Source: ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/landmark-gm-decision-wa-supreme-court/5482864?section=wa

A farmer accused of contaminating his neighbour’s crops with genetically modified canola has won a landmark case in the West Australian Supreme Court.

The decision could have wide-reaching implications for the production of genetically modified crops in Australia.

Michael Baxter was being sued by his neighbour, Steve Marsh, an organic certified farmer who alleged his farm in the Great Southern region was contaminated by GM material blown onto his property from Mr Baxter’s land.

Mr Marsh claimed the contamination caused him to lose his organic certification on more than half his Kojonup property for almost three years.

But Justice Kenneth Martin said Mr Baxter could not be held responsible just for growing a GM crop in a conventional way.

“The end of season winds and the blowing of swathes from Sevenoaks eastwards into Eagle Rest had not been an outcome intended by Mr Baxter,” he said in his judgment summary.

“Even so, no physical injury whatsoever had been sustained at Eagle Rest in consequence.

“Mr Baxter was not to be held responsible as a broadacre farmer merely for growing a lawful GM crop and choosing to adopt a harvest methodology (swathing) which was entirely orthodox in its implementation.”

“No basis in principle was shown to extend the law to these events,” he said.

“Furthermore, Mr Baxter had not been shown to have acted negligently, either by growing or then by swathing the lawfully grown GM crop in 2010.”

…

Mr Baxter was surrounded by anti-GM protesters as he left court.

He said the decision gave other farmers in Western Australia more certainty.

“It’s a proven product. There’s nothing dangerous about it,” he said.

“It’s perfectly safe, it’s legalised and I think it’s a great thing of the future.”

Despite his victory, Mr Baxter said the court action had taken a heavy toll.

“My marriage was destroyed over it, so hope the next-door neighbour is happy about that,” he said.

Mr Marsh was visibly emotional as he left court and expressed his disappointment in the decision.

“After three-and-a-half years of this it’s been pretty challenging,” he said.

“Obviously we’re disappointed in the judgment given the impacts on our lives.”

He said he needed time to consider the judgment before deciding whether to appeal.

“It’s an issue of choice, isn’t it? Simple as that,” he said.

“There is a lot of implications for agriculture in this decision.”

Farming group welcomes court finding

The Pastoralists and Graziers Association’s John Snooke said the decision gave certainty to the mainstream agricultural industry.

“Farmers are continuing to adopt modern technologies and this allows them to do that at the pace they choose,” he said.

…

INT – GM CROP BENEFITS CONTINUE

Media release. Source: PG Economics, www.pgeconomics.co.uk

Crop biotechnology continues to provide major environmental benefits and allow farmers to grow more, using fewer resources. A majority of these benefits are in developing countries.

‘In the 17th year of widespread adoption, crops developed through genetic modification delivered more environmentally friendly farming practices while providing clear improvements to farmer productivity and income’ said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, co-author of the repor

‘Half of the farm income gains and the majority of the environmental gains associated with changes in pesticide use and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions occurred in developing countries.’

A few highlights from this comprehensive review are [summarised below]:

• Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops;
• Crop biotechnology has reduced pesticide spraying (1996-2012) by 503 million kg (-8.8%). This is equal to the total amount of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the EU 27 for nearly two crop years;
• The insect resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage;
• The herbicide tolerant (HT) technology used in soybeans and canola has also contributed to increased production in some countries;
• Between 1996 and 2012, crop biotechnology was responsible for an additional 122 million tonnes of soybeans and 231 million tonnes of corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 18.2 million tonnes of cotton lint and 6.6 million tonnes of canola;
• GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land;
• The highest yield gains were obtained by farmers in developing countries, many of which are resource-poor and farm small plots of land;
• The total farm income gain of $116.6 billion was divided equally between farmers in developing and developed countries.

1 May 2014. Source: www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/organic-and-gm-coexistence/5421818

 Australian organic standards make GM and organic coexistence difficult: scholar

Coexistence between organic farmers and those that grow genetically modified crops is a big challenge but it is possible in Australia.

