BioLines

Where Nature and Science Meet

biolines@africabio.com

Vol. 42

Aug 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:

¨ The status of biosafety in Africa (1) ¨ Vatican says GM food is a blessing (2) ¨ Biotech "True Stories from the Frontier” (4) ¨ Let Africa grow 'Golden' rice (5) ¨ New EU food body sees no reason for Austria GMO ban (6) ¨ Scientists find gene that protects against potato blight (7) ¨ Revving up the Green Express (8) ¨ GM cottonwood reduces mercury in soils (9)

¨ US reacts to EU GMO rules (9 ) ¨ Muslim council says yes to GM foods (10) ¨ Biotech cuts food prices (10) ¨ GE food safe as rest of menu (11) ¨ EU sets rules for embryo use in stem cell research (11) ¨ Is GM food a poison? (12) ¨ GM cotton crops halve pesticide use (14) ¨ Jobs (14)

________________________________________________________________________________

The status of biosafety in Africa
Tawanda Zidenga, ISB News Report, Jul 03 http://www.isb.vt.edu/. From AgBioView 17 Jul 03. Tawanda Zidenga, Crop Science Department, University of Zimbabwe, tawandazidenga@justice.com (shortened)

Agricultural biotechnology holds a great promise for Africa. Tissue culture and marker-assisted selection are already in widespread use across the continent while for most countries genetic transformation is still in the developing stages. The safe application of these technologies requires functioning biosafety systems throughout Africa. This article focuses on the special issues related to biosafety in Africa and describes the current status of biosafety in the continent, with specific examples of current progress given for Egypt, SA and Zimbabwe.

Agricultural and social systems in Africa differ considerably with those in the West; therefore, some differences between Africa and the West are encountered in both the approach to and emphasis placed on biosafety issues. First, while hybrid seed adoption by smallholder farmers is now considerably high, some farmers still save seed from the previous harvest to plant in the next growing season. The right of farmers to save seed is probably one of the biggest issues in risk management since seed-saving makes it almost impossible to specify and monitor the conditions of use.

In some sectors, GMOs are still being identified with the terminator technology (which has never been commercialized), leading some people to fear that these technologies could create a kind of dependency on large seed companies, driving farmers into a technological fix. While the potential role of the terminator technology in biosafety has been suggested, it cannot be recommended under these circumstances. Second, many of the most important crops in Africa, such as banana and the root and tuber crops (cassava, sweet potato, potato, etc.), are not normally supplied through seed companies. Currently, there is some systematic distribution of tissue culture (virus eliminated) material in countries such as Zimbabwe and Kenya, but informal propagation will always occur. Such a scenario creates a challenge for any biosafety framework. Once a GM cultivar of sweet potato is released into the market, it will spread to other areas through this informal propagation.

Food aid. Food security and food safety offer regulatory challenges in Africa. Africa frequently runs into food shortages compounded by drought and unstable political systems. In such situations, there is provision of food aid from other countries. A biosafety protocol may need to address how to deal with this food aid. Zambia made headlines when it rejected GM food aid from America, a decision that was made against a background of starvation in some parts of the country. The urgent need for food will put pressure on the biosafety issues to be considered when dealing with food aid. Some consider it a luxury to debate biosafety while people are starving, when others argue that safety comes first. Other countries have accepted GM food aid on the condition that the grain is milled to prevent it from being propagated in the fields.

The obvious differences in molecular capacity between western countries and developing nations in Africa are also an issue. In designing a biosafety system, a national assessment should be made of the existing scientific and technical capacity. A weak scientific and technical capacity impacts negatively on the biosafety framework. Capacity building in these countries is required not only to enable the development of biotechnologies, but also to assist the regulatory authorities in critically assessing draft models and deriving functional biosafety frameworks.

Public attitude towards GM foods in Africa often smacks of a victim mentality. Fears of corporate control of an agricultural system that traditionally was communally owned, coupled with apprehensions of marginalization and the memory of colonial domination, lead to distrust of solutions that appear imposed externally. At the OAU Workshop on an African Model Law on Biosafety held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (May 2001), the text of a draft model law was tabled for adoption as an African initiative until the next OAU Council of Ministers meeting. The model was described by some as "preventative" and aimed at depriving Africa from deriving the benefits of biotechnology.

