BioLines
Vol. 41 July 2003 Editor: M. Koch |
|
AfricaBio Biotechnology
Stakeholders Association
Tel: 012 667 2689
Fax: 012 667 1920
www.africabio.com |
|||
|
BioLines is AfricaBio’s ‘Biotechnology
Headlines’ – a quick guide to what is topical. By design, the articles are not
exhaustive, but references are given to follow up points of interest. Let us
know what you like and dislike about BioLines and what you want to see as part of
this service. Articles are edited to meet space requirements. It is not the
intention of this service to infringe on copyright. Biolines is issued free of
charge and every effort is made to acknowledge the source of information. |
|||||
|
CONTENTS:
_________________________________________________________________________________ |
|||||
Consortium to support
biosafety in developing countries
ISNAR
(Amsterdam), 9 June 03; j.falck-zepeda@cgiar.org
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has awarded the
Programme for Biosafety Systems (PBS) $14.8 million to assist developing
countries to enhance biosafety policy, research, and capacity. PBS will be run
by a consortium of professionals and institutions with an unmatched level of
knowledge in biosafety programme and policy development in poor countries.
The programme will work initially with Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, East and West Africa, and is likely to expand to other countries
and regions in the future. "Modern biotechnology has significant potential
for improving agriculture in developing countries, but any nation wishing to
benefit from biotechnology needs a functional biosafety system" said
Dr. Joel Cohen, Project Manager of New Technologies for Agricultural Research
at the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) in the
Netherlands, who leads the consortium. "Through this project, we hope to
assist our partners in determining how to best create such a system, making
sound decisions based on scientific evidence."
The programme's unique approach addresses biosafety as part of a sustainable
development strategy, anchored by agriculture-led economic growth, trade, and
environment objectives. It will assist national governments in studying the
policies and procedures necessary to evaluate and manage the potential harmful
effects of modern biotechnology on the environment and
human health. Among the consortium's goals are:
*
To improve regional cooperation on issues related to GMO’s and expand
management skills in the area of biosafety;
* To assist governments in making science-based decisions about the effects on
biodiversity of introducing genetically engineered organisms into the environment;
* To build collaboration between agricultural research and environmental
conservation communities in the US and developing countries;
*
To assist partner countries in regulating and safely conducting experimental
field trials.
"Building
biosafety systems are a key to helping countries make effective decisions about
biotechnology, decisions that span development strategies across economic,
environmental, trade, and social sectors," said Emmy Simmons, Assistant
Administrator at USAID, which administers the US foreign assistance programme
providing economic and humanitarian assistance in more than 80 countries
worldwide. For participating countries and regions, the group looks to build a
firm foundation for policy development and biosafety decision-making in the
future. The programme, which will last for 5 years, with collaborators from all
levels gathering for a participatory planning meeting in July.
"There are many components to a solid biosafety strategy" notes
Dr. Reynaldo Ebora, of the University of the Philippines Los Baños.
"Biosafety considerations need to be examined with a scientific focus to
determine how products of biotechnology will affect the environment" adds
Ebora. "Farmers also need to see for themselves the risks and benefits
that GM crops may bring. Policy recommendations need to take all perspectives
into account, and we feel PBS will help bring these perspectives
together."
ISNAR is
one of the 16 Future Harvest Centres supported by the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
AfricaBio wins
prestigious science award
AfricaBio was awarded the 2002 National Science and Technology Forum Award in
the category "Not-For-Profit Organisation over the last 3 years", an
exciting achievement considering that the organisation was registered as a
non-profit Section 21 company only in February 2000.
In its citation the NSTF says AfricaBio was voted the winner because of the
following:
* It has provided a forum for informed debate on biotechnology issues and the
promotion of its safe, responsible and ethical use, with significant
contributions in the areas of education and PUSET (Public Understanding of
Science, Engineering and Technology);
* Small-scale farmers have been empowered through training and advice;
* The growth of the sector has been facilitated through start-up companies and
involvement in the coordination of Biotechnology Regional Innovation Centres
(BRICs);
* Participation in the development of state policy and the Biosafety Protocol
has been effected; and
* The development of the all-important National Biotechnology Strategy and its
subsequent roll-out, contributing greatly towards the realisation of the
potential offered to the national economic growth by this sector.
South Africa sees new biotech firm
Press release. 07
Jul 03 (shortened)
Bioventures and the CSIR have
jointly formed a new SA biotechnology business, Mbuyu Biotech (PTY) Limited. A new SA company entered the
biotechnology business domain when Bioventures, the specialist biotechnology venture
capital fund, and the CSIR, through its Bio/Chemtek business unit, announced
the formation of Mbuyu Biotech (Pty) Limited. Mbuyu has been granted a
world-wide licence to further develop, demonstrate and commercialise 3
CSIR-developed biotechnology manufacturing processes that are being spun out
from the CSIR for further technology packaging. Announcing the formation of the
new company, Bioventures CEO, Dr Heather Sherwin, says that Bioventures is
excited by the potential of the initial portfolio of technologies for which
Mbuyu has been granted a licence.
The first process in the
portfolio is a novel process to address the worldwide nutraceutical demand for
natural beta-carotene, found in carrots, palm oil and fruits. The second
process is the conversion of low-value Aloeresin found in the sap of the Cape
Aloe plant to high-value Aloesin, commonly used in the cosmetics market; and
the third is the development of a process for the production of the aroma
compound, I-menthol from low-value raw material. Both nutraceuticals and
bioprocessing are areas Bioventures has tagged for investment.
Negotiations between
Mbuyu and the CSIR are ongoing regarding the exploitation of 7 additional CSIR
biotech processing technologies. Mbuyu will also be seeking to expand its
biotechnology portfolio with promising new biotechnologies developed at local
incubators, universities, and other research organisations. CSIR Bio/Chemtek
Director, Dr Petro Terblanche says: "The scientists at the CSIR have made
significant breakthroughs in biotechnology manufacturing in recent years. We
believe that Mbuyu is the correct vehicle to commercialise these manufacturing
processes, allowing the rewards earned from the licensing agreements to be
reinvested into local biotechnology research. The new company is a testament to
the CSIR's commitment to the implementation of Government's biotechnology
strategy."
Sherwin says Bioventures
will continue to invest in organisations that have a competitive advantage as a
result of the Intellectual Property (IP) that resides within the organisation.
