 Your new post is loading...
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
A newly-elected government provides a country with a rare opportunity for a fresh start, and President Uhuru Kenyatta’s nomination this week of Mr Felix Kiptarus Kosgey to become Kenya’s next Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries offers our nation a remarkable opening to make a hard push for food security. Success, however, will require President Kenyatta, Deputy President William Ruto, Mr Kosgey, and the rest of our new government to set aside the bad mistakes of the recent past and embrace biotechnology. There’s every reason to hope that they will. At the launch of the Jubilee Coalition manifesto in February, Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto promised to “put food and water on every Kenyan’s table”. At his inauguration, President Kenyatta reaffirmed that his government will fully implement the manifesto. This is both a tall order and a worthy goal — and one of the surest ways to achieving it is by accepting the latest advances in agricultural biotechnology, recognising that they have become conventional practices in many countries and should become so here as well. Everywhere farmers have had the chance, they have adopted genetically modified crops. Last year, more than 17 million farmers around the world planted more than 170 million hectares of GM crops, according to a new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. This is an all-time high. Moreover, farmers in poor countries made it possible: For the first time, developing nations accounted for more than half of the world’s GM crop plantings. Unfortunately, as much as Kenyan farmers have hailed the Green Revolution of the 20th century, they have not yet participated in this Gene Revolution of the 21st century. Our scientists have made strides towards developing biotech crops that would flourish in our soil and climate, but a toxic mix of scientific illiteracy and political pressure has prevented the commercialisation of these promising plants. To make matters worse, the previous government banned the importation of GM foods and ordered the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation to remove all GM foods from grocery stores. This tragic decision came last November in the wake of a controversial French study that claimed to find a connection between GM food and tumours in rats. The results were immediately widely debunked by renowned scientists from around the world. Yet the political activists whose personal ideology opposes agricultural biotechnology — many of them wealthy Europeans who don’t have to wonder about their next meal — managed to smear a vital tool for fighting hunger. The government cannot move swiftly enough to overturn the previous government’s misbegotten ban on GM food. It may be the single most significant step they can take to improve our nation’s food security. They should accept what respected organisations, ranging from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to Britain’s Royal Society, have said for a long time: GM food is safe to grow and eat. We have nothing to fear from it — and a great deal to gain. While farmers in countries like Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and the United States have jumped at the chance to take advantage of high-yielding GM crops, farmers in Kenya and its neighbours have been relegated to the side-lines. Last year, Sudan became only the fourth African country to permit the planting of GM crops, following the leads of Burkina Faso, Egypt, and South Africa. The boost in farm productivity alone is enough to justify Kenya’s adoption of crop biotechnology, because it would help us feed a growing population. But the benefits would not stop there. Improved access to GM seeds would create jobs by supplying the raw materials for our textile industries. Our leaders can show Africa a way to a better tomorrow — a future in which we enjoy true food security. After all, we elected this government on a platform of taking the country to the next level — through science and technology. Mr Bor teaches Commerce at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret, and is the chairman of Chepkatet Farmers Co-operative Society (gbor@cuea.edu)
A record 170.3 million hectares of biotech crops were grown globally in 2012, at an annual growth rate of 6%, up 10.3 million from 160 million hectares in 2011. 2012 was the 17th year of commercialization of biotech crops... 2012 marked an unprecedented 100-fold increase in biotech crop hectarage from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to 170 million hectares in 2012; this makes biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in recent history – the reason: it delivers benefits. In the period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, adopted biotech crops at unprecedented rates. The most compelling and credible testimony to biotech crops is that during the 17 year period 1996 to 2012, millions of farmers... worldwide, elected to make more than 100 million independent decisions to plant and replant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.5 billion hectares – an area 50% larger than the total land mass of the US or China; 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... Of the 28 countries which planted biotech crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries... Thus there are three times as many developing countries growing biotech crops as there are industrial countries... More than half the world’s population, 60% or ~4 billion people, live in the 28 countries planting biotech crops... In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew biotech crops – notably, over 90%, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Farmers are the masters of risk aversion and in 2012, 7.2 million small farmers in China and another 7.2 million small farmers in India, collectively planted a record ~15.0 million hectares of biotech crops. Bt cotton increased the income of farmers significantly by up to US$250 per hectare and also halved the number of insecticide sprays, thus reducing farmer exposure to pesticides...