While the objective of harmonizing biosafety legislation is praiseworthy, the OAU model ignored existing model legislation in several countries (SA, Zimbabwe and Egypt) and draft legislation nearing adoption in many other African countries. This could lead to diverse and conflicting national biosafety systems. The model contains numerous provisions, inconsistent with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), which member states have already signed. The bill was opposed by scientists and leading groups in Africa, such as AfricaBio (http://www.africabio.com) and African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (http://www.absfafrica.org).

It is a point of consensus that improving food security and agriculture in Africa requires more than technology. Good governance, wise policies, infrastructure and investment are other key requirements, and Africa faces particularly high hurdles in these areas. Against this background, African countries have made impressive progress in biotechnology and biosafety. Such undertakings obviously require funding, national commitment and political will.

Egypt is one of the countries in Africa where research in biotechnology is at an advanced stage. The Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI; http://www.agri.gov.eg/gene.htm) is one centre for state-of-the-art research in Egypt, focusing on developing pest resistant and stress tolerant varieties of crops such as tomato, maize and potato. Egypt issued biosafety guidelines in 1994 and procedures for commercialization of GM plants in 1998. Zimbabwe has a Biotechnology Research Institute as well as the Tobacco Research Board, both centres of state-of-the-art research, while work is also done at the University of Zimbabwe (transgenic maize improvement, sweet potato micropropagation and genetic engineering of cowpea). Zimbabwe adopted biosafety regulations in 1998 and the National Biosafety Committee was set up in 1999.

SA has developed genetic engineering techniques and capacity over the last 3 decades. However, this technology is only now being applied or commercialized. There are about 55 companies involved in biotechnology, with products mainly in the plant and medical sectors. In 1998, the first commercial GM crops were grown in SA under a general release permit. The GMO Act of 1997, which was implemented in 1999, controls the import of live GM products and is aimed at protecting the consumer as well as the environment. This Act does not cover human cloning, but covers most other products of modern genetic modification technology.

It was proposed during this year's World Life Sciences Forum (http://www.biovision.org) in Lyon, France, that regulatory mechanisms and biosafety measures at national and international levels need to be harmonized and a global system developed, building on the Biosafety Protocol. Decision-making requires public participation, but public participation demands public genetic literacy. Along with the development of biosafety frameworks in Africa, there is a greater need to improve public understanding of biotechnology. In the end, a biosafety framework must not be a means to deprive Africa of a promising technology, but a way of ensuring safe application based on sound science.

Sources:
1. Morris EJ and Koch M. (2002) Biosafety of GM crops-an African perspective. ABN 4: 102.
http://www.agbiotechnet.com/reviews/Abstract.asp?ID=188

2. Mclean MA, Frederick RJ, Traynor PL, Cohen JL, and Komen J. (2003) A Framework for Biosafety Implementation: Report of a Meeting, organized by ISNAR Biotechnology Service July 2001, Washington, DC, USA . http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/ibs/publicat.htm
3. AfricaBio (2001) Submission on the OAU model law on biosafety. http://www.africabio.com
4. Conway G. (2003) from the green revolution to the biotechnology revolution: Food for poor people in the 21st century. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Director's Forum, March 12 2003. http://www.rockfound.org/documents/566/Conway.pdf
5. AfricaBio (2003) SAn biotechnology. http://www.africabio.com/policies/biotechsa.shtml

Vatican says GM food is a blessing
Richard Owen. The Times, 5 Aug 03, AgBioView 5 Aug 03

"The Book of Genesis clearly establishes the domination of man over nature. God has entrusted mankind to preserve nature but also to use it."

Vatican Official

The Vatican has stunned opponents of GM foods by declaring they hold the answer to world starvation and malnutrition. Until Sunday's statement the Vatican had been neutral in the EU-US confrontation over GM food. Archbishop Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said the Vatican was preparing an official report on biotechnology, to be published next month, which would come down in favour of GM. The document will coincide with a debate on GM by EU farm ministers.