"Mbuyu represents Bioventures' first investment in a company from its
inception and our initial cash injection of 2 million rand is aligned with our
strategy of investing in a range of companies across different sectors and at
different generations of biotechnology," she says. Bioventures and the
CSIR each hold an equal number of shares in the total issued share capital of
the company with both groups having 2 directors on the Mbuyu board. A
non-executive, independent Chairperson, Joyce Matlala, from the Development
Bank of SA has been appointed. A CEO for Mbuyu will be appointed before the end
of the year. Mbuyu will pay the CSIR a share of any future royalties or
revenues that may be earned as a result of the exploitation of the
CSIR-developed technologies and these royalties or revenues will be negotiated
on a deal by deal basis.
African scientists to
Europeans: Let tolerance prevail!
'A
Statement from ABSF In Response to the Draft European Legislation on the
Tolerance Levels for the Unintended Presence of GM Material In Non-GM
Agricultural and Food Products’ Prof. James Ochanda, Executive Director, ABSF,
Kenya jochanda@uonbi.ac.ke
Members of the African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF) after thorough
consultation on the above EU proposed legislation made the following
observations:
Considering the recent EU conference and scientific seminars (Feb/March 2003)
the conclusion of the meeting was evident that GM crop/biotech had a lot to
contribute to sustainable development especially in developing countries. This
is supported by evidence that tends to show that more developed countries USA,
Canada, Australia and developing countries India, Argentina are now embracing
biotech and especially GMO crop and that the level of investment has been
increasing in most of these countries. Adoption rate has also been on the
increase (Clive James, ISAAA) demonstrating that there are obvious benefits.
Africa's biotech agenda is to reduce poverty and improve food security status.
There are evident agricultural challenges in Africa. Agriculture requires a
never-ending struggle against the destructive forces of nature: pests,
diseases, weather, poor soils, etc, which are rampant in Africa because of her
predominant tropical climate. Despite the steadily growing use of insecticide,
herbicides, and fungicides, as much as 40% of crop productivity in Africa is
lost to insect pests, weeds, and plant diseases e.g. yield losses due to insect
pest damage range from 25-40% reaching 80% in serious infestations and 40-80%
in stored products. The yield losses caused by stem borers to maize vary widely
in different regions and range from 20-40% depending on the pest population
density. Maize is a staple food in sub-Saharan Africa both for human and
livestock.
In July 2000 the Commission of the European Communities, that is regulating the
most important Kenya export market, main importers of tea, vegetables, and
flowers from East Africa, released new regulations on products, pesticide
residues levels. To reduce the toxic pesticide residues, a well-reflected new
plan was developed by the Cyber biotech Team in Hamburg, Germany i.e.
establishment of a biopesticide production factory and trade organization to
make Kenyan export agribusiness a sustainable success. It is our conviction
that the Bt technology already employed in maize and cotton could be extended
to the horticultural products i.e. vegetables, flowers and fruits as Bt is
already used as a biopesticide.
Without any means for controlling these pests, crop losses would climb to as
much as 70%. Biotechnology however will help farmers’ combat pests and
pathogens more effectively while also reducing humanity’s dependence upon
agricultural chemicals, which most farmers in Africa do not adequately afford.
Biotechnology-enhanced crops could also save millions of acres of sensitive
wildlife habitat from being converted into farmland. Although improved
agricultural productivity might seem like a luxury that industrialized
countries can do without, it is an absolute necessity for less developed
nations. In a report published in July 2000, the UK's Royal Society, the
National Academies of Science from Brazil, China, India, Mexico and the US, and
the Third World Academy of Science, embraced agricultural biotechnology,
arguing that it can be used to advance food security while promoting
sustainable agriculture. "It is critical," declared the science
academies, "that the potential benefits of biotechnology become available
to developing countries."
Farmers in sub-Saharan Africa never realised the same productivity gains that
countries in Asia and South America enjoyed from the Green Revolution. The
primary focus of Green Revolution plant breeders was on improving such crops as
rice, wheat, and corn, which are not widely grown in Africa. Plus, much of the
African dry lands have little rainfall and no potential for irrigation, which
play an essential role in productivity success stories of crops such as Asian
rice. And the remoteness of many African villages and poor transportation
infrastructure in landlocked African countries make it difficult for African
farmers to obtain agricultural chemical inputs such as fertilizers,
insecticides, and herbicides, even if they had the money to purchase them.
Thus, by packaging technological inputs within seeds, biotechnology can provide
the same, or better, productivity advantage as chemical or mechanical inputs,
but in much more user-friendly manner. Farmers could be able to control insect
pests, viral or bacterial pathogens, extremes of heat or drought, and poor soil
quality, just by planting their crops.
The appetite for biotechnology among both farmers and the general public in
Africa is rising steadily. With a rapid population increase of 3.5%, which by
far outweighs that of food production of 2.5%, biotechnology is being
recognized as one among the promising tools of increasing agricultural
productivity within a sustainable environment. Several success stories have
started emerging where biotechnological approaches have contributed to the
solution of specific problems of small farmers who produce 80% of all the food
consumed. They include: the widespread adoption of the tissue culture
technology to propagate disease-free banana plantlets in Kenya, where
small-scale farmers have increased their household incomes by up to 38%, the
use of marker assisted selection to understand the mechanisms of maize streak
virus resistance to select for breeding; and, the adoption of Bt cotton by
small scale farmers in Makhatini, SA where rural families growing Bt cotton
have begun investing their extra income to improve social welfare and reaped
environmental benefits by reduced pesticide use.
As in China, these experiences have shown that smallholders stand to benefit
just as much if not more than large-scale commercial farmers. Based on what is
happening on the continent, it is a foregone conclusion that biotechnology is
causing a silent revolution in Africa. Farmers have embraced the new technology
because it makes them more efficient and protects or increases yields and
reduces their reliance on chemicals. Unfortunately, the EU debate on
biotechnology has been equated to genetic engineering while there are
non-transgenic technologies such as tissue culture and molecular markers, which
Africa has not yet fully been able to exploit. This misconception amounts to
reduction of investments in Africa by EU and other friends of Africa for
developing non-biotech programs. Example is of a recent proposal rejection by
EU member state having been perceived to be GM while in real sense it was
non-transgenic biotechnology project (tissue culture banana project).
Non-transgenic GM practices have enabled farmers to realize environmental and
economical gains.
