BioLines

Where Nature and Science Meet

biolines@africabio.com

Vol. 43                             

Sep 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:

 

¨       African scientists find that GM foods pose no risk to humans or animals (1)

¨       USDA Requires Permits for Industrial Biotech Crops(2)

¨       Vatican mulls view change on GMOs (2)

¨       Kenyan parliamentarians chat the way forward for the country's Biosafety Bill (3)

¨       Judge lifts Brazilian court ban on GM Seeds (4)

¨       Bio-tech potato may solve many problems (5)

¨       UN in bid to buy non-GM food (6)

 

 

 

 

¨       Soften Stance on Biotech Crops - 'Governments need to step up involvement' (6)

¨       World's First Cloned Horse Born to its Genetic Twin (7)

¨       GMOs, God and the Prince of Wales (7)

¨       Organic products can be adulterated (8)

¨       Spain could become a leading force in plant biotechnology research (9)

¨       GM cotton crops halve pesticide use (10)

¨       GM trees quietly sprouting (10)

¨       Call for papers (11)

 

____________________________________________________________________­­­­­­­____________

African scientists find that GM foods pose no risk to humans or animals

The Biotech Advantage, 13 Aug 03

 

GMOs pose no immediate risk to humans or animals, says a 14-member team of African scientists after returning from a fact-finding trip to the US and Europe.  The scientists are members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and have encouraged that organization to support the new technology. "The scientists have recommended that SADC embrace biotechnology as one of the tools that can be used to address the issues of food security," SADC said in a written statement.  The scientists also seek the quick establishment of a regional advisory committee on biotechnology and the adoption of legislation to provide guidelines on GM use. The scientists' findings are expected to be endorsed by SADC ministers and heads of state later this month.  SADC member countries include Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe

DID YOU KNOW?THE STABILITY OF GENES DEPENDS ON DNA REPAIR

Despite the thousands of random changes created every day in the DNA of a human cell by heat energy and metabolic accidents, only a few stable changes (mutations) accumulate in the DNA sequence of an average cell in a year. We now know that fewer than one in a thousand accidental base changes in the DNA causes a mutation: the rest are eliminated with remarkable efficiency by DNA repair.”

Molecular Biology of the Cell, 1994, Garland Publishing, Inc.

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


USDA requires permits for industrial biotech crops

Randy Fabi, Aug 03, http://www.planetark.org

 

Biotech companies will have to obtain a federal permit before growing experimental plants engineered for industrial purposes like making paper, detergent and minerals, the US Agriculture Department said. Until now, companies have not been required to get government permission before launching US field tests of gene-spliced plants that are designed to produce industrial components or chemicals. The change is designed to help protect food crops from accidental contamination, the USDA said. Once a company applies, it will take about 4 months to issue a permit. US food industry groups said they supported the new rule, but called for tougher measures to ensure that experimental crops are not mixed with plants grown as food for humans or livestock.

Some companies are experimenting with industrial biotech crops to help manufacture a variety of products including paper, detergent and minerals. These crops are not approved for human or animal food. The USDA said companies must now obtain a government permit to move, field test or import industrial biotech crops. The department had regulated these crops under a notification process used for plants considered low risk and that had widely known genetic modifications. The department said companies were beginning to experiment with less familiar biotech traits in these crops. Meghan Thomas, spokeswoman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), said requiring permits would help the USDA keep a closer eye on the experimental crops. "This interim rule strengthens APHIS regulations for field testing of GE industrial plants in anticipation of an increase in requests to move, import or field test these types of plants," the USDA said. The USDA said the rule will be published in the Federal Register and will be effective immediately.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents companies developing new gene-spliced products, said it welcomed the new rule. The Grocery Manufacturers of America and the National Food Processors Association said they supported USDA's action, but that it wasn't enough. "While it's a step in the right direction, the first and absolute main concern of our companies is maintaining the security of our food supply," said Stephanie Childs, spokeswoman for the trade group. The food groups urged the Bush administration to impose a strict regulatory programme that places safeguards throughout the food system. In March, the USDA imposed tougher rules on planting industrial and pharmaceutical crops after a Texas biotech firm was accused of mishandling its experimental corn and accidentally contaminated other crops. Privately held ProdiGene Inc. last year agreed to pay about $3 million to settle the matter.

 

 

Vatican mulls view change on GMOs
Eric J. Lyman, United Press International, 8 Aug 03, http://www.upi.com/ (shortened)

The Vatican appears to be reversing its opposition to the use of GM foods, unexpectedly thrusting the Holy See into the debate on the subject raging between the US and the EU. A full
Vatican statement on the subject is not expected to be released until September, a timetable that would coincide with the annual meeting of EU farm ministers.  Information leaked this week, however, says when the statements are released they will highlight a clear shift in Vatican policy. Already church officials have made statements supporting the use of GM foods to feed the starving. Although the church had previously stayed clear of much of the debate over GM foods, the few statements on the subject indicated a well- marked-out opposition to the technology.