Archbishop Martino said the Pope was greatly interested in new technologies for food development as part of a policy of sustainable agriculture. He noted that 24 000 people died every day from starvation. Archbishop Martino, who until last year was the Vatican representative at the UN, said he had lived for 16 years in the US "and I ate everything that was offered to me, including GM products. They had no effect on my health. This controversy is more political than scientific." The Vatican study will argue that the future of humanity is at stake and that there is no room for the ideological arguments advanced by environmentalists. One Vatican official said: "The Book of Genesis clearly establishes the domination of man over nature. God has entrusted mankind to preserve nature but also to use it."

Archbishop Martino said the Pope had been influenced by the growing weight of advice from the Vatican's scientific advisers. "The Pope ardently desires to do something for the billions of people who go to bed hungry every night," he said. Archbishop Martino said freedom from hunger was one of the fundamental rights of man. The Vatican's stand was consistent with its belief in "the right to life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death". Vatican officials said many in the West had made up their minds about genetic modification while ignoring the benefits to the world's hungry. Velasio De Paolis, a professor of canon law at the Pontifical Urban University, said it was "easy to say no to GM food if your stomach is full".

Scientific progress was part of the divine plan, he said. "The introduction of new and more efficient technologies such as second and third-generation GM foods, in harmony with sustainable development, is not a threat but a benefit." Carlo Bernardini, editor of Italy's leading scientific magazine, Sapere, said he hoped Italy, which holds the rotating EU presidency, would take its lead from the Pope. But Alfonso Scanio Pecoraro, head of the Italian Greens and a former agriculture minister, said he was horrified by the Vatican's intervention. "The church is using its authority to support a scam by the US multinationals," he said. He suspected the administration of US President George W. Bush had put pressure on the Holy See.

"With my additional income, I've remodelled my kitchen, purchased a new tractor and I'm able to spend more time with my 4 children,"

Thandiwe Myeni, Farmer and School Principal, Makhathini

Biotech "True Stories from the Frontier”
Dean Kleckner, Agweb.com, 31 Jul 03

The frontier of biotechnology is in a place called Bobodioulasso. That's the name of a town in the West African nation of Burkina Faso, a couple hundred miles from the capital of Ougadougou. Two weeks ago, the government announced in Bobodioulasso that it might allow farmers to plant GM cottonseed. That's fantastic news for the rural farmers of Burkina Faso. For them, cotton is king and they deserve the ability to plant the best crops biotechnology has to offer. When I attended the BIO convention in Washington, D.C. earlier this summer, I learned firsthand how biotech cotton makes a huge difference in the lives of African farmers who use it.

Consider the case of Thandiwe Myeni, a widowed school principal in SA. When I talked to her, she told me that like many of her neighbours in Makhathini Flats, she is a cotton farmer. She's been doing it for nearly a decade. In the past, however, growing conventional varieties of cotton, she only planted 2 to 3 hectares. It just took so much time and the yields were so low. As every farmer knows, you have to maximize your resources if you hope to be successful in agriculture. Myeni wasn't able to do this because the work was so demanding. Then, in 1997, she started planting bt cotton, which operates on the same genetic basis as the bt maize so many American farmers grow. The results were amazing. Her yields shot up by as much as 50 %, her pesticide applications plummeted and she was able to plant all 10 hectares of her property. Best of all, she had time left over to spend with her family.

A study by the University of Pretoria shows that farmers planting bt cotton in Makhathini Flats have improved their net annual income by $43 per hectare. "With my additional income, I've remodelled my kitchen, purchased a new tractor and I'm able to spend more time with my 4 children," says Myeni. Today, 90% of the cotton farmers in Makhathini Flats use bt cotton. One of Myeni's neighbours is T.J. Buthelezi, who also started adopting the remarkable advances in cotton technology in the late 90s. "For the first time, I'm making money," he says. "I'm paying my debts."