Even as Africa adopts biotech to feed its people its export market will be
affected by the zero tolerance intended legislation because it's not possible
to attain it. If developed industrial countries cannot achieve perfection, how
much less can developing countries meet such requirements? As African
stakeholders we recommend that the EU ask for tolerance levels that are
practical especially to the developing countries. In a globalised market all
citizens both from developed and developing countries should be subjected to
regulations they can modestly implement.
While we acknowledge that labelling is essential in providing consumer choice,
application of such regulations in Africa is not practical. In Europe and other
developed countries, where agricultural production is done by about 2% of the
population, it is easy to trace the food chain from farm to market making
labelling applicable. However, in Africa, about 80% of the population are
farmers meaning that food is consumed by the same people who produce it and
most of the farmers are loosely organized on roadsides open-air markets, etc.
This kind of a marketing system makes labelling of food products impractical.
In addition 'labelling and traceability' of biotech products is very expensive.
Ultimately, labelling requirements like those enforced in the EU represent
serious obstacles that could all but destroy the affordability of biotechnology
products and impede their adoption in the poorer regions of the world that need
it most. In Africa, this can almost be seen as a barrier towards tackling the
challenges on agriculture. There is need to balance.
The EU legislation on trans-boundary movements strives to bring it in line with
biosafety protocol. It is noted that one of the key areas affecting the 3rd
world countries is where Europe labs have to provide materials for labs in
developing countries. To date a number of development projects in Africa have
been supported by EU, that has involved not only human resources but also
materials resulting in products that have helped developing countries meet some
agricultural challenges e.g. Rinderpest vaccine, foot and mouth vaccine etc.
While these are animal based, there is little distinction between livestock
farmers and crop farmers in Africa. It is important to appreciate that food
chains pathways in Africa are complex. As biotech stakeholders we feel that the
EU legislation on trans-boundary movements is inhibiting development and in a
truly globalised system all views should be considered. We are therefore urging
the EU to consider the impact the legislation would have on development
especially agricultural development.
The EU is sending mixed signals to Africa with regard to support for enhanced
agricultural productivity geared towards poverty and hunger alleviation. During
the last Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) meeting in Dakar,
Senegal (17th-23rd May 03), the EU supported the FARA programme to use
biotechnology for Africa’s agricultural productivity enhancement. The legislation
against biotechnology therefore sends a misleading signal about EU support for
Africa's development strategies. As much as we acknowledge the EU concern, the
concern should be global putting into consideration all the residents of the
earth. African farmers should be given a chance of choice on the technologies
available.
First meeting for UNIDO
global biotech forum - Africa
Crop Biotech Update, 20 Jun 03 (shortened)
Representatives from 15 African countries and 20 regional organizations
recently attended the first of 4 regional meetings in preparation for the
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Global Biotechnology
Forum in Concepcion, Chile in 2004. The consultative meeting focused on the
critical needs of African farmers with small land holdings, and the benefits
that can be derived from local biological diversity. The African stakeholders
also discussed the: region-specific constraints they encounter, projects for
the introduction of appropriate biotechnologies, mechanisms and resources which
favour the introduction of desirable technologies and the merging of regional
priorities into the larger biotechnology-for-sustainable-development agenda.
Biotechnology priorities were also assessed during the consultative
meeting. According to the delegates "institutional priorities point at the
lack of coherent strategies, scarcity of funds, insufficient research and
development infrastructure, and weak capabilities for risk assessment and
management. Although these deficiencies need to be addressed by appropriate
national programmes, regional efforts through enhanced cooperation and
coordination could enhance the capacity of individual countries to overcome
some of the constraints." UNIDO will facilitate the endorsement of three
proposals that were drafted by the participants in response to the pressing
needs identified. The next Regional Consultative meeting will take place in
Brasilia, Brazil, for the Latin America and Caribbean Region from 22 to 25 Jul 03. For more details, email G.Tzotzos@unido.org or C.Linke@unido.org.
Search for grains of
truth: 'The boffins are trying to provide 'sound science' on GM crops'
John
Mason, Financial Times, FT.com, 19 Jun 03 (shortened)
Scientists around the world have become increasingly frustrated that their
voices are drowned out in the rows over GMOs. So last week they pronounced on
the issue in the biggest review so far of the evidence on agricultural
biotechnology. They agreed that current GM foods appear to be harmless to eat
but fell out over the safety of future products and the long-term environmental
impact of GMOs.
The report was the work of the International Council for Science, the
Paris-based federation of more than 100 national science academies. ICSU's aim
in this wide-ranging review was to show where scientists agree and disagree on
the risks and benefits of GM technology and where gaps in knowledge remain. The
report, and at least 2 others to follow, should have a big impact. Governments
around the world are insistent that policy on GM should be based on "sound
science". But until now there has been no attempt to draw together the
research to establish where consensus lies. It is little wonder, says ICSU,
which includes the US National Academy of Science and the UK's Royal Society,
that public and politicians are confused. The ICSU study will be followed next
month by a similar report by a team led by David King, the UK government's
chief scientist. It will influence how the UK handles Europe's likely lifting
of its moratorium on GM crops. But just how valuable are these reviews and how
will they be received?
The
ICSU report, which looked at more than 50 important research studies, was
generally welcomed as a good first attempt at providing a snapshot of current
scientific opinion. On food safety, it reveals wide acceptance among scientists
that current GM foods are safe, despite consumer concerns. But there is no room
for complacency, more complex products, yet to reach the market, may carry
health risks, it warns. Also, problems in conducting post-market surveillance
mean there are still gaps in knowledge about long-term effects on human health.
It is on long-term environmental risks that scientists continue to disagree
most. They do agree that GM crops will change the environment as their pollen
spreads. The argument is whether this matters. The possible impact on
biodiversity remains hotly disputed. And gaps in knowledge remain, such as the
lack of baseline ecological information to make comparisons. The ICSU report
has been welcomed by bodies such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
But some experts pointed out limitations. One ecologist, for example, was
disappointed by the lack of detail given to his area of expertise, while a
study suggesting that modified proteins can pass through the human gut was not
considered. Gabrielle Persley, the report's author, says the report "is
not exhaustive but it is broad-ranging, capturing the majority of opinions
across the range". She adds another point of principle that science can
never provide certainty. "One person's sound science is another's matter
for debate". This means the study must continue to be updated.