In 2000, for example, Pope John Paul II, speaking at a special Vatican mass dedicated to agriculture, called on farmers to "resist the temptation of high productivity and profit that work to the detriment of the respect of nature," adding that "when (farmers) forget this basic principle and
become tyrants of the earth rather than its custodians ... sooner or later the earth rebels."

Less than a year later, Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, the Vatican's permanent observer to the Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organization, formally asked the institution to monitor the spread of GM crops in Europe and to support tighter controls on the technology. Several times in recent years, bishops have made statements saying genetically modifying food was the same as tampering with God's work.

The latest statements on the subject, however, represent a dramatic change from those stances. In a statement to United Press International, Archbishop Renato Martino, head of the pontifical council for Justice and Peace, said the pope is "greatly interested in new technologies for food development as part of a policy of sustainable agriculture ... (and that he) ardently desires to do something for the billions of people who go to bed hungry every night." Martino also said there is biblical support for the new view, offering that "the Book of Genesis clearly establishes the domination of man over nature ... God has entrusted mankind to preserve nature but also to use it."

A related statement, obtained by United Press International, from Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, a professor of canon law at the
Pontifical Urban University, brushed away opposition to GM foods, saying it is "easy to say no to GM food if your stomach is full."  Although the new view has yet to be released as an official church document, expert observers say there is not much room for misinterpretation with the recent statements. "Given the reports that very senior church officials are making these statements, there is little doubt that the statements reflect a new view from the church," the Rev. Alistair Sear, a church historian, told UPI. The statements come as the debate between Washington and Brussels on the subject is heating up. The EU generally opposes the use of GM crops on the grounds they could pose unexpected health risks; the US, the world's largest producer of GM products, contends they are the best way to feed starving populations.

When the
US officially asked the World Trade Organization to set up a panel to determine if Europe's opposition to GM foods is legal, an EU spokesman reiterated the trading bloc would not budge on the issue. Almost nobody expected the Vatican to weigh in on the issue, and environmental groups did not welcome the unexpected entry into the debate. "We don't believe the Vatican has considered all of the health and environmental aspects represented by GM crops," a spokesman for the Italian environmental lobby group Legambiente told UPI. "We believe the Vatican is unaware that it is being manipulated by large biotechnology firms and the government of the US." Although views from the Vatican usually do not have an impact on policy in developed countries, its opinions are thought to be taken into serious consideration when laws are developed in Catholic parts of the developing world, such as South and Central America, and parts of Africa and southeast Asia.

Snippet:                               GMO Testing Facility for Africa

A new facility based at the Free State University in Bloemfontein, South Africa, will provide Africa with its own GMO testing centre. Note that this is a Genetic ID (USA) - licensed facility and will charge commercial rates.

 
 

 

 

 

 


Kenyan parliamentarians chat the way forward for the country's Biosafety Bill
Catherine Ngamau, AgBioView, 14 Aug 03 http://www.agbioworld.org/, Kenya Biotechnology Information Centre (KBIC), Nairobi). From AgBioView 14 Aug 03

To exploit biotechnology and products of genetic engineering there is need for an appropriate bio-policy and a legal framework that ensures the safe use of such products and environmental protection. A Bill relating to bio-policy and bio-safety for the exploitation of biotechnology and
products of genetic engineering has been drafted for discussion in the Kenyan Parliament. However, the members of parliament need support and facilitation to understand the context to enable them to discuss the issues of biotechnology more broadly. It is with this goal that ABSF in collaboration with Tuskegee University (USA) and the National Council of Science and Technology (NCST) organised a 2-day (4th &
5th August 2003) biosafety workshop at the Safari Park Hotel, Nairobi.

Overall this workshop attracted over 150 Participants, which included about 30 members of the Kenyan parliament, 18 representatives from different countries in Africa with resource persons drawn from Tuskegee University (USA), New Zealand, University of Agricultural sciences (India), National Agricultural Research Organisation (Uganda), Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Attorney Generals Chambers (Kenya), ISAAA AfriCenter, International Livestock Research Institute (Kenya), Biotechnology Trust Africa, A-Harvest, CIMMYT among others. The workshop presentations revolved around the developments in biotechnology and biosafety policy, biotechnology strategies impacting on agricultural production and brief remarks by the Kenyan parliamentarians. In his opening remarks, Hon. P. Ayiecho acknowledged the role of GM in food security in Kenya and other developing countries. He emphasised the need for MPs to understand and adopt an appropriate bio-policy in order to exploit biotechnology and products of genetic engineering appropriately. He suggested travelling workshops for the MPs in order for them to appreciate implementation of biotechnology and be enabled to answer questions related to biotechnology when the Biosafety Bill is tabled in Parliament.

