GM CROP SAFETY ANALYSIS – TIME FOR A RE-THINK?

Source: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf400135r

According to a paper in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, it may be time to re- think the use of compositional equivalence studies required of GM crop developers by regulatory regimes globally because unintended compositional effects that could be caused by genetic modification have not materialised. Following a review of 20 years of literature on the subject, the authors argue that compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

Since 1993, investigating the compositional equivalence between GM crops and their conventional counterpart has been the cornerstone of the safety evaluation of GM crops and it is designed to investigate any unintended effects of introducing new genetic material into a plant using biotechnology.

This testing, according to the authors, was based on uncertainty as to the frequency and magnitude of alterations that might occur due to the modification process.

Since they began regulating the safety of GM crops, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found all of the 148 GM crops they evaluated to be “substantially equivalent” to their conventional counterparts as have the Japanese regulators for 189 submissions. Over 80 peer-reviewed publications also conclude this same compositional safety for GM crops. These studies have covered the full range of GM crops – from soybean, canola and cotton, to tomato, potato and raspberry – and the full range of modifications.

“Our assessment is that there appears to be overwhelming evidence that transgenesis [genetic modification] is less disruptive of crop composition compared with traditional breeding, which itself has a tremendous history of safety.”

The authors question whether the millions of dollars spent each year on compositional studies for GM crops can be justified. According to the paper, expanding regulatory requirements have increased compositional study costs over 10-fold, from approximately US$100,000 per study, to over US $1 million per study.

In conclusion, they state, “The merits of continuing to generally require compositional analysis of GM crops to inform safety seems dubious given the results of 20 years of research, and if agreement can be reached that these studies are no longer warranted, use of this technology will become accessible to a wider array of scientists.”

April 2, 2013. Source: ABC News

www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-31/genetic-debate/4602694?section=tas

Tasmania’s dairy farmers are warning the state’s ban on genetically-modified organisms, or GMO’s, could disadvantage the sector over the next few years.

The Tasmanian moratorium on GMO’s was extended five years ago.

It’s due to expire next year, and will be put up for review in the next few months.

Paul Bennett from Dairy Tasmania has warned against another blanket ban on GMO’s.

He says researchers interstate have developed high-energy grazing grasses, and Tasmanian dairy farmers will be the only ones in the country who can’t access the fodder if the ban on GMOs is extended.

“Full use of all technology available is something we’d support,” Mr Bennett said.

Jan Davis from the TFGA agrees.

“We need to get productivity gains,” Ms Davis said.

Tasmania’s fruit growers have warned there will be consequences if the state’s blanket ban on genetically-modified organisms is revoked.

Lucy Gregg from Fruit Growers Tasmania says the state’s GMO free status is vital to overseas marketing campaigns.

“Certainly from the perspective of marketing to international markets, we do know from past experience that Tasmania has the moratoriums on GMO’s means that we can leverage into markets suchs as Japan and Korea and even into Europe,” Ms Gregg said.

The state government says details of the review will be announced shortly.

AUS – GM BANANA TECHNOLOGY FOR INDIA

Australia transfers technology for genetically modified bananas to India

March 2013. Source: Times of India

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-26/edit-page/38040010_1_gm-crops-bananas-food-demand

Recipe for slaying anaemia

Australian scientists have genetically modified bananas to stack them with extra vitamins and iron. They are now sharing this technology with Indian scientists. What makes this development really significant is that India is the world’s largest producer of bananas by a mammoth margin and consumes most of these domestically. So it is elementary that if Indian bananas could be fortified with more nutrients, this would have a wholesome impact on the citizenry’s diet and counteract their penchant for malnutrition. The possibility of making bananas rich in iron is of special note as iron-deficiency is a grave problem among vegetarians and anaemia is also a major cause of maternal mortality.

India’s Bt cotton triumphs helped the global GM narrative march forward but the government has tried to reign in this march at Bt brinjal, putting a moratorium on its commercial release after a decade’s worth of agronomic and biosecurity testing, not to mention unequivocal approval from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. While our decision-makers bury their heads in the sand, the US Food and Drug Administration has categorically declared that foods developed by bioengineering techniques do not entail greater safety concerns than those developed by traditional plant breeding. Ninety per cent of American maize, soybean and canola is now GM. Brazil, which once used to be a net food importer, has engineered an impressive agricultural turnaround by pushing GM crops forward. Not only does China’s dining table boast GM papaya, tomato and bell peppers but GM poplar is now supplying it timber on a commercial scale!