The UK science review will try to answer the same questions about consensus and
gaps in knowledge. It is expected to be more exhaustive than the ICSU study,
with more people involved and more research studied. Those organising the
review are confident it will have real value. The difficulty, some fear, will
be to make the science comprehensible to the public. Both reports were drawn up
by scientists reviewing the work of colleagues. Another, far more ambitious,
project is taking another tack. The World Bank hopes to launch a review of all
agricultural technologies used around the globe from GM to organic farming.
This epic 3 year study will be led by Bob Watson, the bank's chief scientist.
Mr Watson has a reputation for leading scientific assessments that have real
impact. His previous work on ozone depletion and global warming led directly to
the Montreal and Kyoto protocols to tackle these problems. He has learnt
lessons about how science reviews can best influence the outside world, he
says. "The key question about any review of GM is: does it have the full
ownership of the scientific community and those who take decisions about
biotechnology?" His approach raises big questions about how science is
conducted. To gain wide credibility, you must involve more than just scientists,
he says. His review will involve anyone from scientists to biotechnology
executives and small farmers and fishermen. Non-scientists will be involved
from the outset in deciding the scope of the project, through to writing and
peer-reviewing the results. Mr Watson is certainly not rubbishing his
scientific colleagues. But they alone cannot always guarantee the "sound
science" that politicians seek, he suggests. "You should not
talk just to scientists. The longer I live, the more I realise that scientists
are not the only people with knowledge or who ask the right questions."
GM crops and
sustainable poverty alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An assessment of current
evidence
Aaron
deGrassi, Third World Network-Africa (shortened), June 03
This
study reports that GM sweet potatoes, maize and cotton are "generally
inappropriate" methods for addressing poverty in sub-Saharan Africa.
Study author Aaron deGrassi evaluated the "appropriateness" of each
crop using criteria that are "widely accepted" in the field of crop
breeding. Among his results, deGrassi found that the use of
virus-resistant sweet potatoes in Kenya has not been "demand driven, site
specific, poverty focused, cost effective, nor institutionally
sustainable." However, deGrassi did find that the
"environmental sustainability" of the potatoes is
"ambiguous." While he explains the outcomes, deGrassi stresses that
the maximum potential crop yield gains from either conventional or
agro-ecological systems are significantly higher than those projected for the
use of GM crops in Africa. deGrassi also emphasizes that the availability of
improved crop varieties in Africa would have relatively little impact on the
factors that cause poverty, such as HIV/AIDS, political corruption and poor
infrastructure.
In addition, deGrassi asserts that multinational companies are developing new
strategies for influencing the acceptance of GM crops in Africa. deGrassi
states: "Biotechnology firms have been eager to use philanthropic African
projects for public relations purposes. Such public legitimacy may be
needed by companies in their attempts to reduce trade restrictions, biosafety
controls and monopoly regulations."
The
92-page study can be downloaded from the link: http://mail.merid.org/Rockefeller/biotech.nsf/Stories/65D04685C63AEA5A85256D
520054851C/$File/GMCrops+Not+Answer+for+Africa,+TWN,+Jun03.pdf
“With an eye toward addressing
world hunger, the Vatican has asked for additional information on GMOs.” “The use of GMOs needs to be
openly discussed so that informed decisions can be made by those who might
receive and use these products. This will enable those people to continue
on the way toward sustainable development." Archbishop Renato
Martino,
Vatican looking closer
at GMOs participates in California conference
Zenit News
Agency, 4 July 03, AgBioView (shortened)
With an eye toward addressing world hunger, the Vatican has asked for
additional information on GMOs. Archbishop Renato Martino, president of the
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, made that announcement following the
Ministerial Conference on Biotechnology, which was held in Sacramento,
California.
"The Holy See realizes the urgent need to provide food security to all
people, especially those who suffer from poverty, hunger and
malnutrition," the archbishop said when addressing the conference to which
ZENIT had access. "The presence of a delegation at the meeting provided
the Holy See with the opportunity to observe, to listen to the testimony of
experts and to learn about the various programmes and projects involving the
use of GMOs," he explained. The Holy See is well aware of the existence of
plants that produce an abundance of food," the archbishop said.
"Feeding the hungry is essential. Finding ways to accomplish this is an
imperative. At the same time, the Holy See continues to study the widest use of
GMOs."
"Information leads to participation," he added. "Participation
brings empowerment. The use of GMOs needs to be openly discussed so that
informed decisions can be made by those who might receive and use these
products. This will enable those people to continue on the way toward
sustainable development." The Sacramento meeting attracted agriculture
officials, scientists and health-care experts from about 100 countries.
Approaches to the
assessment of the allergenic potential of food from GMOs. Workshop overview.
Ladics, G.,
Holsapple, M., Astwood, J., Kimber, I., Knippels, L., Helm, R., Dong, W. 2003.
Toxicological Sciences. 73: 8-16.
There is a need to assess the safety of foods deriving from GM crops, including
the allergenic potential of novel gene products. Presently, there is no single
in vitro or in vivo model that has
been validated for the identification or characterization of potential food
allergens. Instead, the evaluation focuses on risk factors such as source of
the gene (i.e., allergenic vs. no allergenic sources), physicochemical and
genetic comparisons to known allergens, and exposure assessments.
The
purpose of this workshop was to gather together researchers working on various
strategies for assessing protein allergenicity: (1) to describe the current
state of knowledge and progress that has been made in the development and
evaluation of appropriate testing strategies and (2) to identify critical
issues that must now be addressed. This overview begins with a consideration of
the current issues involved in assessing the allergenicity of GM foods. The
second section presents information on in vitro models of digestibility,
bioinformatics, and risk assessment in the context of clinical prevention and
management of food allergy. Data on rodent models are presented in the next 2
sections. Finally, nonrodent models for assessing protein allergenicity are
discussed. Collectively, these studies indicate that significant progress has
been made in developing testing strategies. However, further efforts are needed
to evaluate and validate the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of
many of these assays for determining the allergenicity potential of GM food.
