INT – GM CROP AREA STILL RISING

14 February 2014. Source: www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/46/executivesummary/default.asp

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) today released their annual GM crop area statistics which indicates more than 18 million farmers in 27 countries planted GM crops in 2013 across 175.2 million hectares, a three per cent increase from 2012.

Key points from the ISAAA brief include:

• More than half the world’s population, 60 per cent or approximately four billion people, live in the 27 countries planting GM crops.
• For the second consecutive year developing countries planted more GM crops (54 per cent of the global area) than industrial countries.
• The five dominant GM crop-growing countries were the USA (70 million hectares or 40 per cent of the global total), Brazil (40 million), Argentina (24 million), India (11 million) and Canada (11 million).
• Brazil, continues to be the engine of GM crop growth globally, increasing its hectarage more than any other country in the world – a record 3.7 million hectare increase, equivalent to an impressive year-over-year increase of 10 per cent. In 2013, Brazil commercially planted its first stacked soybean with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance on 2.2 million hectares, and EMBRAPA, Brazil’s agricultural R&D organization, has gained approval to commercialise its home-grown GM virus resistant bean, planned for 2015.
• Africa continued to make progress with Burkina Faso and Sudan increasing their Bt cotton hectarage substantially. Encouragingly an additional seven African countries (Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda) have conducted field trials on a broad range (cotton and maize to bananas and cowpeas) of “new” GM crops, including several orphan crops such as sweet potato.
• Five EU countries planted a record 148,013 hectares of Gm insect resistant maize, up 15 per cent from 2012. Spain was by far the largest adopter followed by Portugal, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
• Stacked traits (GM crops with more than one modification, for example herbicide tolerance and insect resistance) occupied 27 per cent of the global 175 million hectares.
• The four dominant GM crops remain soybean, corn, cotton and canola, with sugar beet, lucerne, papaya, squash in the USA and papaya, poplar, tomato and sweet pepper in China representing a small component of the overall GM hectarage.
• 2013 marked the first-ever commercial plantings of drought-tolerant GM maize in the USA.
• Bangladesh approved a GM crop (Bt eggplant) for planting for the first time in 2013, and two other developing countries, Panama and Indonesia, also approved cultivation of GM crops in 2013 for commercialisation in 2014.

According to ISAAA, “The most compelling and credible testimony to biotech [GM] crops is that during the 18 year period 1996 to 2013, millions of farmers in ~30 countries worldwide, elected to make more than 100 million independent decisions to plant and replant an accumulated hectarage of more than 1.6 billion hectares. This is an area equivalent to >150 per cent the size of the total land mass of the US or China which is an enormous area. There is one principal and overwhelming reason that underpins the trust and confidence of risk-averse farmers in biotechnology – biotech crops deliver substantial, and sustainable, socio-economic and environmental benefits.”

Future predictions by ISAAA

In 2013, as expected, growth continued to plateau for the principal GM crops in industrial countries and in mature GM crop markets in developing countries where adoption rates are sustained at an optimal rate of approximately 90 per cent.

In the scientific community associated with biotechnology, there is cautious optimism that GM crops, including both staple and orphan crops, will be increasingly adopted by society, particularly by the developing countries, where the task of feeding its own people is formidable.

Over 35 million hectares of conventional maize is grown annually in China to feed its 500 million pigs (approximately 50 per cent of the global swine herd) and 13 billion chickens, ducks and other poultry which need feed. A GM phytase maize, which confers increased phosphate uptake in animals is reported to increase the efficiency of meat production – was approved for biosafety in China on 27 November 2009 and is expected to be deployed in the near future. Other maize producing countries in Asia, including Indonesia and Vietnam, have field tested herbicide tolerant/insect resistant maize and are likely to commercialise in the near-term, possibly by 2015.

Subject to regulation, another very important product for Asia is Golden Rice which should be ready for release to farmers by 2016 in the Philippines. Bangladesh has also assigned high priority to the product.

In the Americas the increased adoption of GM drought tolerant maize and transfer of this technology to selected countries in Africa will be important, as well as the adoption of the virus resistant bean developed in Brazil and scheduled for deployment in 2015. The stacked soybean launched in 2013 is expected to reach high adoption rates in Brazil and some neighbouring countries in the near-term.