As food demand keeps rising, it will become increasingly hard to resist the embrace of high-yielding GM varieties. Anyway, why try to resist when no harm has been detected among Americans who have been chomping GM cornflakes and tortillas for around two decades now?

Genetically engineered silk eyed as coating for implants

March 2013. Source: www.plasticstoday.com/articles/genetically-engineered-silk-eyed-coating-implants0319201301

A German company is raising the ante on potential medical and industrial uses of silk polymers through development of a genetically engineered spider silk fiber it is commercializing under the name “Biosteel”.

According to AMSilk (Martinsreid, Germany), Biosteel has six times more toughness than carbon fiber while having elasticity comparable to rubber. The material is said to be scalable in industrial processes.

“Of all the many applications for spider silk, the spinning of a viable commercial fiber has always been technically the most challenging. With the current process, we have shown that a commercial spider silk fiber is possible,” said Lin Römer, who heads R&D at AMSilk. “Next we will optimize the fiber further and scale raw material production and spinning in our new pilot plant.”

Target medical applications for Biosteel include implant coatings, medical textiles and surgical products such as meshes, support textiles or wound coverings. Other potential targets include high-performance technical textiles and sporting goods.

In an interview with PlasticsToday, Chief Business Officer Mathias U. Woker described the raw material technology behind Biosteel as an E. coli fermentation process. He said the company does not provide details to describe how E. coli can be genetically engineered to mimic the system used by spiders to produce proteins that form the basis of fibers for its web.

Technologies under development elsewhere such as Tufts University (Medford, MA) focus on silk produced directly by silkworms.

Silk is a natural polymer produced by the silk moth, silk worm, bees, wasps, ants, and spiders. Each species produces a type of silk with a unique properties’ signature. Silk produced from silk moths has been a valued fashion material for centuries.

Silk from spiders has not been commercially available because they are cannibals, and cannot be bred on a large scale. It would also be too expensive to harvest the thread.

Recombinant proteins

It is possible to produce spider silk as recombinant proteins using engineered host organisms. That process has been slowed by lack of complete gene sequencing for spiders. A synthetic sequence that mimics or even enhances the original silk proteins can also be used.

Thomas Scheibel, chair of Biomaterials at the University of Bayreuth, is the main inventor of the AMSilk technology and serves as chief scientific advisor for AMSilk. He spent three years as a researcher at the University of Chicago and developed spider silk technologies at the Technische Universität München.

Once the silk is produced it needs to be drawn in order to achieve useable properties. Drawing of the fiber mimics the way a spider pulls dope from its gland.

Woker said that the company currently can only make the material on a kilogram scale, but plans to develop tons-scale capacity, either internally or through third-party manufacturers, within two years. He would not disclose current fiber spinning capacity or plans for production development.

Biocompatibility, resiliency and toughness are Biosteel’s trump cards.

“Our first focus is on a coating for breast implants,” said Woker.

“A coating for a silicone breast implant would prevent capsular fibrosis.” The tightening of the fibrous capsule around the implants making them less mobile takes place in a process called capsular fibrosis. Woker expects clinical trials to commence within two years.

AMSilk was founded in 2008 and is located near Munich. Key investors are MIG Funds and AT Newtec, Munich. Projects are partially funded through grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology.

GM rice: Cure in sight for hay fever sufferers

11 April 2013. Source: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201304110008

Genetically modified rice may hold the key to a mask- and medicine-free existence for Japan’s millions of allergy sufferers. But the remedy is still some years away.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is backing research into GM rice artificially implanted with proteins from Japanese cedar pollen, one of the main causes of hay fever.

It hopes the rice can be produced on a commercial basis by 2020, although several problems stand in the way.

Experts say the rice, if eaten on a continuous basis, will neutralize the allergic reaction caused by cedar pollen that manifests itself in sneezing, a runny nose and itchy eyes.

“Japanese people have been eating rice for centuries. If we can commercialize it, (allergy sufferers) won’t need to go to the hospital or take medicine ever again,” said a hopeful Takashi Matsumoto, a senior program officer at the farm ministry’s Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council Secretariat.

One in three to five Japanese suffers from hay fever to some degree. In addition to Japanese cedar and cypress, allergens include pollen from ragweed, mugwort and alder.

Current hay fever treatments mainly address the symptoms with medicine that stops the histamines, which cause the itchiness and runny nose, from activating. While there are curative therapies, such as injections and placing drops of pollen extract under the tongue, the results can take two to three years to bear fruit.