The minister for livestock and rural development Hon. Joseph Munyao, in his closing remarks, encouraged the participants to synthesize the draft Bill and liase with the chief whip Hon. Norman Nyaga, who was also present, to coordinate and mobilise parliamentary support. He emphasized
the need for embracing biotechnology as a tool for development. Based on contributions, observations and questions raised by participants it was apparent that the level of understanding of biotechnology is still very low. Expression of fear due to lack of information was apparent among
parliamentarians. However, after presentations and discussions the majority of the MPs appreciated the efforts made by African scientists and expressed confidence on the role that biotechnology could play in enhancing the Agricultural output.


As a way forward the MPs challenged the scientists and ABSF to bridge the gap between them by consistently interacting with them. This they said would help them contextualise the real issues in biotechnology, which would make it easier for them to support the Biosafety Bill. This they observed would also be instrumental in enhancing lobbying government support for research and development. The MPs strongly felt there was need for provision of more information on biotechnology and biosafety.

 

·     Need for further exposure in the area of biotechnology for the parliamentarians and public in            general.

·     Need for travelling workshops for the MPs in order for them to appreciate impacts of biotechnology. (Travelling workshops especially to countries that have already adopted and implemented agric-biotechnology e.g. SA, India, US and China.)

·     Need to address the concerns already expressed about GM.

·     An intensive session, outside Nairobi, for the relevant parliamentary select committees.
Visits to labs in the country undertaking molecular biology research.

·     Field days with farmers having biotech projects like TC products, clonal forestry etc.

·     Need to support scientists in lobbing government for increased funding for biotechnology research.

 

 

Judge lifts Brazilian court ban on GM Seeds
The Wall Street Journal-Associated Press, 13 Aug 03. From AgBioView 14 Aug 03 (shortened)

A federal judge Tuesday lifted a ban preventing US agricultural giant Monsanto Co. from selling GM soybean seeds in Brazil. Monsanto welcomed the ruling by Judge Selene Maria de Almeida, but the
company's victory could be short-lived. Two other judges who serve on her appeals panel could reverse the decision, effectively putting back in place the ban approved in 2000. Monsanto wants the seeds legalized to recoup lost profits from widespread illicit use in
Brazil of its Roundup Ready soybean seeds.  Brazilian growers use seeds smuggled into Brazil from neighbouring countries, then grow more on their own land. The Brazilian government rarely enforces the law, and experts estimate 17% of the country's soybean crop are grown from the seeds. Brazil harvested about 52 million metric tons of soybeans during the 2002-2003 season, making it the second largest producer after the US.  The judge agreed with Monsanto's position that there are no legal or scientific reasons to ban GM seeds, and that Brazil's robust agricultural industry could suffer if growers are not allowed to use the seeds.

 

Environmentalists, including Greenpeace, oppose the use of GM seeds because of suspicions they could harm the environment. Monsanto in June warned about 250 exporters that buy Brazilian soybeans and 150 importers that the company would soon start monitoring exports of crops grown with the illicit seeds. The move came as the struggling St. Louis-based company is shifting its
business focus from manufacturing herbicides to developing and selling GM seeds around the world. It has complained bitterly for years about Brazilian farmers using Monsanto's technology without
paying for it. Monsanto has also been lobbying the Brazilian government to legalize GM crops.

Bio-tech potato may solve many problems
Dennis T. Avery, Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee) 10 Aug 03

It likely will break the selfish hearts of America's personal injury lawyers and Europe's eco-activists, but the answer to the world's obesity problem may soon be a visit to a nearby McDonald's, Burger King or Wendy's. Biotechnology has just produced another massive breakthrough for world food security in the form of a blight-proof, diet-enhancing potato. Researchers used biotech to insert a gene from a wild Mexican potato to create the first high-yield potato with complete resistance to late
blight. Late blight is the terrible epidemic disease that starved a million Irish farmers to death in the 1840s and drove another million refugees or so to
America. The disease can turn a field of potatoes to wilted black mush in a few days. Today, late blight represents an even bigger threat to global food security as Asia is becoming dependent on the potato's ultra-high food production per acre and has tripled production.

In the first wave of publicity, the British Broadcasting Corp. got the news wrong again, perhaps, because of its European anti-biotech bias. The BBC announced that "scientists have discovered a gene which protects potatoes from blight." Plant explorers actually discovered the blight-resistant wild potato nearly 50 years ago, but plant breeders couldn't successfully cross it with the domestic varieties that tasted good, baked well and made golden french fries. Only biotech could turn the wild gene into protection for future harvests. Both the
University of Wisconsin and the University of California at Davis have now engineered the wild blight resistance into commercial potatoes.