Is it any wonder the cotton farmers of Burkina Faso would like to enjoy the same benefits? Each year, the non Bt cotton has to be sprayed EVERY week just to keep the bollworms out. With Bt cotton, however, they can reduce the number of applications they must make to two or three a season, saving money, time and labour. The debate over crop technology is bigger than Burkina Faso and Makhathini Flats, of course. At a recent summit meeting of African leaders, 40 heads
of state called for a comprehensive strategy on biotechnology and GM crops. They're planning to appoint an advisory panel to study the issue and make recommendations.

John Mugabe, one of the people behind this idea, has promised that the group will base its study and comments on "evidence, not perceptions." That's a worthy charge to keep, because even though some people hold the faulty perception that biotechnology is not safe, all the evidence says
there is no problem at all. It also makes economic sense for farmers. Anybody who doubts this fact should talk to Myeni and Buthelezi. Unfortunately, activist groups continue to spread fear there's already a call for African countries to adopt a 5-year moratorium on biotech crops. That's exactly the wrong approach. The continent of Africa shouldn't have to wait more years before its farmers can take advantage of what's commonly available in the US today.

Africa faces too many challenges and problems to be denied the wonderful tool of biotechnology. This talk of a five-year moratorium is nonsense. It will hurt the farmers who need the most help.

It's also misleading. The people who want a moratorium don't really want a moratorium they want a
permanent ban, but they won't come out and just say it. This talk of a "moratorium" is simply a strategic bluff to make their unreasonable demands sound moderate. I'll take my stand against Greenpeace and the professional complainers’ anyday so long as I can stand with the farmers of Burkina Faso and Makhathini Flats.

Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org) is a national grassroots advocacy group based in Des Moines, IA formed by farmers in support of freer trade and advancements in biotechnology.

Let Africa grow 'Golden' rice
Dr. Francis Nang'ayo, New York Post, 19 Jul 03. From AgBioView 19 Jul 03 (shortened)
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/37982.htm

The focus of Americans in the aftermath of President Bush's trip to Africa naturally is the prospect of US troops being sent to Liberia. But for most people on my continent, the primary question is whether his visit ultimately will help advance the debate over biotechnology and genetically
modified foods, which have been stymied in Africa by Europe's objections to them. Per Pinstrup-Andersen of the International Food Policy Institute said recently at a Congressional Hunger Centre: "We need to talk about the low-income farmer in Africa who, on maybe an acre of land, is trying to feed her 5 children in the face of recurrent droughts, recurrent insect attacks, recurrent diseases. For her, losing a crop may mean losing a child. Now, how can we sit here debating whether she should have access to a drought-tolerant crop variety?"

Africa's population stood at 200 million 30 years ago. It is now 620 million. At the current growth rate, it is projected to increase to 1.3 billion over the next 25 years. Africa adds the equivalent of 5 Sacramento’s every month! 70% of Africans are farmers who eke out a living from small plots of family gardens with soils depleted from overuse in regions prone to drought, soil erosion and floods. The little that is cultivated must contend with epidemics of pests and diseases. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides are prohibitively expensive and, where used, are not without public and environmental health concerns. No wonder the African people lack adequate food to eat and surpluses to sell for income. No wonder they suffer from malnutrition. No wonder numerous African children go blind due to vitamin A deficiency.

Molecular biology-based research has developed GM crops with built-in protection against pests and diseases without the need of vast amounts of costly pesticides. One class incorporates an herbicide resistance gene. It allows farmers to spray herbicide on their fields to kill weeds, such as Striga, or purple witchweed, that infests the root systems of cereal crops, stunting their growth and leading to crops being lost. In addition to creating pest and herbicide-resistant plants, genetically-modified technology can also produce plants with improved nutritional qualities.  One of the most exciting developments so far has been the introduction of genes into rice that result in enhanced supply of Vitamin A and iron. This "golden" rice would thus fight both childhood blindness and anaemia and reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.