In contrast, the “hay fever therapy rice” is a curative treatment as long as the individual consumes a daily bowl of GM rice. It takes six months for the allergy to go away.

The farm ministry says the flavor hardly differs from regular rice.

An official explained that when the intestines absorb rice proteins, the immunity system in the gut that sorts out foreign substances “will not induce an allergic reaction because (the rice) isn’t a foreign substance.”

The research, which was nearly shelved, should cheer hay fever sufferers.

The farm ministry, along with the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences in Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, initially began developing the rice not as a medicine, but as a Food for Specified Health Uses (FOSHU) that would alleviate hay fever symptoms.

In total, 670 million yen ($7.16 million) has been poured into the project since the beginning of fiscal 2004…The farm ministry will release its research results by the end of fiscal 2014 with the aim of starting commercial production by 2020 once it has been confirmed there is no safety issue.

22 April 2013. Source: PG Economics, www.pgeconomics.co.uk

In the sixteenth year of widespread adoption, crop biotechnology has delivered an unparalleled level of farm income benefit to the farmers, as well as providing considerable environmental benefits to both farmers and citizens of countries where the technology is used.

“Where farmers have been given the choice of growing GM crops, adoption levels have typically been rapid. Why? The economic benefits farmers realise are clear and amounted to an average of over $130/hectare in 2011” said Graham Brookes, director of PG Economics, co-author of the report.

“The majority of these benefits continue to increasingly go to farmers in developing countries. The environment is also benefiting as farmers increasingly adopt conservation tillage practices, build their weed management practices around more benign herbicides and replace insecticide use with insect resistant GM crops. The reduction in pesticide spraying and the switch to no till cropping systems is continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture”.

Previewing the study – “GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2011”, the key findings are:

• The net economic benefit at the farm level in 2011 was $19.8 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $133/hectare. For the 16-year period (1996-2011), the global farm income gain has been $98.2 billion;
• Of the total farm income benefit, 49 per cent ($48 billion) has been due to yield gains resulting from lower pest and weed pressure and improved genetics, with the balance arising from reductions in the cost of production;
• The insect resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996-2011 period across all users of this technology has been +10.1 per cent for insect resistant corn and +15.8 per cent for insect resistant cotton;
• Fifty-one per cent of the 2011 farm income gains went to farmers in developing countries, 90 per cent of which are resource poor and small farms. Cumulatively (1996-2011), about half of the benefit each went to farmers in developing and developed countries;
• The cost farmers paid for accessing crop biotechnology in 2011 was equal to 21 per cent of the total technology gains;
• For farmers in developing countries the total cost of accessing the technology in 2011 was equal to 14 per cent of total technology gains;
• Between 1996 and 2011, crop biotechnology was responsible for an additional:
  • 110 million tonnes of soybeans;
  • 195 million tonnes of corn;
  • 15.8 million tonnes of cotton lint; and,
  •  6.6 million tonnes of canola.
• If crop biotechnology had not been available to the (16.7 million) farmers using the technology in 2011, maintaining global production levels at the 2011 levels would have required additional plantings of 5.4 million ha of soybeans, 6.6 million ha of corn, 3.3 million ha of cotton and 0.2 million ha of canola;
• Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. In 2011, this was equivalent to removing 23 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 10.2 million cars from the road for one year;
• Crop biotechnology has reduced pesticide spraying (1996-2011) by 474 million kg (-9 per cent). As a result, this has decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on the area planted to biotech crops by 18.1%(3);
• The environmental gains from the GM IR traits have mostly derived from decreased use of insecticides, whilst the gains from GM HT traits have come from a combination of use of more environmentally benign products and facilitation of changes in farming systems away from conventional to reduced and no tillage production systems in both North and South America. This change in production system has reduced levels of GHG emissions from reduced tractor fuel use and additional soil carbon storage.

Joint Statement on Innovative Agricultural Production Technologies, particularly Plant Biotechnologies

13 April 2013

Source: US Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS)

www.fas.usda.gov/itp/biotech/LM%20statement%20on%20innovative%20ag%20-%20GE%20crops%20-%20Final%20April%202013%20endorsements.pdf

 Recognizing that agricultural production needs to substantially increase to meet global food, feed, fiber and energy demands in the face of population growth,

Understanding that innovative agricultural technologies need to continue to play a critical role in addressing these challenges, in contributing to increased food production in a sustainable way, and in mitigating the adverse effects of climate change,

Taking into account the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, which acknowledges that an increase in productivity will need to take place.