In Africa there are three countries, South Africa, Burkina Faso and Sudan already successfully commercialising GM crops and the hope is that several of the seven additional countries currently field-testing GM crops will graduate to commercialisation. The early predominant products that will likely feature are the well-tested GM cotton and maize, and subject to regulatory approval, the very important drought tolerant maize scheduled for 2017. Hopefully, one of several orphan crops such as the insect resistant cowpea will also be made available in the near-term so that farmers can benefit from them as early as possible.

GMOs – A plateful of promises

January 2014. Source: www.ift.org/food-technology/past-issues/2014/january/features/gmos-a-plateful-of-promises.aspx?page=viewall

Although controversial, genetically modified crops are safe, efficacious, and necessary to meet future food needs and preferences.

Genetically modified (GM) crops, foods, ingredients, and feeds produced from them have been very much in the news. In the United States, voters have gone to the polls in California and Washington to reject initiatives that would have required mandatory warning labels on foods containing even traces of GM crop-derived materials. Connecticut passed a GM labeling bill that will not take effect until five other states adopt similar legislation; such legislative actions are pending in about 20 other states.

Campaigns for labeling initiatives use emotional claims, sensational graphics, and indignation-producing statistics to claim that GM crops are not sufficiently regulated by the government and are unsafe to eat and to release in the environment. Photos of lumpy rats taken by doctor-turned-researcher Giles Séralini have circulated widely, and are commonly cited as proof that GM corn is unsafe. Oprah, Dr. Oz, leading chefs, and assorted celebrities have spoken out against GM crops. The net result is that GMOs are now lumped together in the consumer’s mind with other foods that have been vilified rightly or wrongly, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), trans fats, and artificial colorings and preservatives.

What Are GM Crops? 
A major problem surrounding GM crops is that most people don’t understand what GM crops really are, and what they do know is often misinformation, which circulates widely in social media as well as in the mainstream media. The purveyors of GM crops and foods derived from them have totally failed to educate consumers, and the information vacuum has been filled by rumors, opinions, misinformation, and marketing opportunities for some products by sowing fear and distrust in GM foods.

GM crops are simply those varieties produced through the introduction of pieces of DNA to give them traits otherwise not possible. The technology has been used to make crops resistant to certain insects or herbicides, and/or protect them from viral diseases. Newer crops increasingly focus on traits of value to consumers, such as soybeans with oil that does not need hydrogenation, and thus does not lead to the production of trans fats, or potatoes that do not produce acrylamide when fried.

GM corn, soybean, canola, sugar beet, and cotton are the leading crops planted in the United States. GM papaya, squash, sweet corn, and alfalfa are also planted. GM rice, tomato, and potato varieties have been approved, but are not currently on the market.

In the United States, GM crops are reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for feed and food safety prior to marketing. There is a period of review and consultation, and once satisfied, the FDA advises developers that they have no further safety questions about new GM varieties, at which point the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) approves the crop for marketing, as long as their own review and consultation reaches the same conclusion about environmental safety. For some traits, such as insect resistance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also involved.

There have been 165 FDA pre-market consultations to date, covering 19 species. Because of the nature of the global market, the FDA counterparts in all major importing countries also conduct independent safety reviews before approving importation of the GM crop, so there is substantial redundancy in the safety assessment process.

Ingredients derived from soybean, canola, and corn (i.e., oils, starch, protein fractions, lecithin, mono- and di-glycerides, HFCS, tocopherols, and others) are used in many food products, as is sugar from sugar beet. It is estimated that at least 70% of processed food products in the United States have ingredients derived from GM crops (Cornell CES, 2003). It is, however, important to note that these ingredients are chemically identical to their counterparts isolated from non-GM crop plants and seldom contain DNA or protein associated with the GM trait. In the European Union, food products containing more than 0.9% of any of the above-mentioned food ingredients must be labeled as GM food.

The first GM crops were planted in 1994, and statistics have been collected since 1996. The impact of GM technology on global agriculture during the past 17 years has been substantial. Approximately 10% of the world’s agricultural fields are now planted with GM crops. Last year alone, more than 17 million farmers in about 30 countries planted GM crops on over 420 million acres. The cumulative area planted over the past 17 years is equivalent to the size of the United States and Mexico, meaning that there is an abundance of information on how these crops have done in the real world. The dire consequences (e.g., the cancer epidemics predicted by Greenpeace) have not materialized.