GM crops worth £50
million a year'
The Scotsman (UK), 11 June 03
The great debate the government is encouraging on whether GM crops should
be grown on a commercial scale moves to Glasgow this evening. According
to a report published in Edinburgh yesterday, GM technology is safe, compatible
with conventional farming and has the potential to boost the income of UK
agriculture by at least GBP 50m. The report was compiled by the Scottish
Agricultural College (SAC) and commissioned by the Agricultural Biotechnology
Council (ABC), an umbrella organisation representing six firms involved in the
breeding of GM crops. Dr David Oglethorpe, of the land research group at SAC,
and 2 colleagues base their findings on an economic computer model that
involved 6 months' work considering all the possible variations of yield and
price. Dr Oglethorpe said: "GM is a workable and viable option. The
technology provides opportunities for farmers to improve returns from
market-based agriculture rather than subsidised production."
Dr
Paul Rylott, the acting chairman of ABC, said: "The consensus is that GM
crops are at least as safe as those grown conventionally. The debate now needs
to be widened as to whether GM crops can co-exist with conventional and organic
systems and what, if any, are the benefits." He pointed out that over the
past 4 years farm-scale trials at 260 sites across the UK have shown that the
protocols attaching to GM crops were workable and that there had been no
instances of organic producers losing their status. He added; "We know that
co-existence can occur, but should it, and what are the benefits? We in ABC
wanted to try and move the issue to find some answers and believe that the SAC
report does that. We appointed SAC because it is independent with widespread
practical knowledge, including in the organic sector." The results from the SAC model, which built
in a yield increase of about 12% for GM winter oilseed rape and more than 20%
for spring sown crops, based on trial results, suggests that even with no cost
savings the financial advantage will be just more than GBP 40 per hectare at
the same sale value of conventional crops. Where cost savings of 10% can be
achieved as a result of lower chemical inputs, the advantage rises to more than
GBP 70 per hectare.
Even if the value of GM crops is reduced to 90% of conventionally grown ones,
the system is still viable to the extent of an additional GBP 6.45 per hectare.
That rises to GBP 70.31 per hectare when GM and conventional crops are sold at
the same value. Dr Rylott said: "We did a survey of more than 100 farmers
before the trials started and found that 19% were convinced of the merits of
GM. After the trials that figure rose to 90%. "The system offers the
opportunity to farm more efficiently and more profitably. I also think GM offers
a way for farmers to improve the environment and provides an opportunity to
farm in a more sustainable manner."
Agbiotech climbs
Africa's agenda
Jeffrey L.
Fox, Nature Biotechnology, June 03, Vol. No. 6, p589, www.nature.com
Used
with the permission of the editor.
Renewed efforts to bring agricultural biotechnology up to speed in sub-Saharan
Africa are visible on several fronts these days, and focus on establishing
biosafety rules and providing access to technologies. However, whether these
efforts will overcome the complex national and international political forces
that have proved so frustrating remains to be seen.
Speaking in Addis Ababa this April, KY Amoako, the executive secretary of the
UN Economic Commission for Africa, enthusiastically endorsed biotechnology,
saying it was vital to improving agriculture in Africa. In urging that
biotechnology be tailored to meet local needs, he also emphasized the
importance of establishing "national regulatory institutions for risk
assessment and management." US State Department (Washington, DC, USA) and
US Agency for International Development (USAID; Washington, DC, USA) officials
also are speaking up on behalf of biotechnology, saying it will help African
farmers while also bringing broader economic benefits.
Along similar lines, representatives from several African countries, US
biotechnology companies and the Rockefeller Foundation (New York, NY, USA),
with support from USAID, recently established the African Agricultural
Technology Foundation (AATF; Washington, DC, USA) whose mission is to help
"smallholder farmers" in sub-Saharan Africa gain access to new
technologies. AATF will help to formulate licensing agreements, including
"royalty-free" transfers of proprietary technologies that "meet
the needs of resource-poor African farmers."
"With insects destroying
crops, Africans don't have a choice that their crops live or die, but with
GM crops this could change," he said. "We want to explore GM
technology and believe it could tackle pests and save the starving." James Shikwati,
African writer and activist
Meanwhile, several sub-Saharan countries are reviving home-grown efforts to test
and begin growing GM crops. Zambia is gearing up to test GM crops, even though
its government made a stir last year when officials rejected US food aid,
citing concerns that GM corn that was to be part of that aid package could
interfere with food exports to the country's European trading partners (Nat.
Biotechnology. 21, 6, 2003). Similarly, the Kenya Agricultural Research
Institute (Nairobi, Kenya) announced in April the launch of a five-year, $12.5
million Agbiotech programme to develop, for example, a virus-resistant sweet
potato and livestock vaccines.
"The policy mission is to make Kenya a key participant in the
international biotechnology enterprise," says James Ochanda of the African
Biotechnology Stakeholders Federation (Nairobi, Kenya), referring to regulatory
developments. The Kenyan policy for handling GM crops "identifies risk
assessment and management as the cornerstone of the biosafety regulatory
system," he says, noting that these guidelines need strengthening and the
key institution needed to implement this framework waits funding.
However, John Kilama, president of the Global Bioscience Development Institute
(Wilmington, DE), sees the current incomplete status of national-level
regulatory frameworks, particularly concerning biosafety, as a major stumbling
block to successfully introducing biotechnology to African agricultural
practices, while noting that few sub-Saharan nations have implemented draft
rules, except for SA. As part of
Partnership for African Development, representatives from SA and Nigeria will
be developing a model law for other countries to consider as a framework while
still paying heed to issues touching on national sovereignty, according to
Jocelyn Webster, who heads AfricaBio (Johannesburg, SA). That model law project
will help toward eventually harmonizing national regulations throughout the
region.
Meanwhile, some sub-Saharan governments have ratified the UN’s international
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which governs the transfers of any GM
organisms (Nat. Biotechnology. 18, 253, 2000), while many more have signed it,
including Tanzania and Cameroon this year, Webster says. And Malawi recently
passed its own biosafety legislation, expects to have rules in place later this
year and could begin conducting field trials with GM cotton and corn by the end
of 2003. Zimbabwe also has regulations in place, although many other countries
are still dealing with draft legislation, says Webster. SA is way ahead, with a
regulatory system fully in place, several GM crops established and hundreds of
other biotech projects under way.
The "complex problem... of trade and politics" in the continuing
tug-of-war between the EU and the US over biotechnology in agriculture is
perhaps the biggest obstacle facing many of the countries throughout
sub-Saharan Africa, Kilama says. The unwillingness of EU countries to import GM
crops from their African trading partners needs to be faced. "I'd like to
be hopeful, but I'm a realist," he says, suggesting that current
enthusiasm about agricultural biotechnology for Africa could soon face
frustrations. "As long as Europe is the primary trading partner for
Africa, you just can't get around it."