Emphasizing that regulatory approaches related to products derived from innovative agricultural technologies should be science-based, transparent, timely, no more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill legitimate objectives, and consistent with relevant international obligations, including the WTO agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and on Technical Barriers to Trade.

Our governments intend to work collaboratively to:

Promote the application of science-based, transparent and predictable regulatory approaches that foster innovation and ensure a safe and reliable global food supply, including the cultivation and use of agricultural products derived from innovative technologies;

Allow for the trade of such products, and minimize or remove unjustified barriers to trade where they exist;

Promote constructive dialogue on science based regulation and use of innovative agricultural technologies and;

With respect to plant biotechnology specifically:

• Promote the utilization of and the development of regulations consistent with Codex Alimentarius Commission Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology and the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants and its annexes;
• Encourage research and education efforts necessary to develop agricultural innovations that lead to new products and strategies that address the global challenges for production of abundant, safe and affordable food, feed, fiber, and energy in the 21st century;
• Noting the importance of timely and efficient regulatory systems, endeavor to work together to promote synchronization of authorizations by regulatory authorities, in particular for food, feed and processing purposes;
• Encourage biotechnology developers to submit timely dossiers to regulatory authorities to minimize asynchronous and asymmetric authorizations;
• Collaborate in the development of domestic, regional and international approaches to facilitate the global management of low level presence of recombinant-DNA plant material, authorized in one or more countries, but not in the country of import;
• Work cooperatively in international standard-setting bodies and in other international fora on issues related to plant biotechnology;
• Support science-based assessments of food, feed and environmental safety;
• Encourage the timely sharing of information including using global databases to house public information on product authorizations.

 Supporting Governments:

Australia
Brazil
Canada
Republic of Argentina Republic of Paraguay United States

Source: The Land – 05/04/2013

www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/monsanto-predicts-gm-rise/2652918.aspx?storypage=0

IN SPITE of a perception that plantings of genetically modified (GM) canola have stagnated at around 11 per cent of the national canola crop, Monsanto Australia managing director Daniel Kruithoff is confident the company can increase its market share to 30pc of the plant into the future.

GM plantings were at around 176,000ha last year, or 11pc of the national crop, and expectations are that this figure will remain relatively static this year, with many farmers preferring other, conventional, herbicide tolerant varieties.

However, Mr Kruithoff said he was positive that the increases in acreage being seen in WA would also begin to occur in Victoria and NSW as new varieties hit the market.

“It takes time and because of the moratorium on production, Roundup Ready (RR) varieties were behind, but we’re catching up and the new varieties available are exciting,” Mr Kruithoff said.

Mr Kruithoff said Monsanto understood the Australian market would not be like Canada, where over 90pc of the crop was GM, but added there were specific fits.

“It really depends on your location and your weed spectrum, we’re starting to see hot spots around the country where there’s really good uptake of this system,” he said.

Mr Kruithoff also said ability to deliver the product at harvest had an influence, with farmers in some areas not having a bulk handling terminal accepting GM nearby.

However, with more sites accepting GM, it will be easier to deliver the product.

His comments were backed up by Corowa, NSW, agronomist Andrew Bell, who said there were two new sites opened up in his local area in the southern Riverina and north-east Victoria last year, reflecting an increasing acreage of GM crop.

Mr Bell said the primary factor behind growers in his area using RR canola was to control resistant weeds with glyphosate in rotation with paraquat.

Mr Kruithoff said in spite of the other herbicide resistant options, such as triazine tolerant (TT) and Clearfield canola varieties, the GM lines could be useful, in particular when growers had group A and B chemical resistance weeds.

“That’s the difference between here and Canada, where RR was really the only option,” he said.

He said given feedback from the seed companies regarding new, agronomically improved varieties, he felt 30pc of the market was realistic.

“We’d expect growers to rotate their chemical groups with canola, using TT, RR and Clearfield lines,” Mr Kruithoff said.

But while he said new varieties to be released over the next couple of years would increase uptake, Mr Kruithoff said the real game-changer could be research into next generation traits.

“We’ve had some good research work, at a proof of concept level, into a double-stacked gene that would combine both RR and TT traits, which, from feedback from growers, is something they would really value.”

The other big innovation could come in terms of time of spraying.

One of the major gripes with current RR varieties is that spraying can only be done up to six-leaf stage, which does not give growers scope to control late ryegrass germinations.

Mr Kruithoff said work was being done to try to extend the application window.

“It’s the same story as with cotton, when we first introduced RR cotton there was a limited application window, and that is now increased,” he said.