The UC/Davis team hopes to begin field tests next year. Wisconsin says it may be 5 years from farmers' fields. The discovery of a blight-free potato will now force the potato industry to confront the anti-biotech activists along with corn, soybean, cotton and dairy farmers. US potato growers have had pest-resistant and low-fat biotech potatoes available since 1999, but french fry processors told growers not to plant them. The processors feared anti-biotech demonstrations against restaurants selling the low-fat fries. Obviously, they weren't much concerned that customers would protest the lack of a low-fat product they'd never heard about. But the blight-resistant potato is too important to suppress, biotech or not. Potato growers all over the world live in constant fear of the blight, which can destroy a whole region's crop quickly. Most potato growers spray repeatedly with expensive fungicides to prevent blight from getting a foothold.

China now grows more than 60 million tons of spuds per year. Smaller Bangladesh grows about 3 million tons, and still continually teeters on the edge of hunger. Both governments live in fear of a phone call reporting a blight epidemic. Such countries will not risk at-home replays of the Irish potato famine if they have a simple, economic new technology. Nor are near-hungry Asian consumers likely to reject disease-resistant crops that undergird their children's nutrition.

 

In America, meanwhile, obesity has become a front-page issue, and it looks as though the anti-biotech campaign is about to collide with the anti-fat campaign. The low-fat biotech potatoes have 35% more starch, so they absorb less fat during frying. Ergo, a lower-calorie, lower-fat biotech french fry. These "leanfries" should solidify the french fry's place in the global 21st century, if the fry processors and drive-ins can find the courage to sell them. Even the fast-food restaurants may now be more afraid of lawyers waving obesity lawsuits than of people dressed like corn ears, and loudly claiming to protect us from nonexistent "superweeds."

The anti-biotech activists, being at least nominally environmentalists, may be slightly impressed by the amount of pesticide spraying the biotech potatoes could forestall. Potato growers will likely cut their currently heavy fungicide and insecticide use by 80% with the biotech potatoes.
Idaho growers recently have been spraying their crops more than 20 times per year, with more than 1.6 million pounds of fungicide and insecticide. Most of the sprays are aimed at controlling blight. In addition, however, the new biotech potatoes protect against the hugely destructive Colorado potato beetle, potato leafroll virus and the destructive potato virus Y.

This technological leap will ultimately allow us to produce still more food from even less land, using fewer chemicals. So in the crowded, affluent world of the 20th century, there'll be a bit more room for the wildlife the activists and the rest of us are pledged to protect. With the advent of famine-proof low-fat biotech potatoes, the question is no longer whether biotech crops are good for the planet and its people. The question is now what the activists, being activists, will object to next.

 

UN in bid to buy non-GM food

Cape Argus, Reuters 1 Aug 03 (shortened)

 

The UN World Food Programme (WFP) hopes contributors to a southern African aid appeal will avoid controversy over GM grain by donating cash, the relief agency says. The WFP this week appealed for $530 million worth of food and other aid to extend its relief programmes for 6.3 million people in the region, but hopes to avoid difficulties met last year when several needy countries rejected GM grain donations. `Clearly the GM issue was problematic last year. We resolved that problem by mutually agreeing to mill what potential GM maize would come in’, WFP spokeswoman in Johannesburg
Jennifer Abrahamson said. `What we are hoping to get are a lot of cash contributions so we can buy food regionally. It enables us not only to get non-GM food, because it has been a problem here, but it also enables us to get food to countries much quicker’.


Last year, Zambia refused GM maize outright, while Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique were hesitant. Most countries in the region, except for Zambia, had agreed to accept milled GM grain.
Aid agencies reckon about 6.3 million people in
Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland face food shortages this year due to poor weather, HIV/Aids, economic decline and government mismanagement. Better weather across the region has boosted harvests in most countries, reducing the number of people in need by more than 8 million, but the worst-hit remains Zimbabwe, where 5.5 million people will need aid by year-end. The WFP said that it wanted to buy about 200 000 tons of the 530 000 tons of maize it needs from within the region, with the rest of the requirements probably coming from physical donations. Surplus-laden SA could be one local supplier, but Malawi, Zambia and parts of Mozambique also say they have maize to sell.

 

 

Soften Stance on Biotech Crops - 'Governments need to step up involvement'
Curtis Schaeffer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 11 Aug 03, http://www.ajc.com/

It is like a science fiction tale. The leader of
Zambia refuses donated food for 3 million starving people in his country because the food has been GM. This controversy over what we put in our mouths is just heating up. Last month, US agricultural groups lashed out at an EU vote on proposed new rules for the labelling and traceability of GM crops and foods. The EU has had a 4-year moratorium on US biotech imports. At the same time, the UN adopted new standards providing detailed procedures for determining if biotech foods are safe.