GM crops have increased harvests by decreasing losses to pests, decreased input and labor costs, reduced the impact from agrichemical use, helped conserve soil and water resources, and conferred a number of environmental and sustainability gains (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013). One of the major unanticipated benefits has been a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, equivalent to taking 22 million cars off the roads, which is roughly 36% of the cars registered in Great Britain (Brookes and Barfoot, 2013). Repeated claims that planting of GM crops would lead to catastrophic environmental disasters have not materialized.

From a food technology perspective, GM technology to improve color, flavor, nutrition, and other consumer-desirable traits is only now beginning to reach the marketplace. Improved low-polyunsaturated vegetable oils suitable for thermal processing and oils that are high in omega-3 fatty acids are two examples. There is a concerted push by the soybean industry to plant high-oleic soybeans on 25–30% of U.S. acreage by 2023. For the first time in history, oil comparable in quality to that of olive oil will be abundant at an affordable price.

It is worth noting here that national and international expert panels around the globe have repeatedly concluded that it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to meet the food and agricultural needs of future generations without the use of all available technologies (Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Foods Systems, 2013).

To read more…

Mother Nature as Genetic Engineer

Regulating the Safety of GM Crops

What’s All the Fuss About?

What Can the Food Industry Do?

Why Are There No Human Feeding Studies?

TASMANIA’S GM CROP BAN INDEFINITE

On 9 January 2014, the Tasmanian Government announced that it would be maintaining the moratorium on the commercial release of GMOs to the Tasmanian environment indefinitely.

In late 2013, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) sought public submissions and undertook a review of the moratorium on GMOs in Tasmania. The review attracted 160 public submissions.

The moratorium will continue to include exemptions for non-commercial scientific trials of GM crops and a panel of scientists will report to the Government yearly on advances in the field.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association says the government’s statement on the state’s GMO moratorium is “at best confusing and at worst potentially disastrous for future investment and jobs growth in the state.”

CropLife Australia says the decision “bodes poorly for both the profitability and sustainability of Tasmanian agriculture.”

The Minister’s Position Statement on Gene Technology and Tasmanian Primary Industries can be found here.

DHA omega-3 canola trials approved

13 November 2013. Source: www.nuseed.com.au/Assets/1571/1/NuseedstatementreOGTRDIRdecisionNov2013.pdf

The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) today gave Nuseed a licence to conduct field trials of a genetically modified (GM) canola, currently under development, which contains healthy long-chain omega-3 oils.

This GM long-chain omega-3 canola contains a single construct of seven genes involved in the biosynthesis of omega-3 fatty acids, designed to enhance the plant’s oil profile. The gene transfer is from one plant, microalgae, to another plant, canola.

The aim of this new canola is to provide a sustainable, renewable long-chain omega-3 oil product as an alternative to using finite wild fish stocks, which are under increasing pressure as demand grows for the oil’s health benefits.

The project’s partners are Nuseed (a wholly owned subsidiary of Nufarm Limited), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).

The OGTR’s approval will allow this GM long-chain omega-3 canola to be assessed to evaluate agronomic performance, oil content and genetic stability under field conditions in both current and potential commercial canola growing areas of Australia.

The application proposes a commencement date of 1 March 2014, for a period of up to five years.

This trial approval from the OGTR is a significant milestone in what has been, and still is, a long process for the project team to develop a unique and sustainable source of increasingly scarce long-chain omega-3 oil.

GM plants produce heart-healthy oil commonly found in fish

January 2014. Source: www.rothamsted.ac.uk/news/single-diatom-accumulates-epa-and-dha-high-value-omega-3 and www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/01/02/Genetically-modified-plants-yield-same-heart-healthy-oil-found-in-fish/UPI-83861388695867/#ixzz2paAi9TkZ

British researchers say they’ve been able to genetically modify a biofuel crop to produce components of fish oils beneficial for cardiovascular health.

The flesh of oily fish such as mackerel and salmon are good sources of omega-3 fatty acids, known to reduce the risk of heart disease, but supplies are limited and unsustainable at current fishing levels, they say.

Looking to create an alternative, sustainable source, scientists at Britain’s Rothamsted Research took seven genes that algae use to produce these fatty acids and inserted them into the genome of the plant Camelina sativa.

The seeds of the modified plant yielded oil that, when purified, contained around 12 per cent of the fatty acid EPA and 14 per cent DHA, the same proportions as in fish oil, they said.

According to the news story, the Camelina plant oil could be available commercially within a decade.