The product was priced realistically, Mr Kruithoff said, in spite of technology fees to use the seed, which pushed per kilogram costs of GM seed above other lines.

“We think we have pricing at the right level, but we’ll wait and see – growers will vote with their wallets.”

At the other end of the production cycle, he said premiums for non-GM canola were coming back in.

“It’s probably back at around $10/t now, which is a lot less than what it was, so that also helps bring RR into the equation at sowing time.”

Source: The Land, 15 March 2013

www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/canola-plantings-to-drop/2650376.aspx?storypage=0

GENETICALLY modified (GM) canola plantings are likely to come back as part of an overall smaller canola plant this year.

Nick Goddard, executive director at the Australian Oilseeds Federation (AOF) said it was likely there would be less canola planted overall than last year’s bumper plant.

“We’re likely to lose a lot of those acres that were planted in drier areas, where canola is perceived as a risk, but looking on averages, it will still be a reasonable sized crop, providing there is an autumn break,” Mr Goddard said.

He said while GM Roundup Ready (RR) lines had a reasonable fit in Western Australian farming systems, on the east coast it was being used more sparingly.

“It’s used more tactically than as a widespread choice in NSW and Victoria, probably less so than the other two herbicide tolerant lines, the triazine tolerant (TT) and Clearfield varieties,” Mr Goddard said.

Rob Sonogan, senior consultant at Agrivision, an agronomy firm based in Swan Hill in Victoria’s Mallee, said RR was lagging behind TT and Clearfield varieties in his area.

“The TTs are certainly very popular, the only issue there is with potential residual problems for the following year’s crop, if there is a dry summer,” Mr Sonogan said.

Mr Sonogan said there was no ideological concerns about RR, but said a combination of relatively high costs, lower prices and limited delivery options meant it was not particular popular in the Mallee.

“It’s probably not that much dearer than other herbicide tolerant lines now, but there is still a reasonable discount to conventional canola lines and there can be additional freight costs, as there aren’t a lot of segregations there,” Mr Sonogan said.

“When you combine that with consistently lower yields for RR lines, there is no compelling reason to plant it.”

Mr Sonogan also said preserving the efficacy of glyphosate was another reason not to plant it.

“Glyphosate is so crucial to farming systems in the Mallee and Wimmera that farmers are making sure they don’t overuse it.”

In the Riverina, agronomist John Sykes, John Sykes Rural Consulting, Albury, said overall canola plantings will be back.

“There was a big canola plant last year, and rotationally, we’re limited in the paddocks we can choose,” Mr Sykes said.

…

Source: The Land, 10 March 2013.

www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/gm-crops-defended/2649312.aspx?storypage=0

PROFESSOR Wayne Parrott says those who oppose crop-biotechnology based on anti-science views should spend a day living in impoverished countries and experience first-hand what impact their activism is having on lives.

The University of Georgia Crop Science Professor was one of nine international experts who contributed to the damning, broad analysis of the now discredited Seralini rat-feeding study on GM corn that was released last year.

Speaking to Fairfax Agricultural Media, Professor Parrott said the research was the worst example of an attempt to discredit GMs that he had seen during his plant breeding career.

He said the French study was carefully orchestrated to be “as sensationalist as possible”, with a movie filmed during the experiment, accompanied by a dedicated book and media blitz.

Sensationalist photos were also used (of rats used in the experiments), even though they had to violate animal ethics guidelines to get the photos, he said.

Prof. Parrott said the most concerning and alarming aspect of the entire issue was the undermining of public confidence in biotechnology and government agencies charged with regulating it.

…

Another of the report’s authors, University of Canberra toxicology expert Andrew Bartholomaeus, said research papers like Seralini’s and the extremist activism that uses them, leads to disproportionate regulation of GM crops.

The former Risk Assessment General Manager at FSANZ said big commercial groups may actually gain an advantage, because they have the resources to comply with the regulatory requirements.

But the real victims are the humanitarian crop developers, he said, who have largely given up and moved onto other applications.

Consequently, hundreds of biotechnology crops that have been developed to help the poorest, most vulnerable people in the world, are sitting on shelves, because no one can afford to address the onerous and irrational regulatory requirements, he said.

“This is reprehensible,” he said.

“I have spoken with and have provided advice and assistance to scientists working on humanitarian biotechnology initiatives funded by large charitable trusts such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“These initiatives are developing solutions to address starvation, malnourishment and poor health of the most vulnerable people in the world.

“Publications such as that of Seralini, and the purposes to which they are put, undermine the enormous benefits that can come from nutritionally enhanced or pest resistant crops developed specifically for these vulnerable groups.”