That’s according to Nuffield Scholar and Western Australian farmer from Wongan Hills. Jemma Salder.

Supported by the GRDC, Ms Salder recently travelled to a number of countries looking at how the industries worked with each other.

While she says the two can coexist, she suggests the strict zero tolerance standard for the presence of GM material in Australian organic produce may need to be relaxed if the organic industry is to survive.

“I travelled to the US and Canada and it’s dominated by GM crops, but over there the organic farmers are qualified on a process based system, so the presence of GM itself in the end organic product will not affect the status of the organic operation,” she says.

In England she says organic producers had 0.9 per cent tolerance for GM material.

“In Australia organic producers have to adhere to a zero per cent tolerance to the presence of GM at any stage of the production process, it really makes it a difficult tolerance to stick to, zero per cent tolerance in life is almost impossible, especially in agriculture.

“That really places, I think, the organic producers in a difficult position.

“It’s easy to say from the outside looking in, I’m not an organic producer, but I think that a zero per cent tolerance in agriculture is just not sustainable.

“We’ve all got to be flexible, it’s up to them what decisions they make but I think they’ll be perhaps putting their industry at jeopardy if they don’t have a serious look at it.”

She says GM and organic growers in the countries she visited seemed to have a more harmonious relationship than their counterparts in Australia.

“It’s really important that we can make the best business decisions for our properties, but not affect our neighbours as much as we can,” she says.

March 2014. Source: www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/13508/20140316/cis-genetic-engineering-yields-bio-friendly-fire-blight-resistant-apples.htm

Researchers from ETH Zurich and the Julius Kühn Institute in Germany have created the first fire-blight-resistant apple. With the aid of so-called cis-genetic engineering, they transfered a resistance gene from a wild apple into the genome of a Gala apple. Tests in the greenhouse indicate that the gene is effective in protecting the tree against the disease.

Fruit farmers dread fire blight. The infection keeps flaring up again and causes considerable damage to apple plantations. In 2007, when the last major epidemic hit Switzerland, the damage the country suffered cost CHF 50 million and 250,000 trees had to be destroyed. Farmers primarily use sprays containing the antibiotic streptomycin against the pathogen, the bacterium Erwinia amylovora – a controversial method to save fruit trees and harvests.

A team of researchers headed by ETH-Zurich plant pathologist Cesar Gessler and from the Julius Kühne Institute in Germany report a genetically modified apple of the popular Gala variety in the latest issue of Plant Biotechnology Journal that is resistant to fire blight. In an earlier issue of this journal, the researchers presented an apple tree of the same variety that can ward off scab, a common fungal disease, thanks to the insertion of a scab resistance gene of a wild apple.

The researchers succeeded in identifying and isolating the gene for fire-blight resistance in a wild apple for the first time and confirming its function as a resistance-mediating gene…

Gessler and his collaborators were using so-called cis-genetic engineering. Additional genes are incorporated into cis-gene organisms using the biotechnological methods available. However, these are not foreign to the species, as in the case of so-called transgenic organisms. Instead, the apple only receives genes from another variety of apple.

The researchers tested the fire blight resistance properties of the cis-gene apple trees in the greenhouse at the Agroscope research facility in Wädenswil and in Germany by infecting them with fire blight. The results revealed that the resistance gene took effect and prevented the trees from becoming infected.

Although Gessler has now been able to reap the fruits of his years of research and development work, he does not believe that fruit farmers will ever grow these cis-gene apples. On the one hand, there is a still a moratorium on genetic engineering in Switzerland, banning the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO), which also affects cis-gene crops. “Moreover, there is still too much opposition to GMO in Switzerland,” he says. And, unlike in the USA, here in this country and the EU we don’t assess individual products for approval, but rather the technology used while growing them. “Unless the attitudes and legislation change, the cis-gene Gala apple will never be grown,” the plant pathologist sums up.