Approval received to produce GM salmon eggs in Canada for commercial purposes

November 2013. Source: www.aquabounty.com/documents/press/2013/20131125.pdf

AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. (AIM: ABTX), a biotechnology company focused on enhancing productivity in the aquaculture market and a majority owned subsidiary of Intrexon Corporation (NYSE: XON), announces that Environment Canada, the agency of the Government of Canada with responsibility for regulating environmental policies and issues, has decided that AquAdvantage® Salmon (“AAS”) is not harmful to the environment or human health when produced in contained facilities.

The publication of the Significant New Activity Notice (http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-11-23/html/notice-avis-eng.html#d106) recognizes that our hatchery, which produces sterile, all-female eggs, is no longer solely a research facility but can produce eggs on a commercial scale without harm to the environment or human health.

“We are pleased to note that, after a rigorous examination of our hatchery facility and the Standard Operating Procedures used to produce AAS eggs, Environment Canada is satisfied that we can responsibly produce our sterile, all-female eggs on a commercial scale”, said Ron Stotish, AquaBounty CEO.

“This is a significant milestone in our efforts to make AquAdvantage® Salmon available for commercial production. However, our eggs and fish will not be available for sale until they are approved by the relevant national regulatory bodies. When these approvals are in place, we look forward to demonstrating the value of AAS for a land-based and environmentally-sustainable production system.”

Environment Canada made its conclusion following a risk assessment conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada involving a panel of independent scientific experts knowledgeable in the fields of transgenics and fish containment technology.

The publication describes conditions that would be regarded as Significant New Activities (SNAcs) with regard to AquAdvantage® Salmon and the measures Environment Canada would expect to evaluate if those activities were proposed. AquaBounty confirms that, currently, all anticipated activities fall well within the scope of the approval given by Environment Canada.

Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology

29 November 2013. Source: www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology-233754961.html

Elsevier announces that the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” by Gilles Eric Séralini et al. has been retracted by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

The journal has issued the following retraction statement:

“The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracts the article “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize,” which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes after a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article…[T]here is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer-review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups.”

Genetically engineered tomatoes could help improve cholesterol levels

14 November 2013

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/genetically-engineered-tomatoes-could-help-improve-cholesterol-levels-113111400762_1.html

Researchers have reported that small amounts of a specific type of lipid in the small intestine could play a greater role than earlier thought in generating the high cholesterol levels and inflammation that lead to clogged arteries.

The tomatoes, created at UCLA, produce a small peptide called 6F that mimics the action of apoA-1, the chief protein in HDL.

Researchers added 2.2 percent (by weight) of freeze-dried tomato powder from the peptide-enhanced tomatoes to low-fat, low-cholesterol mouse chow that was supplemented with LPAs.

They also added the same dose of the peptide-enhanced tomatoes to the high-fat high- cholesterol diet.

They found that this addition to both diets prevented an increase in the level of LPAs in the small intestine and also stopped increases in “bad” cholesterol, decreases in “good” cholesterol and systemic inflammation. Tomatoes that did not contain the peptide had no effect.

According to senior author Dr. Alan Fogelman, executive chair of the department of medicine and director of the atherosclerosis research unit at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, the peptide-enhanced tomatoes may work in large part by reducing the amount of the LPAs in the small intestine.

The study has been published in the Journal of Lipid Research.

USA – GM WHEAT

17 November, 2013

Source: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20131118/ARTICLE/131119909/1318

SPOKANE — It’s still unclear how GM wheat ended up in an Oregon last spring, and industry members aren’t sure when the USDA will provide the answer.

The timeline for USDA’s investigation is still unknown, said Shannon Schlecht, U.S. Wheat Associates. A previous USDA investigation into genetically modified LibertyLink rice took more than a year, he said.

Kristin Schneider, global wheat breeding lead for Monsanto, said the company expected results “soon,” but that she did not have a timeline.

Schlecht and Schneider were part of a panel with Columbia Grain, Inc. senior vice president Kurt Haarmann and Washington State University molecular plant scientist Michael Neff during the Tri-State Grain Growers Convention in Spokane.