Dr Bartholomaeus said the report’s nine authors decided to take action because they were “appalled” at the misinformation presented to the public supporting anti-GM “extremists”.

For the full article, follow the Source link above.

Can NZ afford to ignore GM?

Source: Central South Island Farmer, 06/03/13

www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/central-farmer/8389752/Can-NZ-afford-to-ignore-GM

Nuffield scholar Michael Tayler is questioning how much longer New Zealand can continue to turn its back on the opportunities genetic modification technology has to offer.

The Temuka cropping farmer spent last year travelling the world as part of his study looking at new technologies.

After meeting with countless farmers, scientists and agricultural leaders GM and the possibilities it offered came up again and again, he said.

“Before I left, I had no pre-conceived ideas about GM. I just wanted to look at what technologies might improve yields for arable farmers.”

He became convinced that New Zealand should at least keep an open mind to the benefits that GM technology offered.

He outlined his findings in his report, ‘New Technologies in Arable Farming’.

He accepts there is an argument for New Zealand becoming a niche producer, targeting high-end export markets but questions the viability of New Zealand positioning itself as a non-GM country long-term.

“Many surveys show that consumer attitudes to GM crops are softening, albeit slowly, and if that trend continues we may well be left producing for a shrinking market while our competitors embrace the new technologies, leaving us at a competitive disadvantage”

He was convinced New Zealand would one day grow GM crops, but it would need consumer acceptance for it to be done successfully.

“New Zealand shouldn’t blindly turn its back on it.

“We should at least have a look at it, but the key will be to get the public on board.”

Overseas surveys showed that attitudes towards GM food were becoming more favourable, he said.

There would be increasing pressure on agriculture to lift production in the wake of world food shortages brought about by a growing world population.

GM technology was one of the tools that farmers could use to feed these people.

He believed it was possible for GM, conventional and organic farming systems to co-exist.

If organic and conventional farming systems could operate side by side, GM and non-GM farms could do so too, he said.

“There is no doubt there will be challenges, but there is already co-existence of GM and non-GM in other countries.

He pointed to the development of genetically modified wheat that was aphid-resistant as an example of a crop that could benefit New Zealand farmers. Growing it could save thousands of dollars in insecticide costs, creating environmental benefits as well as financial ones.

New Zealand needed to have a mature, reasoned debate over the pros and cons of GM.

It was also time for another high level study into GM in New Zealand.

This last occurred in 2001 when a Royal Commission report was released, he said.

“We need to have a look at it because in 10-15 years time, the bulk of the food produced in the world may be genetically modified and if we haven’t at least researched what opportunities are available, we could be left behind.”

Ultimately the markets and the consumers would decide.

The easiest way to stop GM food would be for people to stop buying it, but demand was growing worldwide, he said.

GM was a huge area and not all of GM technology would be suitable for New Zealand farming systems.

But New Zealand farmers could cherry-pick the proven technology that is most appropriate and still maintain the country’s clean green brand integrity.

“I do understand it is an emotive topic but I believe everyone has the right to choose.

“I’m not saying we should jump into GM boots and all, it’s not the silver bullet for global food shortages, but there is some exciting stuff out there that’s happening with GM and the science will only get better.

“How long can we afford to ignore it?”

GM pioneer blasts scare tactics

Source: The West Australian 05/03/13

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/16295953/gm-pioneer-blasts-scare-tactics/

One of the pioneers of genetically modified crops in WA has hit out at a prime-time television advertising campaign that links GM foods to cancer, kidney and liver damage.

The Safe Food Foundation campaign targets Liberal Party and WA Nationals support for GM crops in what is believed to be a world-first in food safety election lobbying.

Cunderdin farmer David Fulwood said there was no credible research to suggest GM crops were unsafe.

Mr Fulwood harvested WA’s first commercial-sized trial of GM canola in late 2009 and since then has become even more convinced of its value to grain growers as a crop and agronomic tool.

“Farmers are up against it anyway and the last thing we need is to have this taken away because of an emotional campaign,” he said.

“The current genes are only the start of good things to come for producers and consumers as well. The benefits of will be huge in terms of feeding hungry people and feeding them nutritionally.”

SFF director Scott Kinnear defended the TV campaign, which shows laboratory rats deformed by tumours and endorses a vote for Labor or the Greens based on their anti-GM policies.

“It is premature to grow GM crops in WA because they haven’t been proved to be safe to reasonable standards,” Mr Kinnear.