No technology is absolutely risk free. But Europe's threat to close its markets to African produce if GM crops are introduced won't promote safety. Only an exploration of relative benefits and risks can protect consumers and ensure the needs of the world's poor are met. As a scientist, I have yet to find any shred of evidence suggesting that foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic engineering. As University of California biologist Martina McGlooughlin rightly observed, "Biotech products go through a more thorough testing than conventional food ever has been subjected to and no product of conventional breeding could meet the data requirements imposed on biotech products by regulatory agencies prior to approval." The impact of biotechnology on food production, post-harvest losses and nutritional value of food could improve the lives and livelihoods of millions of poor people. It would be unethical to condemn millions to hunger by denying them access to development and technology simply because some activists imagine it is risky. Now that his trip is over, we can only hope President Bush continues to press for acceptance of a technology with the potential to save countless African lives.

Dr. Francis Nang'ayo, a principal research scientist in the Biotechnology Research Programme at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, is a contributing writer to TechCentralStation.com.

New EU food body sees no reason for Austria GMO ban

Jeremy Smith, Reuters, 11 Jul 03

Austria has presented no scientific evidence that would justify creating a GMO-free zone, a new EU food safety agency said yesterday. "European Food Safety Agency scientists have concluded there is no new scientific evidence, in the recently submitted report, to justify the banning of certain GMOs in upper Austria," it said in a statement. The opinion, the agency's first, is non-binding and is intended to help the European Commission reach a decision on whether to accept Austria's proposal to ban GMOs, including those that have been cleared for use in the EU. The case is not directly related to the trade suit the US has launched against the EU's 5-year unofficial ban on most GMOs, but may have an impact on the way national or regional governments try to restrict GMO farming in the future.

EU officials are predicting the bloc will start authorizing new GMO strains by the end of the year but that some anti-GMO countries, like Austria, may try to create GMO-free zone to protect conventional and organic crops from mixing with GMOs. EFSA's Executive Director Geoffrey Podger said no similar applications for GMO-free zones were in the pipeline for his scientists to consider. "I would have thought that other countries with similar interests to Upper Austria will probably want to wait for the Commission decision," he told a news conference. Upper Austria's provincial parliament passed the ban last year but it has not been formally put into effect, pending a reaction from the European Commission, the EU's executive arm which polices the bloc's single market laws. The ban would stop farmers planting any GMO seeds, even those which have been approved for use in the EU.

A central tenet of EU law is that products which have been approved for sale in the bloc must have free access to all markets. Countries can impose emergency bans if they provide new evidence the products could harm their environment. The governor of Upper Austria, Josef Puehringer, said he regretted EFSA's decision and would now wait for the Commission's final verdict, which is due by mid-September. "For us, the important question is the co-existence of GM and untampered crops, whether the Commission wants to thoroughly look into it and create some Europe-wide rules," he said.

Later this month, the Commission is due to adopt guidelines on how farmers can grow conventional, organic and GM crops in any kind of proximity an issue as co-existence. The EU's 15 farm ministers will discuss these guidelines in Sept. EFSA said the dossier of evidence that Austria put forward was insufficient to justify a ban. "It became clear to them (EFSA scientists) that it contained no new public health or environment-related evidence which would justify a different approach being taken in Upper Austria than for the EU in general," Podger said in a statement. (additional reporting by Robin Pomeroy in Brussels, Louis Charbonneau in Vienna)

Aphids produce young by parthenogenesis (clones) when there is an abundance of food. As food dwindles they return to sexual reproduction.

Science Encyclopedia, Dorling Kindersley

Scientists find gene that protects against potato blight
Terry Devitt, University of Wisconsin, AgBioView, 14 Jul 03 (shortened)

Scouring the genome of a wild Mexican potato, scientists have discovered a gene that protects potatoes against late blight, the devastating disease that caused the Irish potato famine. The discovery of the gene and its cloning by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was reported on 14 Jul 03 in online editions of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The identification of the gene, found in a species of wild potato known as Solanum bulbocastanum, holds significant potential. All of the varieties now cultivated commercially on more than 1.5 million acres in the US are highly susceptible to potato late blight, a family of fungal pathogens that wreaks havoc in the field, turning tubers to mush and invariably killing any plant it infects.

