. While no applications for GM animals have yet been received in the European Union (EU), scientific developments suggest future submissions may be made for a number of species... The vast majority of the GM animal ERA guidance has been newly developed by EFSA’s GMO Panel, and its publication is the culmination of several years’ work. It was finalised following the consideration of more than 700 comments received from stakeholders and interested parties during a public consultation held last year. This work complements previous guidance by EFSA on the safety of food and feed from GM animals... Environmental risk assessments of GM animals must be carried out on a case-by-case basis which means the information required in applications may vary depending on aspects such as the animal type, the new trait being introduced and the intended use of the GM animal. The guidance document lays down requirements for collecting, evaluating and generating key information to complete an ERA for a GM animal. These data would form an essential part of an application for a living GM animal to enter the EU market. The document also offers guidance for continuous post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) and addresses animal health and welfare...
Biodiversity is threatened by agriculture as a whole, and particularly also by traditional methods of agriculture. Knowledge-based agriculture, including GM crops, can reduce this threat in the future. The introduction of no-tillage practices, which are beneficial for soil fertility, has been encouraged by the rapid spread of herbicide tolerant soybeans in the USA. The replacement of pesticides through Bt crops is advantageous for the nontarget insect fauna in test-fields. Biodiversity differences can mainly be referred to as differences in herbicide application management. Biotechnology, while controversial particularly in agricultural applications, has the potential to improve sustainability inseveral ways and is expected, thereby, to help maintain natural as well as agricultural biodiversity. This paper results from the combined contributions of scientists, industrialists, and governmental and public interest organisations across Asia.
"Mars can't just be a one-shot mission," says Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, the second person to walk on the moon. He's part of a group who met last week in Washington DC for the first Human to Mars Summit, or H2M. The astronauts, researchers and space flight firms aim to chart a path to the Red Planet by 2030. And they are thinking beyond mere visits. Though it won't be easy, they say establishing a permanent, sustainable outpost on the Red Planet may be our civilisation's only chance of long-term continuity. "Single-planet species don't survive," says former astronaut John Grunsfeld, who still works at NASA. "That's a pretty sound theorem – just look at the dinosaurs. But we don't want to prove it." As the only other planet in the solar system we are likely to be able to settle on, Mars looks like the best first step towards establishing an off-Earth foothold. But making Mars a sustainable destination will require a few advances beyond those needed for one-off trips... Assuming a large enough base can be built, the next challenge will be a sustainable food supply. Growing vegetables is an option, but plants may need to deal with higher radiation, low air pressure and reduced gravity. If Mars gardeners are to use Martian soil, a knowledge of how crops respond to its contents, such as sulphates and perchlorates will be required. To get around any difficulties, genetically modified crops may come in useful, says Robert Ferl, director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Biotechnology Research at the University of Florida in Gainesville: "This is the era of understanding what happens to organisms at the genetic level." We now know the patterns of gene expression behind how many plants on Earth assimilate key nutrients such as sulphates. This could eventually allow the right genes to be added to crops bound for Mars. Terrestrial plants growing in extreme places could also be adapted or mined for their hardier genes...
|