Via Alexander J. Stein
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
February 6, 2013 Issue: A weekly summary of world developments in agri-biotech for developing countries, produced by the Global Knowledge Center on Crop Biotechnology, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications SEAsiaCenter...
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
Sharenet provides financial information and services for investors on The JSE Securities Exchange and other South African markets including online share trading, real-time streaming quotes, graphs, news, fundamentals, portfolios, watch lists, Unit...
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
Television chefs and other public figures have been blamed for preventing science from feeding the poor by campaigning against genetically modified foods.
Scientists fear that Kenya's recent banning of the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be a significant blow to progress on biotechnology research and development in the country... The government's imposition of a ban while continuing to fund research on biotechnology... is a contradictory position. "The essence of GMO research is to provide a product that can complement efforts towards food security. This ban will discourage research, as the product for which the research is being conducted has been placed on import ban" ... Biotechnology research funding might be compromised, as international donors could be reluctant to provide funds following the ban... Kenya only has three biosafety officers, and poor infrastructure and human capacity may make implementing the ban very challenging.
Via Alexander J. Stein
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
The recent Cabinet ban on the importation of GM foods citing health risks was unfortunate. It was clear proof that we are still sceptical about the role of science in economic growth. I fully support the Cabinet’s concern on the rising cases of cancer. However, this should be investigated holistically without pointing fingers at GM foods. It should be noted that genetic modification, which is the application of scientific knowledge to transfer beneficial genetic traits from one species to another to obtain desired results, is not alien science. This technology was first accomplished in 1973 and soon found commercial applications in medicine. In 1982 the Food and Drug Administration of the US approved the use of human insulin produced by a genetically engineered bacterium. Genetically modified animal vaccine came next, followed by genetically modified agricultural crops, first approved for commercial use in 1996. Approximately one-quarter of all the drugs coming into the market today are produced using GMOs and the boom in GM medical drugs is likely to continue. No one has raised a voice against GM drugs even in cases where there is clear evidence, developed from clinical trials, of extreme side effects. For example, zevalin, a popular GM drug for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, can cause severely reduced white blood cell count resulting in both gastrointestinal and respiratory complications. This is a clear indication that the opposition meted on GMs foods is not all about the technology. We should not apply double standards. The development of a GM crop normally requires at least 10 years, during which rigorous laboratory and field trials are done. Feeding trials are then done with animals. The scientific methods used to develop GM products assure safety. In fact, there are reports that in the case of maize, the consumer health risk is decreased when eating food from GM varieties. Modern crop biotechnology has the potential to improve use of scarce land, improve crop yield, enhance nutritional value of some food crops and most importantly minimise the use of pesticides, insecticides and herbicides. Yet, despite this immense potential, genetic modification is still widely misunderstood and is a victim of premeditated smear and scare campaigns. As a country, we stand to gain a lot in terms of food productivity if we adopt GM technology, hence it is paramount that we make decisions based on proven facts; we should not reject this technology out of ignorance.
Poor communications, an unregulated market, and weak farmer-researcher links are damaging uptake of pest-resistant rice... Rice farmers in China and South-East Asia are neglecting to adopt new pest-resistant cultivars, preferring to rely on excessive use of insecticide to combat pests... This has led to outbreaks of pests and disease in rice, affecting thousands of farmers, mainly in China, Indonesia and Thailand...
A farmer can easily lose an entire crop... Thai farmers have lost about 12 per cent of their yields to planthoppers over the past eight harvest seasons. In Java, Indonesia, infestations have completely destroyed crops on some 22,000 hectares of farmland, with an estimated economic loss of US$27.5 million.
While there are many varieties of pest-resistant cultivars to choose from, farmers' decisions over what to plant are usually dependent on yield, quality, and the demands of rice millers, Heong explained.