Other details offered during the discussion included:

• Schneider said she does not know whether Monsanto or the USDA know the exact type of wheat that turned up in the Oregon field. DNA can be used to show what something is not, but not to conclusively prove what it is, she said.
• Neff said there is no credible, reproducible, scientific evidence that GM foods are dangerous because they are GM.
• Halting GMO research would “slow down what we need to be speeding up, which is learning more about how to grow plants more efficiently and more effectively on fewer acres,” Neff said.
• Neff would like to see smaller companies and land-grant universities gain access to biotech research patented by Monsanto. It’s available for research purposes, but because of patent restrictions it’s not available to develop products for use by producers, he said.
• Schneider said GM wheat won’t be available on he market before the next decade.
• Schlecht said the United States, Canada and Australia are planning to revisit and renew their joint statement to pursue the opportunities that biotech wheat provides.
• Haarmann said biotech acceptance on the global market will likely come from a nontraditional exporting country other than Canada, Australia or the U.S. A large country, either India or China, will likely move to either export or buy the product. “That will be the tipping point,” he said.
• Haarmann said the Pacific Northwest emerged a winner from the GM wheat case in that it demonstrated an ability to handle a complicated situation, satisfy its customer base and protect its supplier base by relying on science.

GM INSECT TRIAL PROPOSED

18 November 2013

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24958488

A UK biotechnology company has applied for permission to carry out the first field trial in Europe of a genetically modified insect.

If it receives approval, the company will carry out a small-scale test of GM olive flies in Spain.

The aim is to combat this olive crop pest by releasing male flies that have a “female-killing gene”.

If the GM flies can outbreed the wild flies, the female offspring will die – reducing the olive fly population.

The technology was invented by the co-founder and chief scientific officer of the biotech firm Oxitec, Dr Luke Alphey.

“Olive fly is the single major pest of olive production,” Dr Alphey explained.

“In a bad year, you can lose of the whole of an olive crop.

“It’s been treated with insecticides, but now there’s a lot of resistance. So there it’s a very hard pest to control.”

According to Oxitec, the olive industry in Greece spends approximately €35 million (£30 million) annually on insecticides to control olive flies – to prevent an estimated loss to the industry of €650 million.

If they receive permission from the Spanish authorities, the researchers will release GM flies around net-covered olive trees, to contain the insects and to prevent the experiment from “being swamped by flies in the environment”.

Killer mosquitoes

In Brazil, Oxitec and its collaborators have progressed much further into their trial of GM mosquitoes.

In the most recent trial in a town called Mandacaru the company reported a 96 per cent reduction in the dengue mosquito population.

“In fact all our trials have shown a 90 per cent reduction [or more],” said Oxitec’s chief executive Hadyn Parry.

EU Commission renews bid to unblock GMO crop approvals

6 November, 2013 Source: Reuters

www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-eu-gmo-cultivation-20131106,0,7859830.story

 BRUSSELS (Reuters) – The European Commission proposed on Wednesday that governments approve only the third ever genetically modified crop for cultivation in Europe, but took steps to avert an expected backlash from France and other GMO opponents.

The proposal covers an insect-resistant maize developed jointly by DuPont and Dow Chemical which, if approved, would end Monsanto’s current monopoly in Europe’s tiny market for GMO crops.

The Commission said it was “duty bound” to make the proposal after Europe’s second-highest court in September censured the EU executive for lengthy delays in the approval process, first launched back in 2001.

EU governments now have three months to vote on the issue. The plan is likely to face strong opposition from France, as well as Austria, Italy and other countries that have previously banned the growing of GMO crops.

But with Britain, Spain and Sweden expected to back the proposal, there may be little that opponents can do to prevent approval.

Under EU rules applying to the application, the Commission is obliged to approve cultivation unless a weighted majority of governments vote against it.

Seeking to head off criticism from anti-GMO governments and campaigners, the Commission called for the restart of stalled talks on draft EU rules to allow member states to decide individually whether to ban or restrict GMO cultivation.

That would enable countries to prevent farmers from growing GMO crops even if they had been approved for cultivation at EU level, provided they do not use environmental or health reasons to justify the restrictions.

EU health commissioner Tonio Borg said he hoped the draft legislation would be discussed at the next meeting of EU environment ministers in December, but EU officials said the issue was not currently on the meeting agenda.

Borg also hinted that Wednesday’s move would not lead to a rush of similar cultivation approval proposals from the Commission, despite a backlog of six applications currently awaiting a decision.

“I know that this is a controversial subject, and that therefore one does not rush into areas where angels fear to tread,” he told a news briefing in Brussels.

BACKGROUND

Only two GMO crops are currently approved for cultivation in the European Union. Monsanto’s insect-resistant maize – known as MON810 – is the only one grown commercially, and was sown on around 130,000 hectares in 2012, mostly in Spain.