 

Biotech crops offer one solution to food shortages worldwide at a time when increasingly less land is dedicated to food production and population growth continues. A crop is considered "biotech" when a gene from an unrelated species is introduced to the original plant group for the purpose of making the harvest more productive, healthy or disease resistant. There is growing resistance to biotech crops in the US although most Americans are unaware that they have been consuming GM foods since the mid-1990s. Sixty to 70% of all processed food in the US now contains GM ingredients, including the majority of soy and maize raised in this country. US farmers like biotech crops because they require fewer chemicals for killing insects and weeds. Biotech crops are now so common that they are mixed in silos with non-biotech crops before being processed. It is impossible to determine what we are consuming or what we export for human consumption. Critics say that not enough is known about biotech crops, that it is irresponsible to produce and consume them on a massive scale until more extensive testing has been carried out. Many of these same critics have decried the heavy use of pesticides and herbicides for years as contaminating both food and water but now lobby against GM foods, a viable solution to pesticides.


A clear indication that the development of biotech crops is not simply a corporate money grab is that developing countries are conducting important research on their own to benefit their populations.
Cuba obtained a US patent 5 years ago on its process of GM fructose into sugar cane to replace the more fattening sucrose. The Mexican government has supported research on biotech maize and
signed an agreement with the US Department of Agriculture to create a permanent bilateral working group for cooperation in biotechnology; the Chinese government has the largest biotechnology industry outside of North America and has invested heavily in research since the 1980s as a way of
ensuring future food security for 1.3 billion people. Greater involvement in the research, regulation and production of biotech crops by governments in cooperation with international bodies, universities and consumers will assure distrustful countries such as
Zambia of the safety of biotech crops while guarding against corporate control of the world's food supply.

 

World's First Cloned Horse Born to its Genetic Twin

Patricia Reaney, 7 Aug 03, http://www.planetark.org

 

Italian scientists they had created the world's first cloned horse from an adult cell taken from the horse who gave birth to her. Prometea, a healthy female, weighed in at 80 lbs when she was born during a natural delivery 28 May 03 in Italy after a normal, full-term pregnancy. Although sheep, mice, cats, cattle, goats and pigs have already been cloned, Prometea is the first animal known to be carried and born by the mother from which she was cloned. "This is the first horse that has been cloned from an adult cell. She has been carrying herself, so the newborn is the twin of the mother that carried the pregnancy," said Dr Cesare Galli, of the Laboratory of Reproductive Technology, a nonprofit research organization in Cremona, Italy. Until now it had been thought that a pregnancy would depend on the mother's immune system recognizing the fetus as something different from itself.

"People would not have expected it to be possible," said Galli, referring to the mother giving birth to her own clone. Galli and his team reported their success in the science journal Nature. Named after Prometheus, who in Greek mythology was punished for stealing fire from the gods and giving it to humans, the foal was created through nuclear transfer, the same technique used for Dolly the sheep, the world's first cloned mammal. Galli and his team removed a skin cell from the mother and fused it to an egg from which the nucleus had been removed. After the activated egg was grown in the laboratory it was replaced in the horse from which it had been cloned. The scientists started out with more 800 manipulated eggs using male and female cells. Twenty-two developed into 7-day-old embryos and 17 were transferred into nine horses. Four pregnancies resulted but Prometea was the only live animal. "Our result adds the horse to the list of mammals that have so far been successfully cloned from an adult somatic cell," Galli and his team said in their report.

In addition to the scientific achievement, he believes Prometea could lead to cloning of champion geldings, castrated horses. "There is an interest in cloning those animals because they cannot reproduce anymore because they were castrated at a young age. A good proportion of sporting champions are geldings," said Galli. If regulations in the breeding industry allowed cloning, it would be an immediate possibility. "You would make a copy of an animal that cannot reproduce so you could use it as a stallion to serve mares," he explained. Galli said cloning sporting animals would not guarantee generations of cloned champions, because many factors, including character and the interaction with people who train them, were important for producing top racing horses. Galli and his team have already cloned bulls and cows.

 

 

GMOs, God and the Prince of Wales
Pretty Bara and Tawanda Zidenga, Crop Science Department, University of Zimbabwe, 5 Aug 03. From AgBioView 6 Aug 03

We write to challenge the comments Prince Charles continues to make about GMOs and we hope he stops commenting on a subject he clearly knows nothing about. The prince needs a GM-free
Wales and a GM-free Britain, and who knows, may be a GM-free world! He believes that this kind of genetic modification takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone. According to the prince, apart from certain highly beneficial and specific medical applications, we don't have "the right to experiment with, and commercialize, the building blocks of life?" We question the good prince's understanding of agriculture, and we believe he doesn't quite understand what a GM crop is and how it differs from his organic crops. We know that the prince is a top organic farmer at his Highgrove Estate in Gloucestershire, and therefore fears being pushed off business by the GM revolution. However, we think it's best we take a look at his claims.