24 March 2014. Source: www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/meps-say-gmo-honey-ok-301105

Members of a European Parliament committee on Wednesday (19 March) endorsed draft rules that define pollen as a natural constituent of honey and not an ingredient. GM pollen will only be labelled if it makes up more than 0.9 per cent of the honey.

The Committee report by British MEP Julie Girling from the European Conservatives and Reformist (ECR) group was adopted with 28 votes in favor to 25 against, with two abstentions, in the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). The new rules have already informally been agreed with the Council of Ministers.

“The ingredient/constituent argument has arisen due to the labelling implications of each option. If pollen continues to be considered a ‘constituent’, any GM pollen present would not need to be labelled. This is because, according to the GM regulation, only GM content above 0.9 per cent needs to be labelled. Since pollen only forms around 0.5 per cent of any batch of honey, it would never exceed the labelling threshold,” Girling said in a statement.

Current legislation does not state explicitly whether pollen in honey is, or is not, an ingredient. The Court of Justice sought to clarify this in a ruling in September 2011 which defined pollen as an “ingredient” of honey, thereby requiring producers to indicate “pollen” in a list of ingredients on the label of the product. However, in the rules proposed by the Commission, which have now been backed by the Parliament, pollen is defined as a constituent of honey, not an ingredient.

…The text will be voted on in the Strasbourg plenary between 14-17 April.

27 March 2014. Source: www.tristateneighbor.com/news/regional/cows-offer-hope-against-human-illness/article_10e827c8-b44b-11e3-bd52-0019bb2963f4.html

A herd of 60 genetically engineered cows in northwestern Iowa could help unlock the key to producing new medicines that could treat human diseases, even cancer.

The Jersey-Holstein cloned crosses, which project director Dr. Eddie Sullivan of Sanford Research Applied Biosciences in Sioux Falls said somewhat in jest receive the “best medical care anywhere,” have been genetically engineered to produce human antibodies that fight diseases.

The project is far enough along that his staff of 19, including an animal care and veterinary contingent of six people who take care of the cows at a farm between Hull and Sioux Center, Iowa, is “very excited” about possibly starting human clinical trials in the first part of next year.

Sullivan will be making a major presentation this month before the Federal Drug Administration and must gain its approval before the human trials can begin.

The project – started at the University of Massachusetts in 1998 – took almost 12 years of genetic engineering for the cows to produce the human antibodies.

What the researchers did, said Sullivan, is engineer the cows to turn off the cow antibody genes and then introduce a little piece of DNA that produces the human version of antibodies.

“We basically reprogrammed the software inside the cows where they look at the human antibody and they think it’s theirs and they don’t reject it,” he said.

The human antibodies also protect the cows from animal diseases.

The key to helping unlock new treatments for humans, however, is that these cows can be hyper-vaccinated against all sorts of human diseases – the flu, for example.

The cows then become “antibody factories” and can donate plasma with the disease-fighting antibodies two or three times a month.

31 March 2014. Source: www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/biotechology-in-the-wine-industry/5356006

Genetically modified technology has the potential to make grapes cheaper to produce and enhance Australian wine production.

But the Australian wine sector doesn’t support the use of GM in its industry.

Australian Wine Research Institute managing director Dan Johnson says GM is used in research, but the industry’s not ready for commercialisation.

“In the main, there is still widespread concern about what use of GM, for example, might do to export markets and what it might do to the perception of the overall Australian wine category.

“As a result, the wine category doesn’t look at that very seriously.”

Mr Johnson says the Australian industry is happy for other countries and industries to lead the way in this field.

“There are other agricultural crops and indeed possibly wine industries elsewhere in the world that might seek to take a lead in the practical implementation of that, if we get to the point where other agricultural crops, like wheat, can establish a long track record of safety.

“Wine is by comparison a luxury product, and it’s subject to a different set of principles and thinking, so we would look to take a back seat and allow other industries to take the lead.”

Source: Farm Weekly, www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/gm-organics-can-coexist-farm-bureau/2692508.aspx

THE biggest farming group in the US has backed moves to promote coexistence between organic and biotech farmers.