That compares with about 100 GMO varieties approved elsewhere in the world, with global cultivation estimated to cover some 170 million hectares in 2012.

The maize variety covered by Wednesday’s proposal is known as 1507, and is sold outside Europe under the Herculex brand name. Like MON810, the plant has been modified to produce its own insecticide against the European corn borer.

If the product is approved it is unlikely to lead to an overall expansion in GMO cultivation in Europe but could challenge sales of MON810, particularly in Europe’s biggest market Spain.

Since the cultivation request was first lodged in 2001, the EU’s food safety watchdog EFSA has delivered six positive scientific safety assessments on 1507.

… In a separate decision on Wednesday, the Commission granted import approval for three GMO maize varieties for use in food and feed after EU governments failed to reach a decision.

Most Americans pay little attention to genetically modified foods, survey says

4 November, 2013

Source: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-americans-attention-genetically-foods-survey.html – jCp

The survey, released by researchers at Rutgers University, found that more than half (53 per cent) say they know very little or nothing at all about genetically modified (GM) foods, and one in four (25 per cent) say they have never heard of them. Even with the media attention resulting from recent ballot initiatives in California (Proposition 37) and Washington State (Initiative 522) and legislative actions in at least 20 other states that would require labeling of GM foods, the Rutgers study found that only about a quarter (26 per cent) of Americans realize that current regulations do not require GM products to be labeled.

“Americans do care about what’s in their food, and they do read labels,” said William Hallman, professor of human ecology in Rutgers’ School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, and lead author of the study.

“Eighty-two percent of the respondents told us they sometimes or frequently or always read food labels. But determining what labeling information they value is not a straightforward task. Whether consumers say they want GM food labels depends on how you ask the question, so we asked about it in several ways.”

Before introducing the idea of GM foods, the survey participants were asked simply “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?” In response, only seven per cent raised GM food labeling on their own. A similar number (six per cent) said they wanted more information about where the food product was grown or processed. In contrast, when asked directly whether GM foods should be required to be labeled, 73 per cent said yes.

The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of various kinds of information on food labels. Fifty-nine per cent said that it was very or extremely important to have information about whether the product contains GM ingredients on a label. This is about the same number who indicated that it was similarly important to have information about whether the product was grown using hormones (63 per cent), pesticides (62 per cent), or antibiotics (61 per cent), whether it was grown or raised in the United States (60 per cent), and whether the product contains allergens (59 per cent).

The respondents were part of a nationally representative Internet-based panel, and the data reported here have been weighted to be nationally representative, with a +/- three per cent margin of error. A summary of the study’s findings is available online at humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_PDF/news/GMlabelingperceptions.pdf . The study authors are Hallman, Cara L. Cuite, and Xenia K. Morin, all of the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences.

Genetically modified crops ban to be extended in South Australia

7 November 2013

Source: www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-07/gm-crops-ban-fruit-fly-research-sterile-males-qflies/5075206

South Australia will extend a moratorium on genetically modified crops until at least 2019.

SA is the only mainland state maintaining a ban on GM crop production and trials.

Government Minister Leon Bignell said the state’s GM-free status gave primary producers a competitive advantage in key overseas markets, including Japan.

He said a continuing ban would help protect premium food and wine production and allow grain producers to attract higher prices.

“We’ve got a strong reputation not just around Australia but around the world for producing clean, green premium food and we think having a moratorium on the growing of GM crops really helps us in that end,” he said.

“People are paying a $50 a tonne premium and we think there’s a lot more advantages to having the moratorium in place than to lift it.”

The Opposition said it too would ensure there was a ban on genetically modified crops until at least 2019 if it took office next March.

But Opposition agriculture spokesman David Ridgway said a ban needed regular review to ensure restrictions on growing GM crops did not put local farmers at a disadvantage.

“We support a moratorium but it needs to be monitored,” he said.

“The Government claims that we get benefits, more dollars per tonne, it enhances our reputation – it should be continually monitored just to make sure our farmers and our producers are getting the benefits the Government claims that we are getting a market advantage for our quality food and wine.”

MODIFIED BRINJAL FINALLY SEES THE LIGHT

Source: http://www.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/modified-brinjal-finally-sees-light/

The National Committee on Biosafety (NCB) yesterday officially released the country’s first genetically modified (GM) food crop, brinjal, which is infused with pest-resistant gene.