 

That any place can and should stay GM-free is nothing short of a dream. We believe that biotechnology is here to stay, and the best we can do is ponder on how best we can use it without harming the environment and our health. Numerous scientific studies have pointed to the safety and sustainability of this technology, and we believe debate should be based on facts rather than emotion. We are writing from the third world, and we know what it is like to have no food. While we understand the rationale of organic farming, we think it is a luxury for the Princes of this world. While developed countries can afford to choose food based on the process used to produce it (a ridiculous choice indeed), we in the third world do not have such a choice.

The complication comes if we have to be bullied into being GM-free to satisfy European trade standards. The rejection of GM food aid by some countries in this region was due to the fear of losing European beef markets. If the prince so wishes, he can declare his own plate GM-free, and even then we wish him luck. But to claim that GM takes scientists into the realms of God is to clearly misunderstand both GM and God. Nobody can ever play God, because God plays his part superbly and he doesn't need a stand-in. We hope the prince understands in the long run that scientists are only playing scientists, period.

Perhaps the prince has never taken a moment to think about agriculture, because if he had, then he would know that agriculture itself is a way of "experimenting and commercializing the building blocks of life" and that is true with and without genetic modification. The claim that agriculture
can be "natural" is misguided, since agriculture itself is driven by mankind. If the good prince reads the bible, then he may have missed the line that mankind was given dominion over creation, and it's a reality that we will always manipulate our environment to our own ends. If the prince does not
regard insect resistant crops, nutritionally enhanced crops and stress tolerant crops as highly beneficial then we question his understanding of farming and the whole purpose of crop production. We find the comparison between genetic modification and organic farming very ridiculous. The
former is a method of breeding while the latter is a method of production. If it wasn't an issue of commerce, one would expect the two to complement each other.

If the Prince of Wales admits the usefulness of this technology in medicine, why should he reject it in agriculture? The basic principles are still the same. You don't start playing God only because you are now in agriculture when you can do the same thing in medicine and receive a round of applause. We in the third world know better, that a poor diet will reduce our capacity to fight off disease. Biotechnology provides the tools for providing more food of better nutritional value. It is not a magic
bullet, but it certainly is an important tool. If the Prince is worried about playing God, he should join debates about things such as the death sentence where people actually decide that someone has to die. Otherwise somebody close to him had better tell him to please shut up!


Organic products can be adulterated
Jason Groves, Western Morning News, 5 Aug 03. From AgBioView, 6 Aug 03 (shortened)

Dozens of organic products on the shelves of Westcountry stores may contain ingredients treated with chemical pesticides because of a loophole in the law. Although organic fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy products all have to be produced to exacting standards without the use of chemical treatments, some processed products are allowed to carry the organic label even if they contain non-organic ingredients. The revelation last night prompted one Westcountry MP to call for a change in the law. Although the Food Standards Agency has said that organic food offers no proven health benefits, many consumers believe otherwise and have helped the organic sector become one of the fastest growing segments of the food market in recent years.

The loophole, which is enshrined in European laws passed 2 years ago, allows processed products like biscuits, cakes and ready meals to contain up to 5% non-organic ingredients, but still be labelled as wholly organic. Because of this it is impossible for consumers to tell which processed products may contain non-organic ingredients. Food manufacturers can also apply for a temporary licence to use up to 30% non-organic ingredients in a product, although in this case the product must carry small print explaining that only a certain percentage is genuinely organic. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which issues the "derogations" to food processors and importers, said the loophole was needed because some ingredients "cannot be produced organically". The department said temporary licences could also be granted when certain organic ingredients were in short supply. A DEFRA spokesman cited the example of organic Christmas puddings, where he said it had proved impossible for manufacturers to source organically produced brandy. He said the powers were used relatively rarely, with just 45 organic products granted licences to use non-organic ingredients last year. But the loophole is likely to alarm consumers, who have been switching to organic produce in droves in recent years, despite higher prices, in a bid to avoid eating food that may contain traces of chemical pesticides.