"We think this could be very useful," says John Helgeson, a UW-Madison professor of plant pathology, a research scientist with the US Department of Agriculture and a senior author of the PNAS paper. "No potato grown in the US on any scale at all has resistance to this disease." With the blight-resistant gene in hand, the Wisconsin team, which also includes Jiming Jiang, a UW-Madison professor of horticulture, was able to engineer plants that survived exposure to the many races of Phytophthora infesters. The insertion of a single gene, according to Jiang and Helgeson, effectively protects plants from the range of late blight pathogens. "So far, the plants have been resistant to everything we have thrown at them," says Helgeson.

The world's most serious potato disease, late blight, is best known as the cause of the Irish potato famine. Seeming to appear from nowhere in 1845, the fungus wiped out the staple crop of the densely populated island nation, causing mass starvation over 5 years, killing more than a million people and sparking a wave of immigration that had worldwide social consequences. More than 150 years later, Ireland's population has yet to return to pre-famine levels. Prior to the 1990s, chemical fungicides were available in the US and effectively held the disease at bay. But new strains of the pathogen have emerged, testing the limits of the technology and requiring American farmers to treat potato fields as many as a dozen times a season at a cost of up to $250 per acre. In warmer climates such as Mexico, fields may be treated as many as 25 times a year with the costly and toxic chemicals. "We used to be able to get by, but the new (late-blight) strain just levels things in no time at all," says Helgeson.

The gene that protects potatoes from the fungus comes from a plant that scientists believe co-evolved in Mexico alongside the late-blight pathogen. It was discovered, ironically, as a result of the emergence of a new strain of P. infesters that swept through the US in 1994. At UW-Madison's Hancock Agricultural Research Station, the only plants to survive were the wild Mexican species and its progeny in Helgeson's test plots. Subsequent to the 1994 outbreak, which required the development of new fungicides for agriculture, Helgeson and his colleagues began the hunt for the genes that conferred resistance on the wild Mexican cousin of the domesticated tubers familiar to consumers.

But despite the huge economic and environmental gains that could be realized, it is unclear if the technology will be widely utilized. Because of European fears of GM crops, and the control exercised over growers by a few large buyers, there is currently no engineered potato in commercial production anywhere. The use of conventional breeding techniques to move the newfound blight-resistance gene into the few dominant commercial varieties popular in the US is all but impossible, according to Jiang. "We can do it by conventional breeding, but we can't move it into the standard cultivated varieties without losing them," he says. "It is almost impossible to create another Burbank variety, for example, through conventional breeding. Your odds of getting the one gene in would be like winning the lottery." Still, the Wisconsin group, plans to develop engineered varieties for the garden. The hope, they say, is to develop the technology that will gradually win consumer acceptance and, perhaps someday, go where no GMO has gone before.

Revving up the Green Express
Deborah A. Fitzgerald, The Scientist, Vol. 17 no. 14 , p45;  14 Jul 03. From AgBioView

Agricultural researchers have designed a wide variety of GM plants with traits deemed beneficial to those who grow, market and consume them. But plants have another role in biotech: Members of the green kingdom also can be used, quite literally, as manufacturing plants for large-scale, recombinant protein production. Such proteins have potential industrial, research, and clinical applications. Plant expression systems may ultimately help the pharmaceutical industry meet the rising demand for therapeutic proteins. "Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are one of the fastest expanding categories of protein drug," says Lee Quarles, spokesperson for Monsanto Protein
Technologies. With analysts predicting that more than 70 therapeutic mAbs will be on the market by 2008, requiring production of over 10 metric tons of mAbs annually, plant-based expression could decrease manufacturing costs between four- and five-fold over traditional cell culture techniques, he says, depending on the scale of operation and the particular protein and expression host employed.

Other advantages include easy scalability, high product yields, reduced risks of contamination with bacterial endotoxins or mammalian pathogens, proper folding and assembly of protein complexes, and the ability to perform most posttranslational modifications. But plants have downsides too. Companies using plants for protein production must guard against a number of potential safety issues, including contamination with residual pesticides, herbicides and toxic plant metabolites. In a broader context, using transgenic field crops to produce recombinant proteins invites the ire of those opposed to GM plants in general, who worry that transgenes and their encoded proteins will
spread in the environment, ultimately affecting nontarget organisms.