"EU policies do have an effect on Africa," Webster says. And in some
cases, those GM-related policies are having a peculiar impact on agricultural
biotechnology within Africa, she adds. Namibia recently decided not to import
GM corn from SA to use as animal feed, fearing that it would be commingled with
non-GM feed used in growing cattle destined for export to the EU. However, the
EU itself is importing Argentine-grown GM soy for use in animal feed, she
points out. "None of this makes sense."
EU under pressure over
GM crops
Stefania
Bianchi, Inter Press Service, 12 Jun 03, http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18729
Prominent African writer and activist James Shikwati made a strong appeal at a
forum in Brussels this week for introduction of GM crops to feed the hungry.
Shikwati, who is director of the non-governmental organisation Inter-Region
Economic Network (IREN) based in Kenya spoke at a meeting organised by
TechCentral Station, a US online journal on global public affairs.
TechCentral Station promotes free markets and use of technology, but acknowledges
that such promotion raises important public issues. IREN campaigns for policies
that would support development of Africa. The Brussels meeting was addressed
also by Chris Wilson, US Trade
Attaché to the EU. The campaigner from Africa was clearly putting forward a
case that seemed to match US interests in breaking down EU opposition to GM
foods. Shikwati argued that Africa needs these crops. "Biotechnology would
give African farmers the freedom to produce their own goods instead of begging
donor countries," he said at the meeting Wednesday. "Africa needs
this investment and wants to make use of the technology."
Shikwati urged the EU to drop its five-year moratorium on GM foods. "With
insects destroying crops, Africans don't have a choice that their crops live or
die, but with GM crops this could change," he said. "We want to
explore GM technology and believe it could tackle pests and save the
starving." The EU has maintained a moratorium on the commercial
development of GM foods since 1999. This has delayed the approval of GM crops
and, according to the US, forced African countries to refuse GM food aid.
Last year famine-stricken Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique turned down shipments
of GM food from the US because of health and environmental concerns. The
countries were worried also that they could lose their export market in the EU
if their crops were seen as contaminated by GMOs. Shikwati acknowledged EU
concerns that African farmers could become dependent on GM technology from the
US, but insisted that such a situation was still better than dependency on food
aid. "Food aid from abroad makes production difficult, but with GMOs
farmers could make a profit even if the seeds are expensive," he said.
Supporting Shikwati's case for GMOs at the meeting, Wilson told EU officials
present that a combination of biotechnology and economic policies could play a
significant role in reducing hunger in Africa. "The world is on the
threshold of an agricultural revolution," Wilson said. "GMOs can
reduce the cost of food production, help the environment, reduce pesticides and
feed the starving." The case for GM crops did not go unchallenged at the
meeting. Alexander de Roo, vice-president of the Environment Committee at the
European Parliament and member of the Green Party, said the US was promoting GM
foods for its own financial gain. "It's up to Africans if they want to buy
GM food," he said. "I would advise them not to, but what I don't
understand is why there is so much pressure from the US"
GM crops were first commercially cultivated in the early 1990s. It was claimed
they would increase resistance to pests and weed-killers, increase yields, cut
prices and enhance the nutritional value of crops. Cultivation has expanded
rapidly since then, especially in the US, which now produces 68% of GM food,
followed by Argentina with 23%. Canada produces 7% and China 1%. The US grows
biotech crops, mostly corn, over 96.3 million hectares.
But outside the US, and especially in Europe, GM foods have been criticised by
consumers as unsafe, unnecessary and bad for the environment. The GM debate has
become a particularly sensitive issue between the EU and the US. Last month US
President George Bush accused Europe of "impeding" US efforts to
fight famine in Africa because of "unfounded" fears over GM foods.
The US has taken its case to the WTO, which deals with trade rules between
nations, to get the EU to relax its restrictions. The EU, however, denies
claims that its reluctance to allow new GM foods is keeping developing countries
away from these foods. Officials say they simply need more time to develop
systems for tracing and labelling GM foods and feed. EU Trade Commissioner
Pascal Lamy was quoted by the US Wall Street Journal last month as saying that
"choices for developing countries should not mean 'accept GM food or
starve'."
Several consumer groups and civil society organisations say the US is arguing
the case for GM foods to promote its financial self-interest. Juan Lopez of
Friends of the Earth International, the world's largest environment federation,
told IPS that GM food cannot solve the food crisis in Africa. "GM crops
aim to consolidate the big agribusiness control of a food chain," he said.
"They would just force small farmers in developing countries out of
business." GM crops cannot solve the problem of hunger and food security
in developing countries, he said, "since they are not the right response
to the real causes of those problems, like debt, lack of infrastructure and
Western subsidies."
Swiss
reject GM moratorium 
FoodNavigator,
25 June 03 (shortened)
The Swiss Parliament has rejected a
moratorium on GM crops. The Lower House voted to reject the moratorium by 77:70,
reflecting an about-turn by the Lower House to support the Upper House, which
at the beginning of June voted overwhelmingly against any moratorium by a
majority of 29 to 6 votes. In May this year,
the Lower House had originally voted in favour of a moratorium (83:78). This
led to the need to find a resolution between the 2 Houses. Swiss parliamentary
procedure dictates that both Houses must reach consensus prior to decisions
becoming law.
“We applaud this decision, which is a positive political move in Europe,” said Simon Barber, director of the Plant Biotechnology Unit at EuropaBio, the European biotech industry body. “At long last, we are beginning to see encouraging signals to support this important technology,” he added.
His words would no doubt be echoed by US President George
W. Bush who, this week, renewed his criticism of EN for refusing to accept GM
foods, and contended the ban was contributing to famine in Africa. Speaking at
a biotechnology conference in Washington, President Bush commented: "For
the sake of a continent threatened by famine, I urge the European governments
to end their opposition to biotechnology. We should encourage the spread of
safe, effective biotechnology to win the fight against global hunger." European countries, and crucially, European
consumers, are concerned about the safety of GM foods. Since 1998 Europe has
upheld a moratorium on new GM crops, a
position roundly criticized by the US.