"On the other hand, researchers are focused on finding new things such as new genes, but pay little attention to how these genes are actually being adopted by farmers." ... because of weak communication with experts, local farmers rely on shopkeepers or pesticide salesmen for advice instead, often resulting in farmers falling victim to uncontrolled pesticide advertising and incentives. "Researchers, scientists and extension officers need to understand farmers well. To appreciate the constraints farmers live under, these groups will have to spend time in the villages, hold focus group discussions, carry out interviews, and experience the farmers' lives directly"... Participatory experiments are needed to show farmers products and best practice, make scientific concepts easier to understand, and make learning more pleasurable... researchers should listen to other players in the value chain, particularly traders and processors, because they may be able to introduce cost-reduction or value-improvement technologies that will eventually benefit the farmers...
Via Alexander J. Stein
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
A picture in Wednesday’s Daily Nation showed the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition demonstrating against GMOs. A while back the lobby opposed the importation of maize from South Africa, saying it was genetically modified. I wonder who funds these anti-science crusades. The most prominent sign on the picture had a barely visible subscript with writings in German. Upon googling the words, you are led to a German website for a faith-based organisation concerned with matters nutrition. Surprise, surprise. GM is the 21st century’s Galileo’s telescope. No one does anti-science hysteria like a religious organisation. One of the placards in the photos shows a skeleton; this is despite the fact that there has not been a single case of a person dying from eating GMO products. I am just glad that the protesters were willing to show us the names of the bankrollers of their confected outrage so that we may put their protest in perspective. In the background was a partially hidden placard repeating the allegation that GMOs cause cancer. In Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives, Michael Specter writes about how whole subsections of society refute evidence of a scientific nature and turn away from reality. Their version of truth is their own belief not backed by evidence, but because of a rapidly changing world. In their topsy-turvy world, they dismiss scientific evidence as just another scientific point of view and march off to the fringes of pseudoscience to forage for “studies” that conform to their internal belief. So that is how you find manufactured “debates” where the remains of discredited and discarded studies are exhumed, touched up by a mortician, and put on display. You end up with claims such as GM food causes cancer. This claim also recently appeared in the Nation a while back. Thankfully, the letters page robustly discredited the study cited. If the government wants to make policy using science and evidence, there is no question; GMO is the way to go. If the government wants to make policy based on superstition and single issue lobbyists, it should ban GMOs. All plant and animal breeding is based on rearranging genetic material. All our food is the result of human intervention unless it is harvested from the wild. We have been doing it for several millenniums and, more importantly, nature has been doing it through evolution for millions of years. Agriculture has been the story of mankind’s interference with plant and animal species for his own purposes. I am sure there were a few foragers who opposed the domestication of animals. Others questioned the use of irrigation as opposed to rain-fed agriculture. Some objected to the plough. Or oxen in the field. Now we have this lot who think that modifying the genes of food to make it better is wrong. Anti-GMO campaigns are a sort of biological Luddism (opposition to technological progress) and aversion to change that has its roots in superstition. It stems from the idea that anything contrary to nature will wipe us out. Forgetting what a cruel mistress nature is. They claim that nature knows best despite the fact that 99 per cent of all species of animal and plants that have existed are extinct. Now, humans who eat more GM foods live longer. Is this a coincidence? Even in societies that have had a longer experience with GM foods, the average life span has been going up progressively. GM crops have the potential for higher yield, need less pesticides (hence better for the environment), and require less weeding. They could be made to grow in less than desirable locales, and some are even resist to viruses.
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
A chief provider and curator of Catholic information on the web since 1996. Our editorial voice, always faithful to the teachings of the Church, assists and inspires Catholic clergy and laity.
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
* South American country to OK new seeds before year end* Paraguay world's No.
Pathogens and parasites can induce changes in host or vector behavior that enhance their transmission. "We propose the “Vector Manipulation Hypothesis” to explain the evolution of strategies in plant pathogens to enhance their spread to new hosts."