To address this latter concern, scientists are pursuing several options, including asexual reproduction, male sterility, "suicide" genes, plant host genomes incompatible with nearby related species, chloroplast genetic engineering, methods for removing or doing without selectable markers, and postharvest expression systems. As the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) establish a growing body of safety guidelines, several companies are beginning to carefully move forward in developing, testing and utilizing plants for protein expression.

Nevertheless, it rarely hurts to hedge one's bets. "Many pharmaceutical companies are opting to prepare for projected increases in the demand for protein therapeutics by means other than, or in addition to, plant-based expression, including investing in additional infrastructure for producing
proteins via already widely used methods such as cell culture and/or exploring alternative approaches, such as protein production in transgenic animals," says Nate Cosper, industry manager for drug discovery and clinical diagnostics at Frost & Sullivan, a global market-consulting firm.

Plant researchers have developed a wide range of tools and strategies for protein expression in plant species such as maize, rice, wheat, tobacco, alfalfa, tomato, potato, banana, oilseed rape, and soybean. Transgenes can be stably introduced by using the soil pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens, or via direct transfer procedures such as electroporation, microinjection, or "biolistic" particle bombardment (biolistic is a coined word derived from biological and ballistic). Alternatively, plants can host transient gene expression driven by modified viral vectors. Protein expression can be cytosolic throughout the entire plant, or targeted to either specific plant organs or intracellular compartments. Proteins can be expressed directly within the plastids (for example, chloroplasts), which have their own separate genomes.

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/jul/lcprofile1_030714.html

SNIPPET:

AfricaBio staff facilitated at an African Seed Trade Association workshop in Kenya in July 2003 to introduce biotechnology, gene transfer and trade issues. The programme covered 18 topics in 2 days. The delegates gave high praise for the workshop and requested “more topics and a longer duration” for the next course!

GM cottonwood reduces mercury in soils

CropBioechNet, 25 Jul 03

Researchers from the University of Georgia have been able to transform cottonwood plants with mercuric ion reductase to help reduce the presence of ionic mercury in contaminated soils and wasteland. Scott Merkle and colleagues noted that mercury contamination is widespread both in the US and around the world. It is evident in river basins that are contaminated with mercury from mine wastes as well as lakes and marshlands. It is also a problem in production sites, particularly in energy and defence-related activities. Cottonwood is relatively flexible and can be grown on a wide variety of contaminated sites. Merkle adds that the first field test on a few GM trees have been done and “depending on how this test and others go, the trees might be used commercially within a few years.” The research team report their findings in an article entitled “Expression of Mercuric Ion Reductase in Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoids) Confers Mercuric Ion Reduction and Resistance” published in the Plant Biotechnology Journal 1 (4).

For more details, email Scott Merkle at smerkle@uga.edu.

US reacts to EU GMO rules - labelling and tracing plans are criticized, but new UN rules may strengthen EU position.

Andrew Scott, ©2003, The Scientist Inc. in association with BioMed Central. 9 Jul 03 (shortened)

US trade officials say that the EU's proposed new rules for the labelling and traceability of GM crops and foods will not be enough to resolve a complaint the US currently has before the WTO. The rules, approved by a vote of the European Parliament last week, require special labelling of food with more than 0.9% GM content, or which involved GM crops in its production, and the meticulous tracing of GM products from the field to the consumer.

The vote was intended to clear the path to removing the EU's de facto moratorium on new GM approvals, in place since 1998. This moratorium arose when some member states of the EU blocked new approvals because of fears about safety and consumers' right to know if GM crops were present in foods or had been used in their production. This has been interpreted by the US and some other countries as unfair blocking of the free movement of safe products and led to the complaint to the WTO, a first decision on which is expected later this year.

Richard Mills, of the US Trade Representative's office, said that the new rules would not be sufficient for the WTO complaint to be resolved. In a statement released after the vote, he said the new labelling requirements should be nonprejudicial and feasible. "We are concerned that the proposed traceability and labelling does not meet this standard," he said. The US position may have been weakened by the adoption by the UN of new standards on GM crops. These standards are widely used as the legal basis for resolving trade disputes. They provide detailed procedures for determining if GM foods are safe and also endorse the concept of traceability, which is central to the European proposals.