Snippet!! DNA changes to reduce caffeine fix
As the debate hots up over GM
foodstuffs, a report published in the latest issue of Nature suggests that,
thanks to the tinkering of genes, decaffeinated coffee could be grown on
bushes....http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news.asp?id=7865
Biotech
crops and biodiversity
AgBioView, 26 Jun
03, http://www.bio-scope.org/attach/debates/Report-Biodiv-Biotech3.pdf
GM crops can have a number of positive impacts on
biodiversity including enabling growers to use less pesticides and less
tillage, says Professor Klaus Ammann, Head of the Botanical Garden in Berne,
Switzerland, in his new study, "Biodiversity and Agricultural
Biotechnology - A Review of the Impact of the Biotechnology on
Biodiversity." "Loss of biodiversity is occurring in many parts of
the globe, often at a rapid pace," said Ammann. "Biological diversity
has emerged in the past decade as a key area of concern for sustainable
development. It provides a source of significant economic, aesthetic, health
and cultural benefits."
Ammann's study is a comprehensive review of the literature relevant to the
impact of agricultural biotechnology on biodiversity in comparison with other
agricultural practices commonly used. The study states that many of the factors
negatively affecting biodiversity are related directly or indirectly to the
needs of agricultural production. "Increased human populations and limited
arable land have demanded increased agricultural productivity leading to more
intensive agricultural
practices on a global basis," he said. "Higher yielding crop
varieties have been coupled with increased inputs in the form of fertilizers
and pesticides and more intensive practices such as tillage of soil."
Ammann said that technological advances such as GM crops with insect resistance
and herbicide tolerance have demonstrated potential to enhance productivity
while reducing broad-spectrum
insecticides and helping growers to adopt more soil saving practices such as
reduced tillage. In addition, Ammann said that GM crops could increase yields
and decrease variability in yields, which reduces the need to put additional
land into agricultural production. The widespread belief that biotechnology
leads inevitably to a reduction of genetic variability in crops has been
questioned. On the contrary studies show that the genetic uniformity can be
reduced up to 30%.
"By slowing the rate at which natural habitats are destroyed, GM crops and
other technologies that increase agricultural productivity can help to preserve
the natural biodiversity," said Ammann. Insect resistant crops reduce the
use of broad-spectrum insecticides that would otherwise have direct and
indirect effects on natural communities dwelling near agricultural fields, he
said. These new technologies also show reduced impact on non-target insects
compared to indiscriminate
impact of the traditional broad-spectrum insecticides.
"GM crops are important tools in the preservation of biodiversity,"
said Ammann. "Overall, creating agricultural systems with minimal impact
on biodiversity will require utilizing all available technologies while simultaneously
encouraging appropriate farmer practices."
The full report is
available at: http://www.bio-scope.org/attach/debates/Report-Biodiv-Biotech3.pdf
US sour on EU's rules for
bio-foods
Jeffrey Sparshott, Washington Times, 3 Jul 03
(shortened)
European lawmakers yesterday approved strict rules to
identify and track GM foods, a move quickly criticized by the US farm industry
and the Bush administration as a new barrier to American products. The US and
EU’s running battle over biotechnology has escalated this year, adding one more
dispute to strained trans-Atlantic trade relations. The 15-nation EU, citing
consumer-health and environmental-safety concerns, has effectively barred new
GM crops from its market since 1998. Bush administration officials say the EU
policy is unscientific and has a chilling effect in poor nations that could
benefit from biotechnology. The administration in May filed a case with the WTO
to force a rewrite of EU rules. EU officials hoped the laws approved yesterday
would encourage the US to drop the case, but American officials were not
appeased. "Today's action does not lift the EU's illegal moratorium on
biotech products," said Richard Mills, spokesman for the US Trade
Representative's office.
American farming officials said the new rules would
create a bigger barrier to trade than the informal EU policy that now blocks
the production or sale of many biotech crops inside the 15-nation bloc.
"We think their remedy for the problem is just as
bad if not worse than the problem itself," said Ron Gaskill, international
trade policy specialist with the American Farm Bureau, the country's largest
farm organization. Legislation approved yesterday by Europe's parliament would
allow the approval of new products, but also implements a system to trace and
label biotech crops, food products and animal feed derived from biotech crops.
"We will now have the most rigorous premarketing assessment of GM food and
feed in the world," said David Byrne, the EU health and
consumer-protection commissioner. The EU’s 15 members must still adopt the
rules passed by parliament, but it is expected that it will be approved this
year, said Charlotte Hebebrand, special adviser in the agriculture and
food-safety section of the EU delegation in Washington. Environmental and
consumer groups in the EU praised the legislation, but US farm groups said they
would not work.
"The rules themselves on labeling and
traceability are both commercially impossible and not scientifically
justified," Mr. Gaskill said.
The US is the world leader in agricultural
biotechnology. Soybeans, corn and cotton are the most popular crops, 81 % of
all soybeans, 40 % of corn and 73 % of cotton crops are GM, according to US
Agriculture Department figures for this year. St. Louis-based Monsanto is one
of the largest producers of the crops, which are often genetically altered to
withstand pests. Because of the US distribution system, which generally does
not segregate biotech from conventional crops, a wide array of US-made products
sold in the EU would be affected by the rules.
While some crops sales are limited now, corn farmers
estimate they lose $300 million annually in lost sales, new rules mean that
biotech ingredients would have to be linked back to their origin and food
products would have to be labeled. Mr. Gaskill said soybean oil, cottonseed
oil, animal feed, sweeteners and many processed foods like tortilla chips or
taco shells would fall under the EU labeling requirements. Food that contains
0.9% GM ingredients would read "This product contains GMOs" or that
it is "produced from GM [name of organism]." "There is a pretty
significant impact because of the wide use of those [biotech] products in the
US for many years," Mr. Gaskill said. Mr. Mills said that the
biotechnology regulations should be based on scientific evidence, should not
prejudice consumers and should be feasible for producers. "We are
concerned that the proposed EU traceability and labeling regulation does not
meet this standard," he said.