Via Jeff Habig, Marthèlize Tredoux
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
There never any plausible scientific reason to believe that genetically engineered crops posed risks any different from other crops. By Henry I. Miller and Bruce Chassy Last week French microbiologist Gilles-Eric Séralini and several colleagues released the results of a long-term study in which rats were fed genetically engineered (AKA genetically modified, or “GM”) corn that contains enhanced resistance to insects and/or the herbicide glyphosate. They took the unprecedented step of pre-releasing the paper to selected media outlets under an embargo on the condition that they sign a non-disclosure agreement. (That prevented the journalists from seeking scientific experts’ opinions on the article.) At a carefully orchestrated media event they then announced that their long-term studies found that the rats in experimental groups developed tumors at an alarming rate. Within hours news of their “discovery” echoed around the world. As we say today, the story “went viral.” But there is both more and less to this story than meets the eye. Who is Professor Séralini and how did he make this shocking discovery which conflicts with decades of research and extensive worldwide use of genetically engineered crops? Whom should non-experts believe? Is there now evidence that suggests that genetically engineered crops are dangerous? To begin to answer those questions we need to roll the clock back a few months. In a Forbes.com article earlier this year, we speculated that Séralini was less guilty of actually fudging data to get the desired answer than of performing poorly designed experiments and grossly misrepresenting the results. (Séralini has made a specialty of methodologically flawed, irrelevant, uninterpretable — but over-interpreted — experiments intended to demonstrate harm from genetically engineered plants and the herbicide glyphosate in various highly contrived scenarios.) The experiment we wrote about purported to show toxicity in vitro to a line of cultured embryonic kidney cells exposed to two proteins commonly incorporated into many varieties of corn, soybean and cotton to enhance their insect-resistance. As we discussed, because the experiment was so poorly conceived, any result would have been meaningless. We were mistaken about Séralini. The experiments reported last week show that he has crossed the line from merely performing and reporting flawed experiments to committing gross scientific misconduct and attempting fraud. Séralini claimed that his experiments found harmful effects, including a high incidence of tumors, in laboratory rats fed genetically modified corn and/or water spiked with the commonly used herbicide, glyphosate. The treatments lasted for two years. There is so much wrong with the experimental design that the conclusion is inescapable that the investigators intended to get a spurious, preordained result. Here are a few of the criticisms that have been raised by the scientific community: – the investigators used a strain of rats that were bred to develop tumors as they aged (a detail they failed to disclose). Significantly, mortality rates and tumor incidence in all experimental groups fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats. Therefore, the claim that the genetically engineered corn component of the diet or the herbicide caused the tumors is insupportable. – Séralini et al. argue that the exceedingly long time-frame of their study was necessary to reveal the experimental effects, but animal researchers long ago established that such lengthy studies add no additional meaningful or valid information beyond that which can be collected in shorter times; there is no documentation of the rats’ food intake, which strongly affects the incidence of tumors in this strain;– the experiment included 180 rats (9 groups of 20) fed the genetically engineered or herbicide-containing diets (the “treated rats”), while only 20 rats were fed a standard (control) diet. Both common sense and a rudimentary understanding of statistics tell you that even if there were no actual differences between the groups, the greater numbers of animals in the pooled treated groups increases the odds that one of the treated rats would die first (one of the parameters reported in the paper); – the statistical methods employed were unconventional and appeared to be selected specifically in order to give a certain result. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, called the treatment of data “a statistical fishing trip”; absence of statistical analysis for mortality or tumor incidence. Statistical analysis is a basic requirement of scientific research, and given that the claims of the study allege tumor and mortality effects, the omission of statistical analysis is inexcusable;– the investigators have refused to release all the data from the experiment, which constitutes scientific misconduct; – insufficient information is provided about the source and quality of corn varieties used in the rats’ diet (contamination with molds could be a critical factor); – absence of data concerning liver or kidney histopathology and liver function tests; – insufficient explanation of the absence of a dose-response relationship between the experimental variables and supposed effects; – inappropriate, unnecessary suffering of the rats, which should have been euthanized long before the tumors became so huge – an especially egregious ethics violation given that the study is, in any case, worthless. – the reported results conflict with innumerable experiments conducted by laboratories around the world on both genetically engineered corn and glyphosate, and also with vast real-world experience. Finally, the authors wrongly claim that they have no conflicts of interest. Séralini is president of the scientific board of a self-described anti-genetic engineering NGO which apparently is hosted by his laboratory; he has a long and sordid history of anti-genetic engineering and anti-agricultural chemicals activism; and his research is funded by two large, “GM-free” French supermarket chains, purveyors of organic and homeopathic products, and perhaps by other undisclosed parties who stand to profit from the smear campaign against genetically engineered foods. It also deserves mention that the publication of this article represents an abject, egregious failure of peer-review and editorial competence at Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal in which it appeared. The honorable course of action for the journal would be to retract the paper immediately – a point on which the editors have thus far been silent. An obvious question is why Séralini would publish such obviously shoddy studies. The answer may be that negative headline stories laden with color pictures of rats with grotesque tumors are not easily forgotten even if the studies are fraudulent. Also, it may be hard for the non-expert to ignore the reported differences between control and experimental groups, and many non-experts will probably believe that where there is smoke, there is fire even if there are flaws in the experiment. But scientists understand that if the design, execution, or analysis of a study is fundamentally flawed, any conclusions are disqualified. There is no question that the publication of Séralini’s latest attack on genetically engineered foods was a well-planned and cleverly orchestrated media event. The study was designed to produce exactly the false result that was observed and was deliberately allowed to continue until large, grotesque tumors developed. The conduct of the study, including the treatment of the animals, raises serious ethical concerns and questions of scientific misconduct. In the past Séralini and other anti-genetic engineering activists have played the media like a fiddle, but this time even journalists usually willing to trade accuracy and integrity for an “if it bleeds, it leads” story were skeptical of Séralini’s claims. Maybe we have reached a turning point where the media will finally realize that they have been manipulated for years by expert professional con-men. Not only was there never any plausible scientific reason to believe that genetically engineered crops posed risks any different from other crops, but hundreds of risk-assessment experiments and the vast cultivation and consumption of them during the past 17 years provide a high level of confidence about their safety and usefulness. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Bruce M. Chassy, a biochemist and molecular biologist, is former head of the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is now Professor Emeritus of Food Science.
|
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
worldVIEW: A Global Biotechnology Perspective
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
FoodNavigator.com Genetic engineering: It's a technology, not an ideology FoodNavigator.com Genetic engineering shouldn't be a political issue, no matter how much sci-fi-sensitive individuals might be reminded of the plot from The Day of the...
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
Golden rice, a new strain that boosts vitamin A levels and reduces blindness in developing countries, is about to be sown in the Philippines... 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 created late last century, but its development and cultivation has been opposed vehemently by campaigners who have flatly refused to accept that it could deliver enough vitamin A, ... the anti-GM movement... sees golden rice as a tool of global capitalism. This view is rejected by the scientists involved. "We have developed this is 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, the 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... modified the rice's genes so that the plants started to make beta-carotene, a rich orange-coloured pigment that is also a key precursor chemical that is used by the body to make vitamin A...
Via Alexander J. Stein
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
A TEMPORARY ban on GM maize has been lifted in Russia.