The decision was taken following a two-day meeting of the NCB, the highest regulatory body for GM crop release, held at the environment ministry with its secretary in the chair.
With this decision, Bangladesh becomes the 29th country in the world to grow GM crop. In South Asia, India, Pakistan and Myanmar grow GM crop cotton. With the NCB nod, Bangladesh becomes the first in the region to grow a GM food crop.

Scientists at the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (Bari) genetically engineered brinjal, one of the most consumed vegetables in the country, by inserting a crystal protein gene (Cry1Ac) taken from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, otherwise known as Bt. Since then it has been known as Bt Brinjal.
The Bt gene insertion in brinjal gives it resistance against fruit and shoot borer (FSB), considered to be the most widespread and devastating pest in South and Southeast Asia. FSB infestations inflict 50 to 70 percent yearly crop loss in brinjal.

Happy Hour: Why Genetically Engineered Grapes Would Make Great Wine

Source: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/10/why-genetically-engineered-grapes-would-make-great-wine/

I am 99.9 per cent sure that there will never be commercial production of genetically engineered wine grapes (“GMO” to use the common misnomer). Even so, I’d like to indulge in imagining what could be if we lived in some parallel universe where rational scientific thinking prevailed.

Wine grapes are an extremely logical crop for genetic engineering because there is no tolerance for changing varieties. For annual crops like grains or vegetables, new varieties are bred on a regular basis to solve pest issues or to improve features like taste or shelf life. Breeding of perennial fruit crops is a much, much slower process, but entirely new varieties are still introduced from time to time (e.g. Jazz or Pink Lady apples). Even what we call “heirloom varieties” of most vegetable or fruit crops are mostly quite young by wine grape standards.

Conventional breeding just isn’t a viable option for wine grapes, not because it couldn’t be done, but because in an industry so focused on quality and tradition, no one would consider it. The wine industry is based on specific varieties which are hundreds of years old and for which no new variety would ever be acceptable. That is true for varieties in their original appellations (e.g. Pinot Noir and Chardonnay in Burgundy or Cabernet Sauvignon and its blending partners in Bordeaux). It is also true for those same varieties that now make great wines in “New World” (e.g. Malbec in Argentina, Zinfandel in California, or Syrah in Australia).

Therefore, wine grape varieties have been cloned for hundreds of years, specifically to avoid any genetic change (they have always been grown from rooted cuttings or from grafted buds). Grapes make seeds, but the seed won’t grow up to be the same variety as the parent, thus they are never used as a way to grow new vines.

The Downside of Ancient Varieties

Of course, by sticking to very old varieties, wine grape growers must deal with many problems which might otherwise have been solved through breeding. Grape growers have been able to deal with some pests that attack the roots by grafting onto diverse “root stocks” with novel genetics. But rootstocks can only help with a limited number of grape growing challenges.

Why Genetic Engineering Would Be Logical For Grapes

Biotechnology is a perfect solution for wine grape issues because it allows changes to address one specific problem without disrupting any of the characteristics that determine quality. Of course, each variety would have to be individually transformed, but in our imaginary rational universe the regulatory regime would be made easier for multiple uses of the same basic genetic construct.

So, genetic engineering could be a very cool solution for various challenges for grapes. I’ll list a few of the diseases that might be fixable this way.

• Mildews – Downy Mildew, Powdery Mildew
• Rot Reduction – Botrytis Bunch Rot
• Viral Diseases – Leafroll Virus
• Pierce’s Disease – A Potentially Existential Threat

Voluntary “GMO labelling” Would Be Easy for Wine

Because wine grapes can be extremely valuable (e.g. as much as $US10-20,000/acre), and because quality is closely connected with the location where they are grown, “identity preservation” is common in the industry. It would be entirely feasible for grapes which were or were not “GMO” to be kept separate to what ever extent was desired. So, one winery could proudly label their wine as “improved via biotechnology to provide disease resistance,” while the neighbouring winery could confidently claim not to be “non-GMO” if they so desired. Again, remember I’m talking about what could happen in a parallel universe where reason prevails. In our universe reason quickly yielded to the politics of fear and unfounded concerns about “genetic contamination.”

So, there will probably never be commercial “GMO grapes” in our universe, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a cool concept.

Pictures: Shutterstock/William J. Mahnken, Colorado Chardonnay SDSavage, University of Georgia Photo Archive, Wikipedia, Rotting Chardonnay SDSavage, Naotake Murayama, Oklahoma State University