Mr Kinnear, an agricultural scientist specialising in biochemistry, acknowledged the claims in the TV campaign were based on a study attacked by other scientists.

Large parts of the Seralini study, published in respected US science journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, have been rebutted by food regulation agencies.

Mr Kinnear said Seralini was a long-term feeding study whereas regulatory agencies continued to rely on short-term feeding studies.

Only two GM crops can be grown in WA – cotton on the Ord River and canola.

Premier Colin Barnett said while there were no plans to extend GM approvals, it was important to embrace scientific advances.

“While there is no proposal to go beyond that (canola and cotton) at this stage, many farmers are advocating other GM applications,” Mr Barnett said.

“At the moment we’re sticking with GM canola and I think there’s nearly 100,000ha being grown.”

Mr Fulwood said any commercial planting of GM wheat in WA was a “long way off” and might not happen at all depending on market signals.

“Farmers follow market signals closely and if the market signals it doesn’t want GM wheat obviously we’ll respect that,” he said.

Source: www.isaaa.org

ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Executive Summary. Global Status of Commercialised GM Crops: 2012

A record 170.3 million hectares of GM crops were grown globally in 2012, at an annual growth rate of six per cent, up 10.3 million from 160 million hectares in 2011.

Of the 28 countries which planted GM crops in 2012, 20 were developing and 8 were industrial countries. This compares with 19 developing and 10 industrial in 2011. Thus there are three times as many developing countries growing GM crops as there are industrial countries.

More than half the world’s population, 60 per cent or ~4 billion people, live in the 28 countries planting GM crops.

Two new countries, Sudan (Bt cotton) and Cuba (Bt maize) planted GM crops for the first time in 2012. Germany and Sweden could not plant the GM potato, Amflora because it ceased to be marketed; Poland discontinued planting Bt maize because of regulation inconsistencies in the interpretation of the law on planting approval between the EU and Poland; the EU maintains that all necessary approvals are already in place for planting whereas Poland does not. In 2012, Sudan became the fourth country in Africa, after South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt, to commercialize a GM crop – GM Bt cotton. A total of 20,000 hectares were planted in both rainfed areas and irrigated schemes. About 10,000 farmers were the initial beneficiaries who have an average of about 1-2.5 hectares of land. In a landmark event Cuba joined the group of countries planting GM crops in 2012. For the first time, farmers in Cuba grew 3,000 hectares of hybrid Bt maize in a “regulated commercialization” initiative in which farmers seek permission to grow GM maize commercially. The initiative is part of an ecologically sustainable pesticide-free program featuring GM maize hybrids and mycorrhizal additives. The Bt maize, with resistance to the major pest, fall armyworm, was developed by the Havana-based Institute for Genetic Engineering and GMnology (CIGB).

In 2012, a record 17.3 million farmers, up 0.6 million from 2011, grew GM crops – notably, over 90 per cent, or over 15 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries.

For the first time, developing countries grew more, 52 per cent of global GM crops in 2012 than industrial countries at 48 per cent.

While 28 countries planted commercialized GM crops in 2012, an additional 31 countries totalling 59 have granted regulatory approvals for GM crops for import, food and feed use and for release into the environment since 1996. A total of 2,497 regulatory approvals involving 25 GM crops and 319 GM events have been issued by competent authorities in 59 countries, of which 1,129 are for food use (direct use or processing), 813 are for feed use (direct use or processing) and 555 are for planting or release into the environment. Of the 59 countries with regulatory approvals, USA has the most number of events approved (196), followed by Japan (182), Canada (131), Mexico (122), Australia (92), South Korea (86), New Zealand (81), European Union (67 including approvals that have expired or under renewal process), Philippines (64), Taiwan (52) and South Africa (49).

Global value of GM seed alone was ~US$15 billion in 2012. A 2011 study estimated that the cost of discovery, development and authorization of a new GM crop/trait is ~US$135 million. In 2012, the global market value of GM crops, estimated by Cropnosis, was US$14.84 billion, (up from US$13.35 billion in 2011); this represents 23 per cent of the US$64.62 billion global crop protection market in 2012, and 35 per cent of the ~US$34 billion commercial seed market. The estimated global farm-gate revenues of the harvested commercial “end product” (the GM grain and other harvested products) is more than ten times greater than the value of the GM seed alone.