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
There’s an old saying that no good deed goes unpunished. That certainly seems to be true for many breakthroughs in genetic engineering. Here are several particularly egregious examples. 1. “Biopharming” — a new way to make drugs Diarrhea is the number-two infectious killer of children under the age of five in developing countries, surpassed only by respiratory diseases. It accounts for roughly 2 million deaths a year. But thanks to a simple but ingenious innovation by an emerging biotech company, Ventria Bioscience, those numbers could become a relic of the past, like mortality from smallpox and bubonic plague. Advertisement Since the 1960s, the standard of care for childhood diarrhea in the developing world has been the World Health Organization’s formulation of rehydration solution, a glucose-based, high-sodium liquid that is administered orally. This low-tech product was revolutionary. It saved countless lives and reduced the need for costly (and often unavailable) hospital stays and intravenous rehydration.However, this product did nothing to lessen the severity or duration of the condition, which over time leads to malnutrition, anemia, and other chronic health risks. The solution (literally and figuratively) may be an ingenious, affordable innovation from Ventria that combines high- and low-tech components to deliver what could be a veritable Holy Grail: two proteins produced inexpensively in rice that radically improve the effectiveness of oral rehydration solutions. It has been known for decades that breast-fed children get sick with diarrhea and other infections less often than those fed with formula. Research in Peru has shown that fortifying oral rehydration solution with two of the primary protective proteins in breast milk, lactoferrin and lysozyme, lessens the duration of diarrhea and reduces the rate of recurrence. The availability of such an improved oral rehydration solution to people in the developing world would thus be a near-miraculous advance. Ventria joined with researchers at the University of California, Davis, and at a leading children’s hospital and a nutrition institute in Lima, Peru, to test the effects of adding lactoferrin and lysozyme to a rice-based oral rehydration solution. They found that the addition of the two proteins to the solution reduced the average duration of the children’s illness from more than five days to 3.7. Moreover, over the twelve-month follow-up period, the children who had received the rice-based solution had less than half the recurrence rate of diarrhea (8 percent versus 18 percent in the control sample). What makes this approach to managing diarrhea feasible is Ventria’s invention of a genetically engineered method that uses rice to produce lactoferrin and lysozyme. This process, dubbed “biopharming,” is an inexpensive and ingenious way to synthesize the large quantities of these proteins that will be necessary. The rice kernel is processed to extract and purify the proteins, which are then used to formulate the improved rehydration solution. They have the same structure and functional properties as the proteins in natural breast milk, and the process is analogous to that used routinely for the production of therapeutic proteins from other organisms, such as bacteria and yeast. The proven life-saving potential of these products has not prevented activists from opposing them. In Peru, left-wing protesters raised completely baseless and malicious objections to the clinical trials, claiming that the rights of the pediatric subjects were being violated. Typically, the activists grossly misrepresented the facts pertaining to the conduct of the trial and the product iself. The proteins used to supplement the oral rehydration solution are considered Generally Recognized as Safe, or GRAS, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the protocols, consent forms, and study design of the trial were, in fact, approved not only by the Peruvian Ministry of Health, but also by review panels that oversee clinical trials at the University of California and the Nutritional Institute in Peru. The naysayers seem unimpressed by the fact that the experimental therapy was found to be both safe and effective. 2. Genetically engineered mosquitoes are all the buzz A second example is a genetically engineered mosquito intended to reduce the mosquito population that carries dengue fever, a debilitating and often fatal disease. With more than one-third of the world’s population living in areas at risk for transmission, dengue infection is a leading cause of illness and death in the tropics and subtropics. As many as 100 million people may be infected yearly, and tens of thousands, mostly children, die. Caused by four different but related viruses, it is spread by the bite of mosquitoes, most commonly the mosquito Aedes aegypti. A British company, Oxitec, uses ingenious genetic-engineering techniques to create new varieties of the mosquito species that transmit the disease. Their approach introduces a gene that produces a protein that stops mosquitoes’ cells from functioning normally. The modified mosquitoes produce high levels of the protein, which, although not toxic itself, confounds some of the cell’s essential machinery and causes death. The modified males carrying the lethal gene are not affected as long as they are fed a