American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman dismissed suggestions of widespread legal disputes between the two farming groups as “merely the product of an activist agenda”.

With a landmark legal argument over property rights hanging in the balance between an organic farmer and genetically modified (GM) canola grower in Western Australia, Mr Stallman said earlier this month the Farm Bureau’s members supported the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision on an “important” recommendation on biotechnology.

The USDA’s recommendation was contained in a report from the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21^st Century Agriculture (AC21) which aims to foster communication and collaboration to strengthen coexistence among farmers.

“We are disappointed by the implication from activist groups opposed to modern farming practices that there is widespread disagreement when it comes to coexistence and agricultural biotechnology,” Mr Stallman said.

“Frankly, that assertion does not hold up to scrutiny.”

…

Following dissent and division over GM crops continuing in Australia, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) hit back, using the recent annual ‘Science Meets Parliament’ week in Canberra to launch a new publication designed to deliver science-based information on GM crops, “to contribute to a more informed national discussion about agricultural technologies”.

ABCA says the publication, The Official Australian Reference Guide to Agricultural Biotechnology and GM Crops, provides a comprehensive overview of agricultural biotechnology in Australia and answers common questions about GM crops.

“The guide also presents information on coexistence in farming and the on-farm management practices and systems currently in place that maintain the integrity of both GM and non-GM crops,” ABCA said.

…

13 March 2014. Source: www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/216311/icode/

FAO survey shows 25 countries blocked imports after finding traces of GMOs.

The increased production of genetically modified crops around the globe has led to a higher number of incidents of low levels of GMOs being detected in traded food and feed, FAO said today.

The incidents have led to trade disruptions between countries with shipments of grain, cereal and other crops being blocked by importing countries and destroyed or returned to the country of origin.

The trace amounts of GM crops become mixed with non-GM food and feed crops by accident during field production (for example, a field trial of a GM crop grown near a field of a non-GM crop), processing, packing, storage and transportation.

There is no international agreement defining or quantifying “low level”, therefore the interpretation varies from country to country. In many countries it is interpreted as any level at which detection is possible i.e. very low trace levels while in other countries case-by-case decisions are taken on what level is acceptable.

The GM crop in question may be authorized for commercial use or sale in one or more countries but not yet authorized in an importing country. Therefore, if the importing country detects the unauthorized crop, it may be legally obliged to reject the shipment.

In the first survey of its kind, 75 out of 193 FAO member countries responded to questions on low levels of GM crops in international food and animal feed trade. The survey results will be discussed at a technical consultation organized by FAO to be held in Rome on 20 and 21 March to review the extent and pattern of trade disruptions caused by the contaminated shipments. The meeting will discuss trade issues related to low levels of GM crops, but will not debate pros and cons of GM crops.

The survey reveals:

• respondents reported 198 incidents of low levels of GM crops mixed into non-GM crops between 2002 and 2012;
• there was a jump in cases between 2009 and 2012, when 138 out of the 198 incidents were reported;
• shipments with low levels of GM crops originated mainly from the US, Canada and China, although other countries also accidently shipped such crops;
• once detected, most shipments were destroyed or returned to the exporting country;
• the highest number of incidents involved linseed, rice, maize and papaya.

“The numbers of incidents are small relative to the millions of tonnes of food and feed traded every day,” said Renata Clarke, FAO Senior Food Safety Officer in charge of the survey.

“But because trade disruptions may be very costly and given the reported increase in the occurrence of these disruptions, FAO conducted this survey and is holding a technical consultation to try to start a dialogue between countries on the issue.”

February 2014

Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2014-march/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-by-us-farmers-has-increased-steadily-for-over-15-years.aspx – .UyuR7v34alI

Summary: Genetically engineered (GE) crops (mainly corn, cotton, and soybeans) were planted on 169 million acres in 2013, about half of U.S. land used for crops. Their adoption has saved farmers time, reduced insecticide use, and enabled the use of less toxic herbicides. Research and development of new GE varieties continues to expand farmer choices.