 

Paul Tyler, Lib-Dem MP for North Cornwall, said it was not acceptable for food labelled as organic to contain non-organic ingredients. Mr Tyler, a long-time campaigner for organic food, said consumers had the right to expect that food labelled as organic would not contain traces of chemical pesticides. And he warned that the loophole could leave the door open to allow firms to use small amounts of GM ingredients in processed organic foods. Mr Tyler said: "If organic products can be adulterated without being labelled as such then I think that is a matter of great concern. "If it continues to be permitted then you have to ask whether GM ingredients might also be allowed. "There are a lot of people who do not want even 1% GM in their food. The great fear is not that we will have a 'big bang' with GM, but that it will creep in through exactly that kind of process of attrition. "I think we need to look again at this anomaly and take advice on how best to tighten the law in this area." Mr Tyler also said that the relatively small size of Britain's organic farming sector meant that UK processors would find it more difficult to source organic ingredients. Around 70% of organic food sold in the UK is imported.

 

 

Spain could become a leading force in plant biotechnology research
Madrid, 9 Jul 03. From AgBioView 6 Aug 03

More than 13 research centres in Spain dedicate their work to issues concerning Plant Biotechnology, mainly in Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia, commented Jose Luis Garcia, general
subdirector of Scientific Programming, Monitoring and Documentation for the Spanish Council for Scientific Research, the CSIC, in yesterday's working breakfast: The future of agricultural Biotechnology in
Spain: second-generation transgenics, organized by Antama Foundation in the
National Natural Sciences Museum. According to Jose Luis Garcia, "our highly qualified researchers could make
Spain a European leading force on this subject, although in order for this to happen, we need on the one hand, more support from the Government, and on the other hand, for the present climate of scepticism towards GM plants, to change." Standing out among the investigations which are being carried out within the framework of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research, are those relating to the fight against viruses which attack various species of plants, such as orchards.

There are also projects for the detection of transgenics in food, for phyto-remediation (decontamination of heavy materials from the ground via transgenic plants), for plants tolerant of salinity, and there is even a study which aims to increase the quantity of fructose in barley, for industrial purposes. Pilar Carbonero, professor of Plant Biotechnology at the "Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos" (Higher Technical School of Engineers) in Madrid, and recently named as the first female member of the Royal Academy of Engineering, undertook a study to analyse the role of the University in these investigations. In her opinion, although the scientific projects are not as consolidated in the university field as they are in the CSIC, one of the most important projects in which the "Escuela de Ingenieros Agrónomos" participates, is the creation of the Institute of Biotechnology and Genomics of Plants, a project which relies on the support of the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) and the autonomous region of Madrid. However, although formal discussions were initiated last year to carry out this project, "at present, the project is on hold due to a lack of finance and the social climate of uncertainty which exists right now", stated Pilar Carbonero. Regarding the passing of the new Regulation on labelling of GMOs, approved
by the European Parliament last week, Carbonero indicated that "it is always good news, although the conditions imposed on companies are unfair and difficult to fulfill."

With regard to the agricultural dichotomy between GMOs and organic agriculture, Jose Luis Garcia commented that all this has to do with a false opposing argument, expounded by those groups most critical to biotechnology, since he believes that "transgenic plants are the most organic because they do not require the use of pesticides and in the not too distant future, there will be plants which consume much less water."

 
Jose Luis Garcia also stated his opinion on the matter, commenting that "with this Regulation, countries which have declared themselves in favour of the moratorium have lost their final excuse and will have to make their position clear from now on. However, this measure is highly complex and we are yet to see whether or not the final product will increase in price. With regard to the agricultural dichotomy between GMOs and organic agriculture, Jose Luis Garcia commented that all this has to do with a false opposing argument, expounded by those groups most critical to

 

 

 

Biotechnology, since he believes that "transgenic plants are the most organic because they do not require the use of pesticides and in the not too distant future, there will be plants which consume much less water."

Further information: Elena Fernandez Guiral, Communications Director of Antama Foundation
e mail: fguiral@fundacion-antama.org, Tel. 915714646

 

GM cotton crops halve pesticide use
Sydney Morning Herald, 1 Aug 03. From AgBioView 4 Aug 03

The introduction of GM cotton crops to
Australia has cut the use of chemical pesticide by about half, the country's leading science organisation said yesterday. Pesticide use had fallen by about 50 per cent where US-based Monsanto Co's Ingard GM was planted, compared with conventional cotton, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation said. Ingard GM was introduced in 1996 to Australia, one of the world's largest cotton exporters and a key supplier to Asian markets.

Bollgard II, a new version of Monsanto GM cotton that will be commercially available in
Australia this year, promises even less insecticide use, said the organisation's Plant Industry cotton breeder Greg Constable. "Three years of field trials show Bollgard II [reduces] pesticide use by up to 75%  compared to conventional cotton. Furthermore, cotton fibre yield and quality in Bollgard II varieties is equivalent to that in conventional cotton varieties," he said. Bollgard II was developed by inserting two insecticidal genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis into cotton, killing cotton's major insect pest Helicoverpa when it eats the crop.