special diet. When they are released, they survive long enough to mate with wild females, but the offspring die. Working with local health officials and university scientists and after receiving appropriate approvals, Oxitec undertook experimental releases of these modified mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands and in the Juazeiro region of Brazil. According to the published accounts of these releases, the Oxitec approach to controlling mosquito population was highly effective, reducing the infected mosquito population by 80 percent in the Cayman Islands and by 90 percent in Brazil. Oxitec is awaiting Brazilian Health Ministry approval of this approach as an acceptable dengue-control policy. In the Cayman Islands and Brazil, GeneWatch activists spread alarming, false rumors that the field trials of genetically engineered mosquitoes were dangerous and had been undertaken without informing the public. Similarly, activists have circulated petitions in Key West, Florida — where dengue reappeared three years ago after an absence of more than 70 years — to prevent the release of the mosquitoes there. The sentiments of the director of a mosquito-control agency in Florida illustrate the difficulties of dealing with the activists: “I thought that if I presented the facts in a reasonable manner, people would respond in a reasonable way. But that’s not happening.” Advertisement 3. Nice rice prevents blindness and deathThe third example is a potential nutritional/medical breakthrough called Golden Rice. Rice is a food staple for billions of people, especially in Asia, and although it is an excellent source of calories, it lacks certain micronutrients necessary for a complete diet. In the 1980s and 1990s, German scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed rice varieties that are biofortified, or enriched, by the introduction of genes that enable the edible endosperm of rice to produce beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. (It is converted in the human body, as needed, to the active form of the vitamin.) The scourge of vitamin A deficiency is epidemic among poor people whose diet consists largely of rice (the edible portion of which contains neither beta-carotene nor vitamin A) or other carbohydrate-rich, vitamin-poor sources of calories. In developing countries, 200–300 million children of preschool age are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which increases their susceptibility to common childhood infections such as measles and diarrheal diseases and is the single most important cause of childhood blindness in developing countries. Every year, about half a million children go blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency, and 70 percent of those die within a year of losing their sight. To test the Golden Rice, in 2008, researchers from Zehjiang Academy of Medical Sciences, in cooperation with Tufts University, undertook clinical trials in children. These researchers had received approval from the appropriate ethics and institutional-review boards of the respective institutions. As reported in their published paper on the clinical trials, children who ate the Golden Rice had higher levels of vitamin A than if they had consumed traditional rice or other food sources of the vitamin. Once again, in spite of the unequivocal benefits to public health, activists not only opposed the product but made bogus allegations about its testing. In China, Greenpeace criticized the Golden Rice trial, claiming in a press release that children had been “used as guinea pigs.” Chinese news agencies picked up the story, inaccurately reporting that the researchers had conducted dangerous, unauthorized experiments on poor children, and within days, police had interrogated the researchers and coerced from them statements disavowing the research. Their homes were searched and research documents seized. (Previously, Greenpeace activists had first alleged that Golden Rice would deliver toxic amounts of vitamin A, and when that was shown to be virtually impossible, changed tack and claimed that it would provide too little Vitamin A to be effective.) 4. Life-saving products obstructed by irresponsible activism Although these three safe, effective, genetically engineered products — which are only a microcosm of what is possible — offer tremendous promise for public health, especially in poorer countries, all have elicited tenacious and cynical antagonism from activists. Part of the ripple effect is that the intransigent opposition to genetic engineering by anti-science, anti-technology groups provides already risk-averse regulators the political “cover” to delay regulatory approvals. The result is that more people — especially children — continue to die unnecessarily and potential innovators are discouraged from entering the field. Activism intended to delay progress toward life-saving products and technologies is irresponsible and despicable. If actions by leaders of nations resulted in such public-health calamities, they would be accused of crimes against humanity. The callousness of the anti-genetic-engineering activists should appall us, and if we fail to oppose these malefactors, we should also be ashamed. — Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Drew L. Kershen is the Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Oklahoma College of Law, in Norman, Okla.