David Bowe of the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy does not see much hope for things changing to suit US demands. He told The Scientist that the new proposal is "the best we can get in terms of a balanced piece of legislation, and it will give the consumer choice if we can make it work." "There will be some member states who wish to persist with the moratorium," Bowe said. "I am sure there are going to be a lot of disputes." He pointed out that the real test will only come when the appropriate Regulatory Committees meet to consider new applications, something that is not likely until the fall.

Simon Barber of EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, believes the new rules meet the demands of the member states that have been blocking new approvals. "We now see no reason for the continued moratorium," he told The Scientist. The reaction of the US biotech and agriculture community has been overwhelmingly negative. "The new traceability and labelling standards are impractical," Val Giddings, of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, based in Washington, D.C, said in a statement. "We fear the result [of the rules] would be to replace an overt moratorium with a technical barrier to trade that would be no less indefensible."

Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said in a statement: "The EU has only made a bad situation worse. It's commercially impossible to comply with the rule, it's not justified by any scientific analysis and it's just as WTO-inconsistent as the biotech ban that the EU says it will replace." European anti-GM pressure groups are taking some comfort from the new EU rules but are far from satisfied. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) would have preferred a threshold of 0.1% rather than 0.9%, in order to make it as strict as current testing techniques allow.

But they gave the rules a general welcome. "This new legislation is a welcome step in the right direction and will allow countries to take action to protect our food and farming from genetic pollution," Geert Ritsema, FoEE's GMO campaign coordinator, said in a statement. "It will also give consumers and farmers more information so that they can choose whether or not to take part in the biotech industry's massive GM experiment."

Muslim council says yes to GM foods

CropBiotechNet, 11 Jul 03

The Indonesian Ulemas Council or MUI, the highest Muslim body in the country authorized to release religious rulings or labels of halal (lawful or permitted) on processed food products distributed in the country, has given the go-signal for imported GM foods. The Jakarta Post quoted Professor Aisyah Girindra, head of medicine and food supervision at the MUI, as saying that "Despite there being no official ruling on GMO-based food products, as long as it comes from plantations, such as soya bean or maize, there are no problems." Aisyah noted that without a ruling to the contrary, Indonesian Muslims remain free to consume GMO products. For the Muslims, all foods are considered halal except for a few which include swine/pork and its by-products, animals improperly slaughtered, and food contaminated with any of these products.

For the full report visit http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,198597-1057701540,00.html?

Biotech cuts food prices
Doug Zellmer, Oshkosh North-western, 16 Jul 03. From AgBioView 19 Jul 03 (shortened)

Biotechnology is changing the face of farming and has a lot to do with keeping the cost reasonable for your morning bowl of cereal.  Farmers are planting disease, insect and drought-resistant maize and getting higher yields per acre, which in turn have provided a more than ample supply of
grain for everything from cereal to cattle feed. More supply than demand generally means consumers won't have to pay a high price for the products they buy at the grocery store, said exhibitors at Wisconsin Farm Technology Days near Bear Creek.  It costs more for technology, but farmers and consumers reap the benefits, said John Riemer of Golden Harvest Hybrid Maize. He was one of more than 600 exhibitors at the 3-day agriculture expo.

He said based on $200 to plant an acre of maize and with a yield of 150 bushels an acre, farmers are looking at a per-bushel cost of $1.33.  "As new technology comes out it could cost $220 an acre to plant, but the farmer will realize 180 bushels per acre and a $1.22 per-bushel cost of production. That's 10 % lower," said Riemer. "If the farmer can lower the cost of production they can help maintain lower food prices." The percentage of disposable income spent for food in the US has declined over the past 30 years, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Food is more affordable today due to a widening gap between growth in per-capita incomes and the amount of money spent for food, said the USDA.

Statistics from the USDA indicate the average American earned enough income to pay for his or her family's annual food supply this year by 6 Feb, which is 37 days. In 1990 it took 42 days and 65 days in 1960.  "Food costs over the past 10 years haven't changed much and I don't see prices changing that much in the nex