'White biotech' for sustainability
Crop Biotech Update, 27 Jun 03
Feike Sijbesma, Chairman of Europabio, stated that the use
of microorganisms like moulds, yeasts or bacteria and enzymes in industrial
production can contribute to sustainability since these microorganisms can help
conserve water, energy and raw materials. These were the results of 6 case
studies that were carried out by independent organizations, such as the
Oeko-Institute in Freiburg, Germany. "White biotechnology" or
industrial biotech, is a bioprocess that is used to produce antibiotics,
vitamins, detergents, bio-plastics and new textile fibers. This new bioprocess
is said to have a positive effect on the environment, and considerable economic
benefits. All 6 studies showed important environmental benefits can be achieved
using this bioprocess since, in the case of antibiotics, raw material
requirements and energy consumption can be reduced by as much as 65%, while
cost can be cut by 50%. "To capture the potential of white biotechnology,
a technology platform (with all stakeholders present) should be set up. Such a
change cannot happen overnight in Europe, the EU must start to make long term
plans right now," states Feike Sijbesma.
More on Europabio at http://www.europabio.org.
Q: What is the greatest threat to food safety? A: Microbial contamination. Microorganisms occur everywhere in nature
and it is difficult to avoid having them on food. Food contaminated with microorganisms
becomes degraded and can contain toxins that cause food poisoning. IFIC
Foundation Food Insight, Sept/Oct 2002
Recycling GE food
myths
Brenda
Cassidy, Food Safety Network 6 July 03, AgBioView (shortened) http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/gmo/recycling.htm
The European Parliament's approval of new labelling requirements for food and feed
made with GE ingredients is the latest in a series of developments in the
ongoing international debate surrounding the use of GE technology to develop
improved crop varieties. The
Since the 2001 release of a comprehensive Royal Commission report on the
various aspects of GE technology and the potential impact of its use, NZ’s
government has engaged in efforts to develop regulatory and policy changes
necessary for ensuring that GE technology can be used safely and in a manner
that is beneficial to the country as a whole. A current moratorium on the
release of GE organisms in NZ is scheduled to end in Oct 2003. Among other
initiatives, the government is engaged in a public consultation process on GE
food labelling. Although a mandatory labelling
system for foods containing GE ingredients is currently in place, the Royal
Commission report recognized that the information provided by such a system
falls short of meeting consumer information needs regarding the use of GE
technology in food products. Such discussions function as political lightning
rods wherever they occur, attracting both proponents and opponents of the
technology, who invariably attempt to support their contradictory views with
what appears to be "sound science'". Whether such evidence bears up
to scrutiny is another matter. This past week in NZ, Green Party MP Sue Kedgley
called for new regulations for GE animal feed, claiming that GE feeds increased
mortality rates and affected growth patterns in a Canadian feeding trial
conducted on chickens. A synopsis of the feeding trial results, offering
similar conclusions, was also published in the UK's Daily Mail.
What Ms. Kedgley failed to mention, and what the Daily Mail glossed over, was
that the 1996 study presented conclusions, based on the data collected, that
were direct contradictions of their alarmed assertions regarding the risks of
GE animal feeds. According to the University of Guelph's Dr. S. Leeson, who
conducted the trial, body weight, feed intake and mortality rate of the animals
in the study were unaffected by the feed source, whether GE or non-GE corn. Did
their concerns result from a simple misreading of a complex scientific report?
Unlikely, given that opponents to the use of GE technology made similar
allegations based on this study in 2001. The UK's Advisory Committee on
Releases to the Environment (ACRE), a committee composed of independent
scientists who provide advice to the UK government regarding the release and
marketing of GE organisms, examined the evidence and concluded in September of
that year that there was nothing to indicate that GE grain used as animal feed
posed any additional risk to humans and animals as compared to conventional
grain. Mortality rates for animals in the trial fell within expected ranges and
growth rate variations could not be confirmed from the data.
Undaunted by ACRE's conclusions, anti-GE groups have continued to point to this
study as evidence' to support their beliefs, continually recycling the story in
the hope of reaching a receptive audience. This past week, it worked, and a
long-rejected myth became news' once again. The science of food safety is a
cumulative, contextual and complex discipline. Determining the safety of new
products, whether produced through GE or conventional technologies, involves
multiple assessments, including evaluations of potential risk to the
environment, to humans and to animals.
International scientific expert panels have determined that the use of GE
technology in the development of new food crops does not result in unique
risks. All new products, however produced, instead must be assessed on a
case-by-case basis to ensure their health and environmental safety. That's the
basis of Canada's food safety regulatory system for Plants with Novel Traits
(including those developed through GE technology), an approach that has
received strong international support. But such an approach, cautious, measured
and objective, won't make headlines. It doesn't lend itself to sweeping
pronouncements. It won't capture votes or raise funds for special interest
groups. It's the rational voice that often gets lost in the politically driven
debate about
GE foods.
Brenda Cassidy
is a research assistant with the Food Safety Network at the
Entry
into force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary, Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity UN Environment Programme 13 June 03
NOTIFICATION No. 2002-050
I have the honour to advise that the 50th instrument
of ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was deposited today with
the Depositary in New York. In accordance with its Article 37, the
Protocol will therefore enter into force on 11 Sept 03. To date, the
Parties to the Protocol are: Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia,
Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Djibouti, Ecuador, European Community, Fiji, France, Ghana, India, Kenya,
Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius,
Mexico, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niue, Norway, Oman, Palau,
Panama, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United
Republic of Tanzania and Venezuela.
I take this opportunity to congratulate all Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity that have already ratified or acceded to the Protocol and
urge the remaining countries to do so at their earliest convenience. The
full-text of the notification is available on the Convention on Biological
Diversity Web site at: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/notifications/2003/ntf-2003-050-bs-en.pdf.
General information on the CBD programme pertaining
to Biosafety
is available on the Convention on Biological
Diversity web site at: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety
Event
17 - 18 Nov 03: Cape Biotech 2003 Conference.. Kramer Building, Middle
Campus, UCT
The 3rd Cape Biotech
conference will be held to further interaction between academic and industrial
researchers, students, industrialists, entrepreneurs, government
representatives, funders and all others with an interest in building a future
in biotechnology in SA, and particularly, the Cape. The focus of the conference
will be the exploiting of regional strengths in biotechnology. ABSTRACTS are
invited for selective inclusion in the conference programme. Abstracts can be
presented as technical papers, short oral/ poster presentations or posters. For
further information regarding the conference and the call for papers, please
refer to the web-link found on www.capebiotech.org.za or contact Ms Britt Akermann, Cape Biotech, britt@capebiotech.co.za
tel: 021-426 0022; fax: 021-426 0029; www.capebiotech.co.za