The planting of genetically modified corn protected against pests has reached a record high of 116,306 ha in 2012, which represents 30% of total maize grain sown in the country. This is clear from recent data provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA) on the area of corn planted in Spain during 2012. A total of 116,306.6 hectares were cultivated with maize in Spain in 2012, which represents an increase of 18,980.88 hectares or 20% over the previous year. Regarding the total production of grain corn, genetically modified crops have accounted for 30% of the total planted in the country, 3.5% more than in 2011... Spanish original: http://fundacion-antama.org/los-agricultores-espanoles-hacen-crecer-un-20-los-cultivos-biotecnologicos-en-en-2012 ;
Via Alexander J. Stein
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
The credibility of a new study to the effect that GM maize causes cancer is doubtful. The study, which was conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini, was published in the Food and Toxicology Journal on September 19, but has promptly been found to lack scientific grounding by various reputable researchers and leading institutions with expertise on risk assessment of genetically modified organisms. Already within Kenya, this study has kicked off debate about the safety of GM food with those opposed to biotechnology and genetic engineering lifting up the study and declaring “I told you so”. However, the dust is now settling and the findings of the study have been examined and several frailties pointed out. One of the most authoritative reviews of the study in Europe where the study was conducted has been offered by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) — the EU’s organ in charge of risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. The Efsa review returned the verdict that the study is of “insufficient scientific quality”. Further, the review also revealed that the type of rats used in the two-year study (Sprague Dawley rats) has long been found to be prone to developing tumours during their life expectancy of about two years. This means the observed frequency of tumours is influenced by the natural incidence of tumours typical of this type, regardless of any treatment. This is neither disclosed nor discussed by the authors. In a separate review by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the presentation and interpretation of data of the study has also been questioned. BfR in its final review report note that the data used and presented by the study do not support the main allusions of the study about GM food safety. Although this study has been published in a peer–reviewed journal, various other experts have raised several significant anomalies throughout the study. The major deficiencies include the fact that the objectives of the study are not clear; no information is given about the composition of the food given to the rats, how it was stored or details of harmful substances — such as aflatoxins that it might have contained. Before being certified as safe for human consumption, GMOs undergo rigorous testing procedures that can last up to more than 10 years or more. The debate about the safety of GM food as suggested in the Séralini study is therefore misleading by nature and is one meant to unnecessarily castigate GMO technology. JONATHAN ODHONG’, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
Dolly the sheep scientist Keith Campbell dies Biologist worked on controversial cloning that captured public imagination in mid-90s but outraged animal rights campaigners. Keith Campbell, a prominent biologist who worked on cloning Dolly the sheep, has died aged 58, the University of Nottingham said. Campbell, who had worked on animal improvement and cloning at the university since 1999, died on 5 October, a spokesman, Tim Utton, said on Thursday. He did not specify the cause of death, saying only that Campbell had worked at the university until his death. Campbell began researching animal cloning at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh in 1991. The experiments led to the birth in 1996 of Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell. The sheep was named after the singer Dolly Parton. Researchers at the time said the sheep was created from a mammary gland cell, and that the voluptuous Parton offered an excellent example. The creation of the sheep captured the public imagination and instantly became a scientific sensation. The experiments drew admiration but also anger from some who raised questions about the ethics of cloning. Animal rights activists were outraged, while the Church of England expressed reservations. Dolly was put down in 2003 after she developed lung disease. Campbell's interest in cellular growth dated back to his college days studying microbiology in London. "At this time it was known that the majority of cells within an adult contain an intact genome; however, many scientists were sceptical that the nuclei of such cells could be reprogrammed to control development. Stubbornly, I always believed that such technology was possible," he wrote in an autobiographical essay in 2008, when he was awarded the Shaw prize for medicine and life sciences. He received the recognition along with Ian Wilmut, the lead scientist in the team that created Dolly, and the Nobel-winning scientist Shinya Yamanaka. After the birth of Dolly, Campbell oversaw the successful cloning of pigs and lambs. In 1999, he joined Nottingham University as professor of animal development, where he continued research into the cloning process. He was particularly interested in assisted reproduction in both animals and humans, and studied ways to develop reproductive technologies in farm animals to enhance breeding and maintain food security. He believed research into medical use of embryonic stem cells would eventually lead to important breakthroughs despite opposition from some who found the technique abhorrent. "There are groups that believe that life begins at conception and that you should not do any research involving embryos at all," he said in a 2001 interview. "But we have also been able to inform people of the potential benefits, and once they learn about it they are much more likely to be in favour of it." Campbell said stem cells from embryos had the unique ability to be developed into many different types of human cells, including blood, muscle and nerve cells. "Broadly, I would say they may be a major breakthrough in human medicine that will improve the quality of life for a large number of the population, particularly those with age-related disorders," he said. Campbell is survived by two daughters, Claire and Lauren.
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
EFSA is the EU risk assessment body for food and feed safety. It provides independent scientific advice to risk managers.
|
|
Scooped by
Kwame Ogero
|
Dr Seetharama highlighted that the Meeting of Parties (MOP 6) to the Cartagena Protocol scheduled to be held in Hyderabad from October 1-5, 2012 will play an important role in deciding the future of plant biotechnology in ...
|