March 2014. Source: www.grdc.com.au/Resources/Publications/2014/03/GM-Canola-Impact-Survey

More than 1300 grower surveys were conducted to inform the GM Canola Impact Survey. The survey examined adoption patterns; agronomic, economic and environmental impacts; and changes in attitude to the concerns regarding co-existence of GM and non-GM canola production systems.

Key Findings 

• When compared to Triazine Tolerant (TT) canola, growers utilising GM Canola achieved more effective weed control, reduced overall pesticide use and improved farming practices (such as enhanced conservation tillage), lower risk of herbicide resistance developing and a lower environmental foot print.
• Effective weed control, in particular control of priority weeds such as herbicide tolerant annual ryegrass and wild radish were primary reasons why growers planted GM canola.
• There was an increasing trend in the level of concern expressed by both GM and non GM canola growers in relation to the development of glyphosate herbicide resistance. In response GM canola growers adopted alternate weed control practices, including the adoption of an alternate knockdown herbicide (paraquat/diquat) and the use of the ‘double knock’ technique prior to planting GM canola.
• Over the three year survey, there was no significant difference in canola yields reported between GM and non GM canola.
• Overall GM canola growers were more likely to use conservation tillage practices than non GMcanola growers.
• On average the cost of weed control using GM herbicide tolerant canola was higher than that of alternate non GM canola weed management programs.
• The economic impacts of GM canola were variable due to the initial lack of access to GM canola varieties adapted to the major canola growing regions, the cost of access to the GM technology and grain marketing/ logistic issues.
• Concerns relating to co-existence failed to materialize with the majority of GM canola and non GM canola growers reporting no impacts on their farming operations. The issue of coexistence has not influenced farmers’ choice in opting to grow GM canola or whether to increase the area of GM canola grown.
• GM and non GM growers participating in the survey indicated that they would increase their adoption of GM canola in the future.
• The major barrier to adoption of GM canola is the perceived lack of economic value derived from the Roundup Ready® canola technology package (i.e. the cost of access + the cost of weed control + yield + farm gate grain price + logistics costs) when compared to the established economic value of the alternate non GM weed control management system options.

The Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) launched The Official Australian Reference Guide to Agricultural Biotechnology and GM Crops today in Canberra at the 14^th Annual Science Meets Parliament.

The ABCA has developed the Guide to provide factual, science-based information to contribute to a more informed national discussion about agricultural technologies.

With a rapidly growing world population, a changing climate and growing pressure on natural resources such as water and arable land, agricultural biotechnology is increasingly seen as an important part of the solution to some of the world’s biggest challenges.

In 2013, more than 18 million farmers in 27 countries planted GM crops across 175 million hectares. Since their commercialisation 18 years ago, GM crops have been planted across an accumulated 1.6 billion hectares. Despite this widespread and rapid uptake, the technology continues to stimulate considerable community debate.

ABCA’s vision is that the Australian farming sector can, within a world class regulatory regime, access and adopt this technology to improve food security and deliver a competitive farming sector and sustainable environment. Credible, balanced information will help to deliver these outcomes by encouraging informed debate and soundly based decision-making.

The Official Australian Reference Guide to Agricultural Biotechnology and GM Crops provides a comprehensive overview of agricultural biotechnology in Australia and answers common questions about GM crops.

Importantly, the Guide also presents information on coexistence in farming and the on-farm management practices and systems currently in place that maintain the integrity of both GM and non-GM crops.

Download a copy here.

2 March 2014. Source: Farm Weekly http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/cotton/gm-to-tackle-cotton-pests/2688466.aspx?storypage=0

THE COTTON industry is set to take the fight against heliothis pests to a new level in the 2015-16 season when the three-gene, insect-resistant Bollgard III lines of cotton are due for commercial release.

Bollgard III will take over from the highly successful, two-gene Bollgard II.

The introduction of genetically-modified, insect-resistant cottons – which started with Ingard in 1996 and Bollgard II in 2004 – is credited with reducing insecticide application rates in the industry by 80 percent.