Several new developing countries are expected to plant GM crops before 2015 led by Asia, and there is cautious optimism that Africa will be well-represented: the first GM based drought tolerant maize planned for release in North America in 2013 and in Africa by ~2017; the first stacked soybean tolerant to herbicide and insect resistant will be planted in Brazil in 2013; subject to regulatory approval, Golden Rice could be released in the Philippines in 2013/2014; drought tolerant sugarcane is a possible candidate in Indonesia, and GM maize in China with a potential of ~30 million hectares and for the future GM rice which has an enormous potential to benefit up to 1 billion poor people in rice households in Asia alone. GM crops, whilst not a panacea, have the potential to make a substantial contribution to the 2015 MDG goal of cutting poverty in half, by optimizing crop productivity, which can be expedited by public-private sector partnerships, such as the WEMA project, supported in poor developing countries by the new generation of philanthropic foundations, such as the Gates and Buffet foundations. Observers are cautiously optimistic about the future with more modest annual gains predicted because of the already high rate of adoption in all the principal crops in mature markets in both developing and industrial countries.

18 February 2013. Source: WA Farmers

https://wafarmers.org.au/media-release/305-continue-with-gm-park

The Western Australian Farmers Federation (Inc.) (WAFarmers) is calling for the continued use of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, as part of its 2013 Western Australian State Election Policy.

WAFarmers President, Dale Park, said WAFarmers’ Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) policy has, for a number of years, supported the technology through the appropriate use of GM crops governed by industry-agreed protocols relating to storage, transport and buffer zones.

“WAFarmers continues to work with the broader industry to ensure that ‘co-existence’ is more than a word which is constrained by a multitude of interpretations,” Mr Park said.

“The use of GM is still a very polarising topic, and unfortunately, this sometimes removes the opportunity for a debate around buffer zones, tolerance levels and market acceptance based on facts, reason and level-headed discussion.”

As the State’s farmers continue to adopt GM technology, WAFarmers has attempted to engage a range of parties to establish a broad dialogue on co-existence.

“Our discussions with other parties, regarding GM use, have drawn a range of responses, however few of them with enough discussion on this topic to reach a satisfactory solution to all parties.

“WAFarmers want a commitment for any State Government to allow the State’s farmers the choice on GM crops and continue to legislate for their use,” Mr Park concluded.

THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FARMERS FEDERATION (INC.) (WAFARMERS) GM POLICY

WAFarmers supports the lifting of the current State Government moratorium on the commercial release of GM canola.

WAFarmers supports future research and development into GM crops and pastures.

WAFarmers supports Australian and State Government tolerance levels of 0.9 per cent in crops and 0.5 per cent in seeds.

WAFarmers supports the OGTR and its charter to protect the health and safety of Australians and the Australian environment.

WAFarmers supports further development of protocols for the commercialisation of GM grains in the WA grains industry including intellectual property rights, contamination, segregation, licensing, protection of individual growers and legal liability issues.

Food science expert: Genetically modified crops are overregulated

17 February 2013, University of Illinois

Source: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/uoia-fse021113.php

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — It has been almost 20 years since the first genetically modified foods showed up in produce aisles throughout the United States and the rest of the world, but controversy continues to surround the products and their regulation.

Bruce Chassy, a professor emeritus of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, believes that after thousands of research studies and worldwide planting, “genetically modified foods pose no special risks to consumers or the environment” and are overregulated.

Chassy will elaborate on this conclusion at the 2013 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston on Feb. 17. During his talk, “Regulating the Safety of Foods and Feeds Derived From Genetically Modified Crops,” Chassy will share his view that the overregulation of GM crops actually hurts the environment, reduces global health and burdens the consumer.

Farmers have witnessed the advantages of GM crops firsthand through increases in their yields and profit, and decreases in their labor, energy consumption, pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions, Chassy said.

Despite these benefits, various regulatory agencies require newly developed GM crops to be put to the test with rigorous safety evaluations that include molecular characterization, toxicological evaluation, allergenicity assessments, compositional analysis and feeding studies. This extensive testing takes five to 10 years and costs tens of millions of dollars, and Chassy argues that this process “wastes resources and diverts attention from real food safety issues.”

“With more than half of the world’s population now living in countries that have adopted GM crops, it might be appropriate to reduce the regulatory scrutiny of GM crops to a level that is commensurate with science-based risk assessment,” Chassy said.

During his talk, Chassy will chronicle the scientific tests used in pre-market safety assessments of GM foods and elaborate on the evidence from thousands of research studies and expansive GM plantings that he says show these crops do not present risks to consumers or the environment. The overregulation of GM foods is a response not to scientific evidence, Chassy said, but to a global campaign that disseminates misinformation and fear about these food sources.