Helicoverpa is the Australian equivalent of the worldwide scourge of cotton crops, the boll weevil.
General release of Bollgard II was approved by the Government last year and in Apr 2003 it would comprise about 15% of the total crop, Constable said. By May 2004, Bollgard II could supply 80% of the cotton crop as Ingard is phased out of production to minimise the risk of developing resistance to the bacterium. Use of Ingard was restricted to 30% of
Australia's cotton-growing area, or about 120,000ha in Feb 2001, mainly for insect resistance management. Use of Bolgard II is not capped and officials say it could lead to at least a doubling of Australia's GM crops.

 

 

GM trees quietly sprouting
Paul Elias, 12 Aug 03, from Searcabiotech, 12 Aug 03 (shortened)
 
Biotechnology is coming to the forest and orchard. Scientists are planting GE trees in dozens of research projects across the country. They are working to create trees that grow faster, yield better wood, produce hardier crops, fight pollution, even serve as sentinels for detecting germ and chemical attacks. Environmentalists fear dangerous unintended consequences. "It won't be as widespread as agricultural biotechnology, but it could be much more destructive," said Jim Diamond of the Sierra Club. "Trees are what's left of our natural environment and home to endangered
species." The Sierra Club wants a moratorium on the planting of genetic-engineered trees outdoors until the science is better understood. But the plea has been like a tree falling deep in the forest.

 

Tree researchers say their critics are missing all the ways that science can give nature a fighting chance against ravages, natural and man-made. Biotechnology, they say, may provide just what is needed to help reverse global deforestation and industrial pollution, while satisfying increased demand for wood and paper products. Already, biotechnology has been credited with saving Hawaii's $14-million-a-year papaya industry. A virus had wiped out 40% of the crop and threatened to destroy the rest before seeds engineered to resist the virus were introduced in 1998. Now the industry is thriving again. About 230 notices of GM tree experiments have been filed with the Department of Agriculture since 1989, with about half since 2000. So far, papayas are the only approved GM tree for market. The rest are still experimental.

 

Some researchers are infusing trees with genetic material taken from viruses and bacteria that helps them grow faster and fatter and yield better wood. Others are splicing mercury-gobbling bacteria genes into trees, enlisting nature to help clean polluted soil. Still others are inserting foreign genes that might reduce the amount of toxic chemicals needed to process trees into paper. Fruit-tree farmers are looking for hardier trees with less reliance on chemical bugs and weed killers. And the Pentagon even awarded Colardo State researchers $500,000 this year develop a pine tree or other plants that can change collars when exposed to a germ or chemical attack. Many field trials are backed by paper and timber companies hoping to design trees that yield more wood and paper. ArborGen LLC, a North Charleston, South Carolina-based biotechnology company whose backers include International Paper and Mead Westvaco Corp., said it has 50 field trials under way. Chief technology officer Maud Hinchee said the company work could reduce reliance on national forests by creating faster growing trees cultivated on industry plantations.

Poplar, eucalyptus, apple and coffee trees are among those being engineered. Researchers even hope to revive the cherished American chestnut, devastated a century ago by a tree-stunting blight that prevents them from growing higher than shrubs become before succumbing. All this is being done today because of better understanding of tree genomes. The Dendrome Project at the
University of California at Davis offers detailed genetic information on 100 trees on its website.

Except for the Hawaiian papaya, no GM tree is expected to be commercialized for the next years. Trees grow much slower than crops, and genetic researchers need years to compare generations.
Could biotech trees crossbreed with their natural brethren and ruin forests' genetic diversity? The Sierra Club fears that, among other ecological consequences. Researchers hope to placate critics by engineering sterility into their designer trees, so their effects on the environment can be contained. But that technology remains elusive. Forestry researchers are proud of their work but have become cautious about disclosing where their GM trees are growing.

In June 3 protesters were arrested after chaining themselves inside a UC-Davis science building to protest tree research. And 2 years ago, the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for arson attacks in Seattle and
Clatskanie, Oregon that caused more than $3.5 million in damage. Oregon State University researcher Steven Strauss, who tends to a few thousand engineered trees, said some of the protesters' are virtually identical to those of scientists. After all, he is working to
engineer poplars that are sterile. "The violent guys just don't understand the science," he said."
Genetic engineering is not one thing, it's a thousand things. But the extremes want to stop it all."

 

 

Call for papers

 

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 can be presented as technical papers, short oral/ poster presentations or posters. The closing date for the submission of abstracts is the 22 Aug 03. Details of a Student Biotech Prize will be circulated shortly. For further information regarding the conference and the call for papers, please refer to the web-link found on http://www.capebiotech.org.za