Monsanto technical development team lead Tony May said the aim of taking the next step of introducing Bollgard III was to make sure the Bt technology would remain an effective tool for controlling heliothis well into the future.

3 March 2014. Source: Horticulture Australia Limited

http://horticulture.com.au/news_events/news.asp?id=305

Biotechnology research being undertaken by Queensland University of Technology through HAL’s transformational R&D program has the potential to help the horticulture industry overcome common pest and disease issues facing vegetatively propagated crops, while helping to shift the public perception of genetically modified foods.

The research will focus on cisgenics and RNAi technologies leading to the development of marker-free genetic transformations systems in vegetatively propagated crops, which essentially means modifying the plant using genes from its own species. This method differs from traditional genetic modification which involves adding outside genetic material -often derived from bacteria – as markers into the plant DNA.

Initially, the target crops will be bananas and potatoes as they are among the top 10 crops in the world; however the platform technologies will have potential to be shared in other crops across the horticulture industry.

“Vegetative propagation, which is the process of producing a new sprout or plant by using a cutting from the parent plant, produces new plants which are essentially clones of the previous generation,” explained Professor James Dale, project leader and Director of the Centre for Tropical Crops and Biocommodities at the Queensland University of Technology.

“Being a clone, it’s impossible to make any genetic improvements along the way to help the plant cope with some of the common issues facing the wider industry such as the challenge of maximising nutrient uptake or helping to manage common pests and diseases with minimal pesticides and fungicides.

“This research will allow us to take an accepted variety of banana for example and correct the common problem such as disease while retaining the original variety.”

The researchers are quietly confident that the method will help shift negative public perceptions of genetically modified foods due to the fact that no outside genetic material is being introduced into the plant using the methods proposed.

Research will also be conducted into discovering techniques to provide stability of introduced genes across generations. This will ensure that the genetic improvements made to the original variety are carried on to the next generation.

“This has previously been a challenge due to what’s known as ‘gene silencing’ which is where other genes in the original DNA prevent the new and desired trait from being expressed in later generations,” Professor Dale explained.

Alok Kumar, Breeding and Biotechnology Portfolio Manager at HAL added, “This project aims to build capacity for the horticulture industry to be ready for future challenges. The outcomes of this project can only be realised in a long term, up to 2025, as a number of complex issues are targeted. However the potential to shift the industry as we know it makes it a truly transformational project.”

Ken Matthews AO welcomed as new Chairman of ABCA

The Board of Directors of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council of Australia (ABCA) formally welcomed Mr Ken Matthews AO as its new Chairman at its meeting today in Canberra.

Mr Matthews brings to this important role the intellect, leadership and expertise needed to ensure that the Council continues to provide scientific and balanced information to assist the public to understand the current and potential benefits of agricultural biotechnology for the nation’s farming sector.

Mr Matthews joins a strong team of biotechnology and industry leaders on the Board and supported by ABCA’s Patrons, The Hon John Anderson AO and Professor Adrienne Clarke AC.

A former Secretary of two Australian government departments (agriculture and transport), Mr Matthews has had a lengthy and distinguished career at the top of Australian public administration.

Mr Matthews brings to the role of Chairman of ABCA a wealth of experience in industry, technology and agricultural policy as well as policy on matters that affect regional Australia. His time at the helm of the Department of Agriculture also saw the development of the regulatory framework for agricultural biotechnology.

ABCA’s aim to encourage informed debate on biotechnology through the dissemination of credible, balanced, science-based information will greatly benefit from Mr Matthews’ extensive experience.

In 2005, Mr Matthews was appointed Officer of the Order of Australia. He is also an elected fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (FTSE) and of the Institute of Public Administration, Australia and the Australian Institute of Management.

The ABCA Board of Directors also thanked and acknowledged outgoing Chairman, Mr Claude Gauchat, who was the Council’s inaugural Chairman and played a crucial role in the establishment of this important organisation of the nation’s agricultural and biotechnology sectors.